Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: Craig Graham Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.programming.3d_graphics Subject: Re: Dynamic TMD generation questions Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:34:01 +0000 Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 31 Message-ID: <935573641.1258817053@news.playstation.co.uk> References: <7pv5hv$6lp9@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <7pv7hl$6lp11@chuka.playstation.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: d5-s8-40-telehouse.mistral.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-NewsReader: kexpress 0.8.0 "Alex Herbert" wrote: >Hi, > >You can do it either way. Having multiple TMDs costs memory. Modifying >TMDs costs processor time. When modifying TMD prims (not verts or norms= ) >you should re-link the object before sorting into the OT. You can save >memory by sharing verts and norms across multiple TMDs if it's just the >prims which are different. Herb's is right about the shared vertex/normal data, almost right about t= he re-linking. I don't think you need to re-link for a change in texture UV'= s - you've not modified the TYPE of primitive, only some of it's parameters= , you shouldn't have to re-link. So, just have one TMD, sort it, change the texture UV, and sort it again - should work no problem (you can do th= e same thing with vertex colour's to get dynamic point lighting). No need t= o re-link...and it doesn't cost a lot of CPU to just substitute the texture= UV's (esp. if it's a simple TMD just for doing a Wolf3D style wall). I posted some environment mapping code ages ago that demo'd it... >Herbs Craig.