3 ms·
Wouldn't you have more precision by defining triangles by hand? For example, voxels can't represent non-right-angle surfaces without adding jagginess, while a
by smallnamespace 10y ago
Wouldn't you have more precision by defining triangles by hand?
For example, voxels can't represent non-right-angle surfaces without adding jagginess, while a triangle can.
- moftz 10y agoExactly, I don't understand the voxel craze all of a sudden. Plain old triangles work a million times better than any voxel ever will. I guess voxels are more of an aestetic now but I'm not a fan. All the sharp edges just make it harder on my eyes to focus on what I'm looking at.
- bottled_poe 10y agoI guess I'm thinking of precision in terms of the very close relationship between the game's logical model with the visual representation.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- juliendorra 10y agoVoxels can be volumetric, ie. each voxel have physical properties. Also, your models are full of voxels, inside, each with its own properties. Mesh based models are empty.
- smallnamespace 10y agoYes, but then you could accomplish the exact same thing with volumetric polygons, with the added benefit that arbitrary polygons better approximate any 3D shape.
- dahart 10y agoWhat are volumetric polygons? And do they better approximate cubes? ;)
- fenomas 10y agoThat's equivalent to asking why a 2D game or game engine would use a 2D grid when it could get more precision by defining arbitrary 2D polygons. If you're making something like Tetris or chess or Conway's life or whatever you don't want precision, you want a grid. (Naturally, one can model a system as a grid but render it as arbitrary shapes, or vice-versa.)