From fca74b0bf0a0833f5701e9c0de7b3bc15b2233dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: dan miller
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:20:07 +0000
Subject: dont ask

---
 libraries/ode-0.9/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt | 32 --------------------------
 1 file changed, 32 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 libraries/ode-0.9/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt

(limited to 'libraries/ode-0.9/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt')

diff --git a/libraries/ode-0.9/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt b/libraries/ode-0.9/OPCODE/TemporalCoherence.txt
deleted file mode 100644
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
-- 
cgit v1.1