hehe .. but .. what's so complicated about modifying a structure like an octtree? Dynamically rearranging it is fairly simple as are things like CSG ... Its not particularly slow either. Undoubtedly there are better algorithms out there ...
In certain circumstances yes but, admittedly, in the majority of cases no... However the firther we push rasterisation logic the more bits and pieces will be borrowed from things such as RT (and other schemes) to provide the necessary results. How does cube mapping work again?
Ta for that ...interesting article. Still not sure where you get your 4 pixels from 4 different triangles from, though .... that part of the article is a little confusing.
Is that referring to the NV40 or previous designs?
Gonna have to do a bit of research on this but i am sure there are scene traversal systems that work in linear time. Its a simple process to iterate an octtree to find the nearest tri along a ray path, for example (and there are undoubtedly far more efficient methods of doing this). I don't see how this is so expensive ...
Not to mention the fact that if you are doing this sort of thing you already have a perfect database setup for things like collision detection and such like :)
Well, tbh, this could go on forever (must remember not to get involved in this sort of discussion 2 weeks before beta :lol:). So i'm going to end with ... I disagree. As yet you have not managed to convince me so shall we agree to disagree on this? Afterall the only REAL way to tell is to re-visit this subject in 10 years time. You up for it? :D
Edit: Should add to that last bit that i don't reckon im gonna convince you either ...