Thorsten, >> And especially in FGFS not really Vertices is one of the big problems, >> but .xml's and nasal-scripts.
>No, you can't say that in general. It quite depends on what you do and >what options you use. Whatever you compute, it costs some amount of >resource, and how long your frame takes is determined by the slowest >element. Gary adressed those creating the 3d-models and aircraft in FGFS. Of course, logically you will always run out of GPU power at a certain vertice count which inludes all vertices (aircraft, terrain, clouds, trees...). But GPU's getting better and better today, but still the shape of the aircraft does not need hundred of vertices to make it look smooth. And yes, terrain itself has a big influence on framerate and perfomance. I can remember very good the time (2006/07 ??) when the first detailed Custom Scenery made by Martin Spott and Ralf Gerlich came out- I noticed a good hit on the frame rate, which was only due the more use of terrain-vertices. But that was with an old one-core processor and a very old GeForce 5200... Today I notice that even increasing the visibility no real framerate hit- even with 120km visibility. But a big increase of RAM-Usage. But again: Gary was talking about 3d-models like aircraft. And that was what I adressed as well. I experimented a bit with the different aircraft, and it always turned out that especially Nasal-scripts, and sometimes some .xml's has an big influence of perfomance. Bigger than an high vertice count. Problem is- this behavior depends a very lot on the hardware. In the forum you will find a very lot of people who seems to have an older computer, or a simple Office-computer with low graphic-perfomance. >But for instance, you told in the forum that you are running a lower than >1 value of cloud density because of performance reasons. Which means that >you are seeing the impact of the 3dcloud vertex shader as limiting factor, >not some Nasal or xml, because what the cloud density slider does is >reduce cloudlet (=vertex) count. GW on the the ocean gives me even with density =1 about 50-60fps (Fair weather)- when I'm inside the clouds and the full screen is covered with cloudlets I get much, much less (about 15-30fps). The limiting factor here seems to me the transparent textures. The LW does use less cloudlets even with density =1, and so less vertices than GW. Still I can see a higher use of CPU and lower Framerates. I can see what you wanted to say me- and I do see, that you have make great work with your Nasal-driven weather-system. You showed what is possible by using Nasal-scripts, and used this in a very intelligent way. >I guess my bottomline is that any code running on a per-frame basis should >be made more efficient when it can be made more efficient, regardless if >it is currently the limiting factor for someone or not, simply because it >may be the limiting element for someone else. Yes. And as Nasal-scripts has a natural limit of perfomance compared to code integrated into Simgear/ Flightgear your work will have much better perfomance if as much as possible has been hardcoded. Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
