3 ms·
Its a neat way to render, but I don't think it qualifies as voxel, it can't render arbitrary volumes, and the data storage can't contain more than a single posi
by Sleaker 2y ago
Its a neat way to render, but I don't think it qualifies as voxel, it can't render arbitrary volumes, and the data storage can't contain more than a single position for a given x,y. It's just a neat implementation of a heightmap renderer no?
- kragen 2y agoYes, the name they gave the algorithm is misleading.
- cubefox 2y agoI would say it clearly counts as a voxel engine. Heightmaps don't support overhangs like octrees do, but the heights are in the end stacks of voxels. An octree without overhang would look exactly the same.
- hyperman1 2y agoAfaik, voxel means something like volume element, (cfr pixel as picture elemen, with x for coolness). As every column is a 3D box in this rendering method, I have no issue with describing it as a 2x2 matrix of voxels.
- int_19h 2y agoHeighmap renderers like this were definitely called "voxel" at the time.