trying to fix my screwup part deux

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 32 deletions

diff --git a/libraries/ode-0.9\/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt b/libraries/ode-0.9\/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt
deleted file mode 100755
index fb85931..0000000
--- a/libraries/ode-0.9\/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
-
-> Hi John,
->
-> I know I'll forget to tell you this if I don't write it right now....
->
-> >(2) How is the receiving geometry for the shadow decided?
->
-> I wrote about an LSS-test but actually performing a new VFC test (from the
-> light's view) is the same. In both cases, here's a trick to take advantage
-> of temporal coherence : test the world against a slightly larger than
-> necessary LSS or frustum. Keep the list of touched surfaces. Then next
-> frame, if the new volume is still contained within the previous one used
-for
-> the query, you can reuse the same list immediately. Actually it's a bit
-> similar to what you did in your sphere-tree, I think. Anyway, now the
-O(log
-> N) VFC is O(1) for some frames. It's not worth it for the "real" VFC, but
-> when you have N virtual frustum to test to drop N shadows, that's another
-> story.
->
-> Two downsides:
-> - You need more ram to keep track of one list of meshes / shadow, but
-> usually it's not a lot.
-> - By using a larger volume for the query you possibly touch more
-> faces/surfaces, which will be rendered in the shadow pass. Usually it's
-not
-> a problem either since rendering is simply faster than geometric queries
-> those days. But of course, "your mileage may vary".
->
-> Happy new year !
->
-> Pierre