🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.095024.57941@cc.usu.edu> sl8nl@cc.usu.edu writes:
>> I tend to think that UW is all texture mapping since it makes none of 
>> the simplifying assumptions that Wolf3d did.  But I'm not quite sure
>> what the limitations of perspective mapping are, since it's still
>> a bastard term that's in need of a concrete definition.  I know
>> that it's a subset of general texture mapping, but what doesn't it
>> include?
>
>I don't think a concrete definition has been set for it.  The best (and
>one I use) is from DPaint II Enhanced.  Their perspective mapping (not
>texture mapping, mind you) is not like what my routine did.  Mine
>was simple, only handling one instance.  Theirs handled any rotation
>angle on a perspective.  Thus, that is where I believe perspective
>mapping came into play on UW.  For instance, only few walls are actually
>rounded.  The others are just rotated on an angle...thus allowing for
>"perspective mapping".
>
>Josh

There were no "round" walls in UW.  Some may appear curved due to errors
(I'm not saying bugs, now) in the texture mapping algorithm.  And it
doesn't really matter that most of the walls are perpendicular to one
another... the degrees of freedom allowed in the view meant that UW
couldn't use any of the simplifications used in Wolf3D.  I still haven't
a clue what exactly perspective mapping is, and I don't really see a
need to coin a new term here.  UW, in my opinion, meets the definition
of texture mapping... you have a bunch of walls in 3-space that you drap
bitmaps over.  Wolf3d, OTOH, is a tough game to pigeon hole.  It's not
true texture mapping because the walls themselves aren't planes in 
3-space.  It uses a bag of tricks to stretch bitmapped walls to a 
vanishing point.  Is this, then, perspective mapping?

Phat.