Well, actually that's getting into implementation specifics, which is
somewhat outside of the charter for this list, I believe.
No, we're talking about an algorithmic artistic technique here.
There's nothing off-topic about that. The technical constraint
problems we're trying to avoid are "you don't have enough processing
power, blah blah, bandwidth, blah blah, C++ isn't the ideal language,
yadda yadda, the software isn't mature, yorble yorble, there's isn't
sufficient RAM in the universe," etc.
What your
suggesting would involve more than one viewing engine, basically one
for every view produced, as there is no standard algorithm for
producing Escherian effects.
That is precisely my point.
You folks keep wanting to go from 3d to 2d. I think you should start
with the 2d perspective tricks, and extrapolate to whatever space you
need to represent them. The point is to _retain_the_Escher_effects_,
as the person moves around the world. Whatever space satisfies the 2d
trick perspective constraint, is the space that you want.
No, it is not easy to do. It is not convenient to do. That is also
the point. Great art is not a matter of convenience.
Cheers,
Brandon