I used to have texture space problems with my old Matrox G-550 video card but since fitting a card with more ram, that's not an issue anymore. However, now I think I can see differences due to vertex counts.
I don't think there's a clear answer to texture space/vertex count issues, as far as setting 'standards' is concerned. The trend in any form of 3d modelling that aims towards realism will ultimately result in increasing texture space requirements and higher vertex counts and so I think the real issue is trying to keep within current the h/w capabilities. I don't think that modelling 'down' to the lowest common denominator is a good answer as this will just mean that the models will look inferior when compared with the stuff done for other flight sims, which for the most part follow the increasing texture space/vertex count trends. Having said that, a well crafted texture can save lots of vertices. Level Of Detail is supported in FG but I don't know which models use it at present - none of the ones I've done use it so far but this isn't due to a dislike of them - for mmp scenarios they'll be essential but I've been more concerned with getting the basic model right and there are only so many hours in the day. LeeE On Saturday 01 May 2004 06:14, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > In my opinion, having vertex count exceeding 10,000 isn't that bad. What I > think really killing framerate are textures. > > Speaking of vertex count and texture resolution, does FlightGear support > multiple level-of-details? (As in loading a model with more and more > details as the object is getting closer to the camera.) > > Regards, > Ampere > > On April 30, 2004 05:36 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: > > I don't know Melchior, that one is pretty darn smooth :-). After looking > > this model over carefully, the difference is clear to me. There is more > > detail in the gear than in the *whole* bo105! It is one great looking > > model and it "renders" in FlightGear at 15-20fps on my system which is > > low end hardware compared to what is available inexpensively these days. > > Times change and vertex counts go up, just because we can. Besides, > > after takeoff you raise that gear and close those doors and do a few > > other "tricks" and you've just recovered a bunch of ram and some frames > > too. > > > > As I said I'm not opposed to a lower res version. It isn't necessary to > > add this model to the base package, at all. My point was, we need an FDM > > and it is going to be a little different than your every day airliner. > > > > Best, > > > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
