Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!styx!carlson
From: carlson@styx.UUCP (John Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: ray tracing (Was Amiga ray tracer)
Message-ID: <21416@styx.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 23:58:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: styx.21416
Posted: Wed Apr 29 23:58:05 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 2-May-87 05:27:28 EDT
References: <1514@sphinx.uchicago.edu> <4947@hi.uucp> <829@bgsuvax.UUCP> <823@osu-cgrg.UUCP>
Reply-To: carlson@styx.UUCP (John Carlson)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 16

In article <823@osu-cgrg.UUCP> spencer@osu-cgrg.UUCP (Steve Spencer) writes:
>Basically, it falls into these categories:
> 1.  a hierarchical subdivision scheme, usually an octree-like approach.
>     this is quicker than...
> 2.  an equal-sized spatial subdivision (break the "world" into NxNxN
>      equal sized boxes.  
>     this method is easier to implement then #1, but it is slower.

This is news to me (and I am trying to catch up).  Do you have empirical
or experimental data to show this?  Is it true for all cases?  How did you
conclude that one scheme was faster than the other?  Does the hierarchical
subdivision scheme take advantage of integer arithmetic to trace rays?

John Carlson
ARPA: carlson@lll-tis-b.arpa
UUCP: lll-crg!styx!carlson