I don’t think you understood my point. You are comparing the implementation of meshes to the ideal unimplemented theoretical concept of SDFs. It’s not a useful

I don’t think you understood my point. You are comparing the implementation of meshes to the ideal unimplemented theoretical concept of SDFs. It’s not a useful or accurate comparison. In practice, SDFs always have finite precision, just like meshes do. > It’s like the difference between vector and raster graphics. I get what you’re trying to say, but this analogy isn’t great. The difference between vector and raster is more like the difference between an SDF and a voxel grid. A mesh is really, literally, a type of 3d vector graphics, and so is an SDF. The difference between meshes and SDFs is the difference between vector graphics with line segments and vector graphics with CSG and round shapes. There is no inherent quantization of space with either meshes or SDFs like there is with raster images or voxel grids. SDFs are not intrinsically infinitely scalable any more than meshes are. If you write an SDF to disk, the numbers representing the locations and sizes of it’s components will be rounded to fp32 just like the verts of a mesh typically are. Meshes are not intrinsically finite, no information is being thrown away during the output process. The implementation of a mesh modeler does usually use floats, and so precision does have limits, but there is nothing about the concept of a mesh that requires using floats. Just think about it: one can, if one wishes, use infinite precision numbers to represent a mesh, there is nothing about the idea of a mesh that precludes infinite precision. The very same is true of SDFs. One can use infinite precision, but it in fact has never yet happened, all SDF implementations so far have used finite precision numbers (both to represent and to render SDFs). > It’s starting to matter more You started talking there about something unrelated to my point, and aren’t responding directly to what I said. I wasn’t arguing about the usefulness of SDFs at all, and SDFs having finite resolution doesn’t compromise their utility. SDFs aren’t useful because they have higher resolution, they are useful because they are a different kind of primitive with different properties, they have tradeoffs and so can meet certain goals better than other primitives.