How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












My aim is to smooth the terrain in a video game. Therefore I contrived an algorithm that makes use of Bézier curves of different orders. But this algorithm is defined in a two dimensional space for now.



To shift it into the third dimension I need to somehow combine the Bézier curves. Given two curves in each two dimensions, how can I combine them to build a surface?



I thought about something like a curve of a curve. Or maybe I could multiply them somehow. How can I combine them to cause the wanted behavior? Is there a common approach?



input and output of the working algorithm in 2d



In the image you can see the input, on the left, and the output, on the right, of the algorithm that works in a two dimensional space. For the real application there is a three dimensional input.



The algorithm relays only on the adjacent tiles. Given these it will define the control points of the mentioned Bézier curve. Additionally it marks one side of the curve as inside the terrain and the other as outside.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • I am not so sure Bézier curves would be easy to fit. Easier would be some interpolation scheme, like cubic interpolation. I would try an inverse discrete wavelet transform interpreting as low-low-low frequency band. Potentially with applying some regularization. Or you could just build a big equation system where you push function values towards the edges and regularize for first and second order differentials. The last method is so powerful you can fuse the solution it to parametric functions like polynomials if you want to.
    – mathreadler
    Aug 19 at 8:02















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












My aim is to smooth the terrain in a video game. Therefore I contrived an algorithm that makes use of Bézier curves of different orders. But this algorithm is defined in a two dimensional space for now.



To shift it into the third dimension I need to somehow combine the Bézier curves. Given two curves in each two dimensions, how can I combine them to build a surface?



I thought about something like a curve of a curve. Or maybe I could multiply them somehow. How can I combine them to cause the wanted behavior? Is there a common approach?



input and output of the working algorithm in 2d



In the image you can see the input, on the left, and the output, on the right, of the algorithm that works in a two dimensional space. For the real application there is a three dimensional input.



The algorithm relays only on the adjacent tiles. Given these it will define the control points of the mentioned Bézier curve. Additionally it marks one side of the curve as inside the terrain and the other as outside.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • I am not so sure Bézier curves would be easy to fit. Easier would be some interpolation scheme, like cubic interpolation. I would try an inverse discrete wavelet transform interpreting as low-low-low frequency band. Potentially with applying some regularization. Or you could just build a big equation system where you push function values towards the edges and regularize for first and second order differentials. The last method is so powerful you can fuse the solution it to parametric functions like polynomials if you want to.
    – mathreadler
    Aug 19 at 8:02













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











My aim is to smooth the terrain in a video game. Therefore I contrived an algorithm that makes use of Bézier curves of different orders. But this algorithm is defined in a two dimensional space for now.



To shift it into the third dimension I need to somehow combine the Bézier curves. Given two curves in each two dimensions, how can I combine them to build a surface?



I thought about something like a curve of a curve. Or maybe I could multiply them somehow. How can I combine them to cause the wanted behavior? Is there a common approach?



input and output of the working algorithm in 2d



In the image you can see the input, on the left, and the output, on the right, of the algorithm that works in a two dimensional space. For the real application there is a three dimensional input.



The algorithm relays only on the adjacent tiles. Given these it will define the control points of the mentioned Bézier curve. Additionally it marks one side of the curve as inside the terrain and the other as outside.







share|cite|improve this question














My aim is to smooth the terrain in a video game. Therefore I contrived an algorithm that makes use of Bézier curves of different orders. But this algorithm is defined in a two dimensional space for now.



To shift it into the third dimension I need to somehow combine the Bézier curves. Given two curves in each two dimensions, how can I combine them to build a surface?



I thought about something like a curve of a curve. Or maybe I could multiply them somehow. How can I combine them to cause the wanted behavior? Is there a common approach?



input and output of the working algorithm in 2d



In the image you can see the input, on the left, and the output, on the right, of the algorithm that works in a two dimensional space. For the real application there is a three dimensional input.



The algorithm relays only on the adjacent tiles. Given these it will define the control points of the mentioned Bézier curve. Additionally it marks one side of the curve as inside the terrain and the other as outside.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 19 at 8:04









mathreadler

13.8k71957




13.8k71957










asked Mar 18 '13 at 18:04









danijar

205113




205113











  • I am not so sure Bézier curves would be easy to fit. Easier would be some interpolation scheme, like cubic interpolation. I would try an inverse discrete wavelet transform interpreting as low-low-low frequency band. Potentially with applying some regularization. Or you could just build a big equation system where you push function values towards the edges and regularize for first and second order differentials. The last method is so powerful you can fuse the solution it to parametric functions like polynomials if you want to.
    – mathreadler
    Aug 19 at 8:02

















  • I am not so sure Bézier curves would be easy to fit. Easier would be some interpolation scheme, like cubic interpolation. I would try an inverse discrete wavelet transform interpreting as low-low-low frequency band. Potentially with applying some regularization. Or you could just build a big equation system where you push function values towards the edges and regularize for first and second order differentials. The last method is so powerful you can fuse the solution it to parametric functions like polynomials if you want to.
    – mathreadler
    Aug 19 at 8:02
















I am not so sure Bézier curves would be easy to fit. Easier would be some interpolation scheme, like cubic interpolation. I would try an inverse discrete wavelet transform interpreting as low-low-low frequency band. Potentially with applying some regularization. Or you could just build a big equation system where you push function values towards the edges and regularize for first and second order differentials. The last method is so powerful you can fuse the solution it to parametric functions like polynomials if you want to.
– mathreadler
Aug 19 at 8:02





I am not so sure Bézier curves would be easy to fit. Easier would be some interpolation scheme, like cubic interpolation. I would try an inverse discrete wavelet transform interpreting as low-low-low frequency band. Potentially with applying some regularization. Or you could just build a big equation system where you push function values towards the edges and regularize for first and second order differentials. The last method is so powerful you can fuse the solution it to parametric functions like polynomials if you want to.
– mathreadler
Aug 19 at 8:02











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










You can define a bezier-area by
$$x(lambda,mu) = sum^m_i=0sum^n_j=0B_im(lambda)B_jn(mu)p_ij$$



with
$lambda,muin[0,1]$, $B_im$ are the Bernstein polynomials and $p_ij$ are the given points.



Note: For this approach you need a grid of points.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    I would not use Bezier curves for this. Too much work to find the end-points and you end up with a big clumsy polynomial.



    I would build a linear least squares problem minimizing the gradient (smoothing the slopes of hills).



    First let's split each pixel into $6times 6$ which will give the new smoothed resolution (just an example, you can pick any size you would like).



    Now the optimization problem $$bf v_o = min_bf v _F^2+$$



    where $bf d$ is the initial pixely blocky surface, and $bf v$ is the vector of smoothing change you want to do.



    Already after 2 iterations of a very fast iterative solver we can get results like this:



    enter image description here



    After clarification from OP, I realized it is more this problem we have ( but in 3D ).



    enter image description here



    Now the contours (level sets) to this smoothed binary function can be used to create an interpolative effect:
    enter image description here






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
      – danijar
      Aug 25 at 13:46











    • Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
      – mathreadler
      Aug 25 at 13:57











    • Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
      – danijar
      Aug 25 at 14:09






    • 1




      Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
      – mathreadler
      Aug 25 at 14:53










    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f333991%2fhow-to-combine-b%25c3%25a9zier-curves-to-a-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    You can define a bezier-area by
    $$x(lambda,mu) = sum^m_i=0sum^n_j=0B_im(lambda)B_jn(mu)p_ij$$



    with
    $lambda,muin[0,1]$, $B_im$ are the Bernstein polynomials and $p_ij$ are the given points.



    Note: For this approach you need a grid of points.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted










      You can define a bezier-area by
      $$x(lambda,mu) = sum^m_i=0sum^n_j=0B_im(lambda)B_jn(mu)p_ij$$



      with
      $lambda,muin[0,1]$, $B_im$ are the Bernstein polynomials and $p_ij$ are the given points.



      Note: For this approach you need a grid of points.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted






        You can define a bezier-area by
        $$x(lambda,mu) = sum^m_i=0sum^n_j=0B_im(lambda)B_jn(mu)p_ij$$



        with
        $lambda,muin[0,1]$, $B_im$ are the Bernstein polynomials and $p_ij$ are the given points.



        Note: For this approach you need a grid of points.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        You can define a bezier-area by
        $$x(lambda,mu) = sum^m_i=0sum^n_j=0B_im(lambda)B_jn(mu)p_ij$$



        with
        $lambda,muin[0,1]$, $B_im$ are the Bernstein polynomials and $p_ij$ are the given points.



        Note: For this approach you need a grid of points.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Mar 18 '13 at 18:17









        Jakube

        1,547818




        1,547818




















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            I would not use Bezier curves for this. Too much work to find the end-points and you end up with a big clumsy polynomial.



            I would build a linear least squares problem minimizing the gradient (smoothing the slopes of hills).



            First let's split each pixel into $6times 6$ which will give the new smoothed resolution (just an example, you can pick any size you would like).



            Now the optimization problem $$bf v_o = min_bf v _F^2+$$



            where $bf d$ is the initial pixely blocky surface, and $bf v$ is the vector of smoothing change you want to do.



            Already after 2 iterations of a very fast iterative solver we can get results like this:



            enter image description here



            After clarification from OP, I realized it is more this problem we have ( but in 3D ).



            enter image description here



            Now the contours (level sets) to this smoothed binary function can be used to create an interpolative effect:
            enter image description here






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 13:46











            • Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 13:57











            • Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 14:09






            • 1




              Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 14:53














            up vote
            1
            down vote













            I would not use Bezier curves for this. Too much work to find the end-points and you end up with a big clumsy polynomial.



            I would build a linear least squares problem minimizing the gradient (smoothing the slopes of hills).



            First let's split each pixel into $6times 6$ which will give the new smoothed resolution (just an example, you can pick any size you would like).



            Now the optimization problem $$bf v_o = min_bf v _F^2+$$



            where $bf d$ is the initial pixely blocky surface, and $bf v$ is the vector of smoothing change you want to do.



            Already after 2 iterations of a very fast iterative solver we can get results like this:



            enter image description here



            After clarification from OP, I realized it is more this problem we have ( but in 3D ).



            enter image description here



            Now the contours (level sets) to this smoothed binary function can be used to create an interpolative effect:
            enter image description here






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 13:46











            • Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 13:57











            • Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 14:09






            • 1




              Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 14:53












            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            I would not use Bezier curves for this. Too much work to find the end-points and you end up with a big clumsy polynomial.



            I would build a linear least squares problem minimizing the gradient (smoothing the slopes of hills).



            First let's split each pixel into $6times 6$ which will give the new smoothed resolution (just an example, you can pick any size you would like).



            Now the optimization problem $$bf v_o = min_bf v _F^2+$$



            where $bf d$ is the initial pixely blocky surface, and $bf v$ is the vector of smoothing change you want to do.



            Already after 2 iterations of a very fast iterative solver we can get results like this:



            enter image description here



            After clarification from OP, I realized it is more this problem we have ( but in 3D ).



            enter image description here



            Now the contours (level sets) to this smoothed binary function can be used to create an interpolative effect:
            enter image description here






            share|cite|improve this answer














            I would not use Bezier curves for this. Too much work to find the end-points and you end up with a big clumsy polynomial.



            I would build a linear least squares problem minimizing the gradient (smoothing the slopes of hills).



            First let's split each pixel into $6times 6$ which will give the new smoothed resolution (just an example, you can pick any size you would like).



            Now the optimization problem $$bf v_o = min_bf v _F^2+$$



            where $bf d$ is the initial pixely blocky surface, and $bf v$ is the vector of smoothing change you want to do.



            Already after 2 iterations of a very fast iterative solver we can get results like this:



            enter image description here



            After clarification from OP, I realized it is more this problem we have ( but in 3D ).



            enter image description here



            Now the contours (level sets) to this smoothed binary function can be used to create an interpolative effect:
            enter image description here







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 31 at 17:13

























            answered Aug 25 at 8:00









            mathreadler

            13.8k71957




            13.8k71957











            • Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 13:46











            • Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 13:57











            • Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 14:09






            • 1




              Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 14:53
















            • Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 13:46











            • Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 13:57











            • Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
              – danijar
              Aug 25 at 14:09






            • 1




              Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
              – mathreadler
              Aug 25 at 14:53















            Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
            – danijar
            Aug 25 at 13:46





            Hey, thanks for the interesting answer after such a long time. I'm still sometimes thinking about this problem because I didn't come up with a satisfactory solution yet. One motivation of only considering the 26 neighboring cells for the shape of each block was that it will give make it easier for users to still infer the underlying block structure. It would also allow to precompute the meshes for common situations (for many of the $2^26$ possible neighborhoods the inner block is not visible). Could you think of a way to incorporate this constraint into your approach?
            – danijar
            Aug 25 at 13:46













            Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
            – mathreadler
            Aug 25 at 13:57





            Oh wow, I did not even look at the date when I posted but I see now. Yes I should maybe not have expected you were still looking for an answer. Ah so you have real 3D with three dimensional blocks and not just the height values for a surface of some solid object? Well you could apply the same approach in 3D, I think. Refine the mesh where you copy the values from the bigger mesh, and then minimize a 3D gradient and then threshold the result.
            – mathreadler
            Aug 25 at 13:57













            Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
            – danijar
            Aug 25 at 14:09




            Well, glad you posted! Yes, I have a 3D grid of binary values. My questions was if you can think of a way for the resulting mesh of each cell to only depend on the adjacent cells. This would be useful for many reasons. For example, it allows loading additional chunks once they come into view, without having to change the smoothing of the existing parts. I also suspect that a global optimization will be too slow for millions of blocks as used in the game.
            – danijar
            Aug 25 at 14:09




            1




            1




            Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
            – mathreadler
            Aug 25 at 14:53




            Ah ok. Yes for an exact solution it will be too slow. But this is computer graphics for entertainment and not safety critical software for medicine or something like that. Which means you can cheat with approximation as much you want as long as the result looks good ;) All iterative solvers will only be dependent on local values, you will need a maximum of a few iterations and they will basically be as fast as a couple of convolutions which is definitely fast enough.
            – mathreadler
            Aug 25 at 14:53

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f333991%2fhow-to-combine-b%25c3%25a9zier-curves-to-a-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Carbon dioxide