Fixed a few more minor issues with face-varying patches in uniform PatchTables:

- corrected assertion to use face-varying index offset instead of vertex
    - added missing face-varying conditional when generateAllLevels set
    - factored base-level index offsets into local options for clarity
    - added Doxygen comments to describe overall indexing behavior
This commit is contained in:
barry 2017-09-22 15:43:16 -07:00
parent ece6a64db3
commit d31c913532
2 changed files with 39 additions and 7 deletions

View File

@ -921,6 +921,13 @@ PatchTableFactory::createUniform(TopologyRefiner const & refiner, Options option
BuilderContext context(refiner, options);
// Default behavior is to include base level vertices in the patch vertices for
// vertex and varying patches, but not face-varying. Consider exposing these as
// public options in future so that clients can create consistent behavior:
bool includeBaseLevelIndices = true;
bool includeBaseLevelFVarIndices = false;
// ensure that triangulateQuads is only set for quadrilateral schemes
options.triangulateQuads &= (refiner.GetSchemeType()==Sdc::SCHEME_BILINEAR ||
refiner.GetSchemeType()==Sdc::SCHEME_CATMARK);
@ -990,8 +997,7 @@ PatchTableFactory::createUniform(TopologyRefiner const & refiner, Options option
Index ** fptr = 0;
PatchParam ** fpptr = 0;
// we always skip level=0 vertices (control cages)
Index levelVertOffset = refiner.GetLevel(0).GetNumVertices();
Index levelVertOffset = includeBaseLevelIndices ? refiner.GetLevel(0).GetNumVertices() : 0;
Index * levelFVarVertOffsets = 0;
if (context.RequiresFVarPatches()) {
@ -1004,6 +1010,11 @@ PatchTableFactory::createUniform(TopologyRefiner const & refiner, Options option
for (int fvc=0; fvc<(int)context.fvarChannelIndices.size(); ++fvc) {
fptr[fvc] = table->getFVarValues(fvc).begin();
fpptr[fvc] = table->getFVarPatchParams(fvc).begin();
if (includeBaseLevelFVarIndices) {
int refinerChannel = context.fvarChannelIndices[fvc];
levelFVarVertOffsets[fvc] = refiner.GetLevel(0).GetNumFVarValues(refinerChannel);
}
}
}
@ -1033,7 +1044,7 @@ PatchTableFactory::createUniform(TopologyRefiner const & refiner, Options option
ConstIndexArray fvalues = refLevel.GetFaceFVarValues(face, refinerChannel);
for (int vert=0; vert<fvalues.size(); ++vert) {
assert((levelVertOffset + fvalues[vert]) < (int)table->getFVarValues(fvc).size());
assert((levelFVarVertOffsets[fvc] + fvalues[vert]) < (int)table->getFVarValues(fvc).size());
fptr[fvc][vert] = levelFVarVertOffsets[fvc] + fvalues[vert];
}
fptr[fvc]+=fvalues.size();
@ -1066,9 +1077,12 @@ PatchTableFactory::createUniform(TopologyRefiner const & refiner, Options option
if (options.generateAllLevels) {
levelVertOffset += refiner.GetLevel(level).GetNumVertices();
for (int fvc=0; fvc<(int)context.fvarChannelIndices.size(); ++fvc) {
int refinerChannel = context.fvarChannelIndices[fvc];
levelFVarVertOffsets[fvc] += refiner.GetLevel(level).GetNumFVarValues(refinerChannel);
if (context.RequiresFVarPatches()) {
for (int fvc=0; fvc<(int)context.fvarChannelIndices.size(); ++fvc) {
int refinerChannel = context.fvarChannelIndices[fvc];
levelFVarVertOffsets[fvc] += refiner.GetLevel(level).GetNumFVarValues(refinerChannel);
}
}
}
}

View File

@ -98,7 +98,25 @@ public:
int const * fvarChannelIndices; ///< List containing the indices of the channels selected for the factory
};
/// \brief Factory constructor for PatchTable
/// \brief Instantiates a PatchTable from a client-provided TopologyRefiner.
///
/// A PatchTable can be constructed from a TopologyRefiner that has been
/// either adaptively or uniformly refined. In both cases, the resulting
/// patches reference vertices in the various refined levels by index,
/// and those indices accumulate with the levels in different ways.
///
/// For adaptively refined patches, patches are defined at different levels,
/// including the base level, so the indices of patch vertices include
/// vertices from all levels.
///
/// For uniformly refined patches, all patches are completely defined within
/// the last level. There is often no use for intermediate levels and they
/// can usually be ignored. Indices of patch vertices might therefore be
/// expected to be defined solely within the last level. While this is true
/// for face-varying patches, for historical reasons it is not the case for
/// vertex and varying patches. Indices for vertex and varying patches include
/// the base level in addition to the last level while indices for face-varying
/// patches include only the last level.
///
/// @param refiner TopologyRefiner from which to generate patches
///