I don't see why this type of rasterizer would be inherently faster than the current one. In most cases fill rate is the bottleneck, meaning that you want to get your pixels onto the screen as fast as possible. I would be very surprised if someone can find a way to do this faster manually in as3 bytecode one pixel at a time than by using the internal flash bitmap drawing routines (written in somewhat optimized assembly, IIRC), no matter the window size.
The window size is probably not even all that relevant, since *both* methods get faster as the rending surface dimensions decrease. Of course, I would be pleased to be proven wrong :) -Ken On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Nooop <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 12, 10:18 am, Peter Kapelyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, what I meant to say is "you can try if you have the courage". > > > > From any other rendering methods thus far (experimental or not), there > has > > not been any increase in rendering speeds. There have been some tries > with > > Pixel Bender, I would love to see a PB solution that's even a tad bit > > faster. > > As I understand, scanline rendering would not be faster in a > larger window, but in a very small window it could have a faster frame > rate. I think it is limited by the number of pixel. > > Quake Flash probably using scanline rendering with a good frame > rate: > http://www.silvergames.com/game/quake-flash/ > > > > "Wire Engine 3d" has a scanline rendering option. > http://www.3key.at/we3d/forum/ > > 2600 polygon flat shaded model in a tiny window and a smooth > frame rate: > http://www.3key.at/we3d/w3sample.html > > 15,000 triangles with scanline rendering: > http://3key.at/we3d/forum/demos/demo1/index.html > > Flat shaded helicopter model: > http://3key.at/we3d/src/samples/1.html > > > >
