3 ms·
Indeed. I avoided the term depth buffer for this reason. A depth test is still necessary on a per-pixel basis for a correct solution to the visibility problem i
by gnode 7y ago
Indeed. I avoided the term depth buffer for this reason. A depth test is still necessary on a per-pixel basis for a correct solution to the visibility problem in the general case - even if that's done by raytracing or some other method.
The painters algorithm is not a general solution because it cannot handle cyclical occlusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painter's_algorithm#/media/File:Painters_problem.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painter's_algorithm#/media/Fil...
Its limitations constrain the geometry which may be correctly rendered.
- Crinus 7y agoMy point above is that to call something 3D graphics does not depend on having per-pixel correct visibility and painter's algorithm (and others) is a valid method to render 3D graphics and was for many years. Applications using it either accepted the limitation (many games did that) or tried to overcome it by preprocessing the geometry to create clusters that are unlikely to overlap or by performing subdivision on the projected polygons.