On Saturday 01 April 2006 15:55, Ralf Gerlich wrote: > Hi, > > Nigel Atkinson schrieb: > >> If the graphics load is too much then perhaps the answer is more > >> agressive use of LOD and simpler models. > >> > >> Josh > > > > What sort of FPS does everyone get? I get about 10-15 on a fairly > > grunty laptop with 0.9.9 windows version and at 7 - 11fps with the CVS > > version compiled with Cygwin. I can run MSFS2004 with more detailed > > scenery locked at 30fps with out problem. > > It clearly depends. I have a Pentium M 1.5GHz and a ATI Mobility Radeon > 9600 with the binary-only driver from ATI for X.org. In the standard > scenery I typically get around 20-30fps at 1280x1024, depending on the > region and whether I have random objects active or deactivated. > > In the custom scenery I can only fly with 800x600 or with random objects > deactivated at 1280x1024. In the latter case I get around 12-18fps, in > the former case it drops down to 6fps at times. > > I noticed that the customised scenery tends to produce not only more - > which I anticipated - but a lot more triangles than the original. We > have up to 30.000 triangles on a single tile, where 60% of that seems to > be due to line data (streets, small rivers, railroads) See my report on > <http://www.custom-scenery.org/Triangle_Counts.272.0.html> > > I've tried some simplicifation (Douglas-Peucker) on the original vector > data and came up with some good triangle reduction. Unfortunately, the > up-front reduction also severely impacts the quality of the rendering: > very edgy rivers, heavy mutation of shapes (e.g. quadrangle -> triangle) > > I'd very much like to go towards a rendering engine with appropriate > terrain LoD for more detailed terrain. I'd even help in implementing it > wherever I can, being the graphics non-expert I am. Hell, I'd even try > it myself, but rest assured it'd take me a very long time...;-)
Well I think the best bang for the buck would be via some sort of terrain LOD mechanism. Using primitives to draw every single feature just isn't going to scale well. I can't increase the visibility in FG past about 50km in default areas without a slideshow (< 5fps) but in FS2004 I can double that figure and still cruise along with 20 fps. A texture based approach like MSFS where the ground textures are generated on the fly from vector data would be even better. Very low poly count but high complexity. I have to agree with the original poster - FS2004 looks much better and runs a lot faster than FG. With our simple looking scenery we should be running with frame rates two or three times higher. Once FSX is released FG is going to look like a dinosaur in the scenery and visual effects department. (30m down to 9m DEMs and high res landcover) However that's not a problem since FG is a development platform and not aimed at consumers so we really don't care what it looks like. No, I'm not being sarcastic. :P Paul ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
