<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:21 AM, david48 <<a href="mailto:dav.vire%2Bhaskell@gmail.com">dav.vire+haskell@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Andrew Coppin<br>
<<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Personally, I don't see the point in rendering a couple of million<br>
> mathematically flat surfaces,<br>
<br>
</div>What about speed ?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>If you tessellate the curve so that there is zero error, then it's probably going to be faster to ray trace the actual curve, since you'll essentially have loads of very small (1 pixel or thereabouts) triangles...<br>
</div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sebastian Sylvan<br>+44(0)7857-300802<br>UIN: 44640862