On Tuesday, 2 December 2003 00:16, Andy Ross wrote: > But the answer can't possibly be to blow 4MB of card memory per > texture. There are dozens of terrain types. Even a 256MB megacard is > going to run short when you spend your VRAM like that that.
It would not work for the way the current scenery engine works but it would work for aerial/satelite scenery. In the case of aerial/satelite scenery the scenery engine only has to cache the textures it needs. That would only be the textures in visible range. Then also factor mip mapping in and your memory consumption drops drastically. Think along the lines of about 57MB for 400 km2 with the terrain directly under the aircraft at 1 meter/pixel resolution and then gradually tappering off to 8 meters/pixel in 5 steps to a distance of 10 km in all directions from the aircraft. Then we haven't even started to discuss stuff like S3TC texture compression which can drop the texture size down to about 10MB. :) > A new terrain renderer would be great. But it's *not* easy. No kidding! That's why I'm doing all my proof of concept development outside of FG. No point in trying to implement something that I'm not sure will work properly/fast enough. > On my game project last year, I got a lot of decidedly non-trivial things > (like Nasal) to work well. Guess what I was working on when I lost > interest? :) Hehe! Hopefully I'll see this one through. Paul _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
