How do different types of mesh topologies, such as triangular and quadrilateral meshes, impact the representation and rendering of 3D objects in computer graphics?
S-Muddana
In short, while triangular meshes are efficient and versatile, quadrilateral meshes offer advantages in terms of surface smoothness and accuracy. The choice between these mesh topologies depends on factors such as the specific requirements of the application, the desired level of detail, and the computational resources available.
s3kim2018
I guess another good point is that to do the in triangle test for each pixel, if we use a quadrilateral instead of a triangle, we would have to create 4 lines equations instead of three. Since we need lots of triangles to represent complex meshes, this could increase rendering time complexity.
sylviacx
One thing I noticed about this implementation is the fact that vertices are duplicated, as they are part of multiple triangles. Thus, how does the size of the list scale with the size of the mesh? Is this an implementation that is popular in practice, since I would imagine it's pretty inefficient in terms of space?
How do different types of mesh topologies, such as triangular and quadrilateral meshes, impact the representation and rendering of 3D objects in computer graphics?
In short, while triangular meshes are efficient and versatile, quadrilateral meshes offer advantages in terms of surface smoothness and accuracy. The choice between these mesh topologies depends on factors such as the specific requirements of the application, the desired level of detail, and the computational resources available.
I guess another good point is that to do the in triangle test for each pixel, if we use a quadrilateral instead of a triangle, we would have to create 4 lines equations instead of three. Since we need lots of triangles to represent complex meshes, this could increase rendering time complexity.
One thing I noticed about this implementation is the fact that vertices are duplicated, as they are part of multiple triangles. Thus, how does the size of the list scale with the size of the mesh? Is this an implementation that is popular in practice, since I would imagine it's pretty inefficient in terms of space?