Green_Baron said:

This approach does not test against planes but coordinates (first near/far, then x/y). Would it solve the problem of false positives ?

http://www.lighthouse3d.com/tutorials/view-frustum-culling/radar-approach-testing-points/

This only tests points though, if you think about a triangle, all points could be outside the frustum, but the segments still interesting the frustum, so the triangle would incorrectly be marked as not visible.

Beosar said:

Green_Baron said:

This approach does not test against planes but coordinates (first near/far, then x/y). Would it solve the problem of false positives ?

http://www.lighthouse3d.com/tutorials/view-frustum-culling/radar-approach-testing-points/

The link doesn't work for me:

You don't have permission to access this resource.Server unable to read htaccess file, denying access to be safe Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

I don't think testing points instead of planes helps. I don't see what's wrong with the original approach, it should work.

Alternatively, just render the scene to a 32 bit uint render target and give each element a unique index and then just read the texture. This way you won't select things that are behind another thing.

I need to select eveything that interesects the frustum, like a marquee selection

It was just to show how the test work, there are algorithms for spheres and aabbs as well. I haven't found a triangle though, but triangles can be left to the pipeline to do it automagically.

Will this help ?

http://jcgt.org/published/0002/01/05/paper.pdf

Sorry, I confused OBB as AABS/OBS. I would advise you with that geometry primitive as better for texting against soon rejection, it will give a bit more positiives though, but never give a negative.