I guess you should look into Away 4 source code . Each objects has getters for transformation data . Flint is a good framework but much work should be done to optimize 3d particle modules. For now I am accomplishing the integration of Alternativa. So there are going to be all 3 molehill engines support in total ( away and flare are ready ) . I also plan to take a look at M2d . May be it will be more suitable for particles generation . After that will think how to optimize the stuff . Think pb3d will help . Though still had no chance to use it .
Sent from my iPhone On May 6, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Arkadianen <[email protected]> wrote: > Passing calculations to GPU is not just an option, but the best way to > optimise. But the question is in technical implementation. I dont know > Molehill so good yet to talk about technical implementation of vertex > coordinates extraction. > > Caching is always good, but I dont imagine what could be cached, as > particles are in motion and coordinates are changed in each frame. > But, basically we must keep the initial coordinates in a separate > object, and calculate new position in each frame, and the initial > object will remain in a kind of cache. But this initial object changes > vertexes positions if we have some more complicated motion inside > particles field. > > About Flint, we need some good architecture to easily extend or reuse > modules. From this point of view, Flint is good. But I cant say that > it is the only one solution, because all that matters is extendability > and reusability. > > So for now, the main question, is how we can extract raw coordinates > from the GPU calculated objects? > > > On May 5, 6:04 pm, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote: >> Passing some calculations to the GPU is obviously an option. But I am not >> working on particle engine from scratch but extending Flint . So it is not >> so easy to implement it. From the other hand I though of adding buffers to >> hold already created particles like a poll and Reuse them. In such a >> case I can save A lot of >> Cycles needed to instantiate the particles. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 5, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Arkadianen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Very interesting topic for me. I wrote this >>> articlehttp://alexgblog.com/?p=722 >>> and I achieved decent framerate with 800 particles. >> >>> Can we extract 3D vertex xyz position in Molehill? And probably, a >>> Sprite3D can be rendered by GPU. Maybe we can even increase the speed >>> of calculations by using PixelBender 3D. Maybe... >> >>> On May 4, 3:31 pm, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Thanks for this info. Yeah , I thing this is related to the optimization . >>>> Also I tested Flint with Flare & A3D Sprites and the performance is shitty >>>> there as well. >> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On May 4, 2011, at 3:24 PM, ringodotnl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> Aloha Michael, >> >>>>> Having lots objects needs to be optimized, the team is looking into >>>>> that. >>>>> As far as I know, the particles aren't picked-up yet but it's high on >>>>> my wish list as well :) >> >>>>> I don't know if anyone is working on a optimized (gpu) particle system >>>>> (Simo?:)) but it's sure something I want to look into when time >>>>> allows :) >> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Ringo. >> >>>>> On May 4, 10:58 am, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Thank for this info man. That is approximately the number of sprites I >>>>>> can run too. Although after 400 the FpS is as low as 4-5. I guess for >>>>>> the particle system there is a need to develop a separate molehill >>>>>> engine >> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>>>> On May 4, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Jahiro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> I've had major performance issues with Sprite3Ds and bitmap materials. >>>>>>> I ended up having to write a culling class that uses a quad tree to >>>>>>> track down which Sprite3Ds are closest to the camera - I keep the >>>>>>> close ones and cull the rest. Would love to see sonme optimizations >>>>>>> around Sprite3Ds. >> >>>>>>> Michael, I found that running a release build gave me an increase in >>>>>>> fps, but still I can't run my app at all with more than 500 sprites at >>>>>>> any one time, even with a release build. >> >>>>>>> On May 4, 7:33 am, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Btw , anybody knows if the 2d molehill engine M2d supports depth ? >>>>>>>> Would be interesting to test it in correlation with Flint. >> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>>>>>> On May 4, 2011, at 12:20 AM, makc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 3 ôÒÁ, 23:40, Peter Kapelyan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Did you try this demo, says like 4096 items >> >>>>>>>>> It also says December 24th, 2008
