3 ms·

Author here, I'm glad to have finally figured out why a bunch of people followed me on Twitter this morning! If you enjoyed this paper, there's a companion blo

• operator-name 5y ago
  This certainly looks like a very interesting approach! As I'm not in the field of graphics would you be able to comment how this compares to cone marching and how well it can render fractal like surfaces?
  • mkeeter 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with cone tracing, but [1] indicates that it's a variation of sphere tracing. The downside to sphere tracing and similar is that it limits the input model: you have to guarantee that evaluating the model at [x, y, z] gives you a result that's less-than-or-equal to the true (Euclidean) distance to the shape's surface. (or a distance adjusted by some constant scaling factor, i.e. Lipshitz continuity [2]) This is a relatively fragile property, and really limits what kinds of shapes and transformations you can use when modeling. Using interval arithmetic is more robust against arbitrary models, at the cost of being less efficient when models are well-behaved. I don't know much about state-of-the-art fractal rendering! I'd imagine that the fixed (original) tape in MPR would be a limitation here, because you may want to terminate conditionally, rather than evaluating a fixed expression. [1] http://www.fulcrum-demo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Cone_Marching_Mandelbox_by_Seven_Fulcrum_LongVersion.pdf http://www.fulcrum-demo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Cone_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipschitz_continuity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipschitz_continuity