On 30 Nov 2011, at 14:07, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > I'm interested in peoples opinions on this, and in particular what > their view is of the current forest and urban shader performance. It > may be that my system is unique in that one is cheap and the other > expensive, and this is all pointless!
Definitely sounds good to me, a few comments on the details though, based on some similar ideas I once looked at, and playing with 'massing models' in Google Earth: - I don't think you need to worry about a cuboid per floor - only define some (irregular) trapezoids for the floor plans, and simply extrude them to a height - with suitable random generation of the heights. - partly due to my limited vertex shader knowledge, I was considering doing this with simple meshes (and a single texture for a given region of buildings) - if the geometry is truly fixed, it should sit in a VBO very efficiently, and with no alpha blending or similar, I'd be surprised if the geometry is the bottle-neck. (I was imagining a mesh per scenery tile, for example) - if you want to get really fancy, you could set building heights based on the area of the land-cover polygon; small or suburban area = wider spacing, lower heights, huge urban polygon = taller boxes, narrower spacing James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
