<div dir="ltr"><div><br>As our application will also have to do physical simulations based on this height field data, I do not want to use external tools to do the conversion into an OSG model<br><br>here's a minimal example for the HeightField / ShapeDrawable method<br><a href="http://snipplr.com/view/30974/osg-height-field-example/">http://snipplr.com/view/30974/osg-height-field-example/</a><br><br></div>here's a minimal example for the Delauney method (minus the loading of the image and texture)<br><div><a href="https://github.com/xarray/osgRecipes/blob/master/cookbook/chapter10/ch10_01/delaunay.cpp">https://github.com/xarray/osgRecipes/blob/master/cookbook/chapter10/ch10_01/delaunay.cpp</a><br><br>I guess I will just try both methods. The only missing piece seems to be a loading function or plug-in for height field Files in ".asc" format. But the format is trivially simple.<br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-05-21 9:26 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Messerschmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sebastian.messerschmidt@gmx.de" target="_blank">sebastian.messerschmidt@gmx.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hi Christian,<br>
<br>
Have you checked if osgdem supports it? I think it will happily
convert anything into osgTerrain which can be interpreted as
height data by gdal ...<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi,<br>
<br>
</div>
I am currently wondering which is the better way to go
from a simple digital elevation model (ESRI ASCII Grid
format) to a geometry. The model has a very limited area
and resolution.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>These are the two methods I find feasible with stock
OSG features:<br>
<br>
</div>
Either I could feed all the 3D points on the grid into the
osgUtil::DelaunayTriangulator. However I noticed this
class generates normals that require a BIND_PER_PRIMITIVE
- possibly causing a fallback to the slow rendering path.<br>
<br>
</div>
Alternatively I could put the data into an osg::HeightField
and use a ShapeDrawable to display it.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Which of the two methods is perferable from a performance
standpoint? What I would like to get is a bit of a
simplification of the geometry, where larger triangles are
used in areas with less surface features. Which of the two
methods can provide this?<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
I do not want to use osgEarth, as it is a bit too big in scope
for my purpose and it has a lot of extra dependencies.<br>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Christian<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><pre>_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
<a href="mailto:osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org" target="_blank">osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
osg-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org">osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>