Jonathan mentioned here that the branching factor can be not limited to two, despite that the example in the slides illustrates a splitting factor of two, so I'm just wondering if an arbitrary branching factor could be used (which intuitively makes much sense), how may we decide which factor is the most efficient? In general, just hope to confirm that, the assumption that makes BVH, as well as previous accelerating algorithms work, is to ensure each bounding leaf node does not break objects' geometry, right? (since if the goal is to find the hit point of the ray with any object, the t condition would only break and terminate when an entirety of object is found)
amandaawan
It seems as if the simplest way to figure out which set A or B a primitive belongs to is by choosing a split point, and using less/greater than comparisons on its center point. However, in doing this, a larger primitive might have its center on the edge of a split point making it part of set B instead of A. what if there was another smaller primitive inside of it that because of its center gets pushed into set A instead of B? would that affect any calculations done?
Jonathan mentioned here that the branching factor can be not limited to two, despite that the example in the slides illustrates a splitting factor of two, so I'm just wondering if an arbitrary branching factor could be used (which intuitively makes much sense), how may we decide which factor is the most efficient? In general, just hope to confirm that, the assumption that makes BVH, as well as previous accelerating algorithms work, is to ensure each bounding leaf node does not break objects' geometry, right? (since if the goal is to find the hit point of the ray with any object, the t condition would only break and terminate when an entirety of object is found)
It seems as if the simplest way to figure out which set A or B a primitive belongs to is by choosing a split point, and using less/greater than comparisons on its center point. However, in doing this, a larger primitive might have its center on the edge of a split point making it part of set B instead of A. what if there was another smaller primitive inside of it that because of its center gets pushed into set A instead of B? would that affect any calculations done?