----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederic Bouvier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] crease patch and Dlists - maybe answer VBOs?
> Selon Manuel Massing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi,
> > > O.k., now I know that VBO stands for the vertex_buffer_object OpenGL
> > > extention, which is, for example, _not_ present in XFree86-4.3 !
> > > I assume VBO is therefore not a valid choice,
> > The availability of the VBO extension will only depend on your drivers,
> > the xserver (and I am pretty sure Mesa supports them as well). A good
> > implementation would choose transparently between VBOs, VARs or
> > at runtime (and I agree that its place would be in the scenegraph).
> > But I guess that the main performance issue is not the rendering method,
> > the amount of gl calls (e.g. displaylists calls). 20k displaylist calls
> > frame (based on statistics posted by Melchior, assuming that the
> > displaylists are actually called) seems pretty excessive. NVidia
> > a maximum of 1000-2000 vertex array operations per frame for good
> > performance.
> > As a guideline: using VBOs or vertex array ranges, you should be able to
> > about 50 million textured triangles per second on a geforce3 class card.
> ATM, plib only build dlist at the leaf level. And there are a lot of
> the FG scenegraph. What is needed is probably the ability to build a dlist
> the branch level, being careful to not include in the same dlist branches
> are supposed to moved against each other.
Ok guys I uderstand that flightgear will use dlist :(
It's sad to hear this but you choose it.
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flightgear-devel mailing list