|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
So far, all of the surface examples have taken the form of sheets that are
Figure 9.4:
NURBS space ship.
The model is not complete (there is no bottom), but it still
Notice that the model is no longer a wavy square shape. This is because the control points are no longer arranged in a square shape. Instead, the control points along the edge are shaped into the rough outline of the ship. Figures 9.5 and 9.6 demonstrate this. First, I started with a nonuniform grid of control points. This will allow me to put more detail and control in certain areas than in others.
Figure 9.5:
Basic NURBS patch with nonuniform control grid.
Figure 9.6:
Basic space ship shape.
Next, the control points are moved to create the rough shape of the ship. I have disabled the height changes in this screenshot in order to
Finally, the control point heights are changed to complete the ship. Figure 9.7 is basically the same shot as Figure 9.4, only now the model is drawn in wireframe so that you can see how the mesh is laid out.
Figure 9.7:
Final ship in wireframe.
The final object is much closer to something you'd actually use in a game. In a real-world situation, you probably wouldn't want to model the shape by
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
One of the advantages of a NURBS model over a traditional polygonal model is that mathematical formats are
A NURBS model is conceptually the same as the circle example. Figure 9.5 shows that 81 control points were used to generate the space ship model. In Figure 9.4, the model was rendered with 400 vertices. Including knot and weight vectors, the NURBS representation would still require
With the
Figure 9.8:
Ships for
There are two points to be made here. The first is that now the same 81 control points can be used to represent many more vertices across more than one instantiation of the model. The other point is that one can imagine a system that tunes the model based on the end
One could argue that the same advantages could be achieved with subdivision surfaces and/or some of the hardware-based subdivision features. That might be true in some instances, but it might still be worthwhile to generate your own scalable meshes. In some instances, hardware subdivision is inappropriate because you need to know where the vertices are for
There may also be occasions where you might want to use different levels of detail for different
It's an exciting time in computer graphics and there are many tools available to you. Different circumstances call for different solutions. It's important to understand the advantages of each solution and use whichever one makes the most sense.
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||