What do you mean by nothing?
I'm just pointing out that this kind of test can be misleading.
Its like trying to find out howmany cars can ride and how fast on a
given highway.
A lot if they are all Ferraris riding same high speed, a lot less if
you drive in the Netherlands a rainy monday morning at 8:00 am.
In the end you know very little of the highway itself...
Fabrice
On Feb 7, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Makc wrote:
little is still better than nothing
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Fabrice <[email protected]> wrote:
map sizes, tris size, mapping, material types, angles, stage.quality,
browsers, player versions... etc all are factors of influence.
I've seen scenes running slow under 500 tris... same for renderings
with
just 250 tris drawn of a 60 000 tris model...
Its a nice test, but tells very little in the end.
Fabrice
On Feb 7, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Sean McCracken wrote:
I'll be doing a test just like that. I'll post my findings Monday.
Sean
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Makc <[email protected]> wrote:
Hum, does it mean 3001 triangle would be too much? Someone should
do
online test app where user could specify fps + features used, and
the
app would add triangles until fps goes too low.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Li <[email protected]> wrote:
I guess a quick answer would be around 3000 triangles with motion
(someone
correct me if Im wrong). However, Away3D uses something called
triangle
caching. The idea behind this is that if an object hasn't moved,
and the
camera hasn't moved, then the object would look the same, so why
redraw
it?
Doing stuff like this allows for a very larger amount of
triangles as in
the
Intel game demo in the away3d site which uses more than 100,000
triangles!
