> And a more simple second question, what do the developers accept as > proper performance (value) in regards of frames per second. Perhaps i > demand/expect too much, but 20 - 30 fps i find rather disappointing, > flight is far from smooth at such numbers, but others might find that > (more then) ideal.
It depends on what I want to do. Using the default rendering scheme and a moderate visibility range ~40 km in default terrain, no special shaders I get about 70-80 fps in moderate cloud cover - that's the framerate I want for aerobatics or air combat training. On the other end of the scale, when I have an airliner cruising at 33.000 ft under AP control, I mainly want to watch scenery and weather, so usually I do this in custom scenery, ask for 120 km visibility range and atmospheric scattering rendering scheme, clouds drawn out to 75 km distance and might do this at sunrise, in which case my framerate may drop as low as 10 fps (which is hardly noticeable, because the apparent motion of terrain and clouds is slow anyway). I also like flying mountains with single engine planes - here a visibility ~50 km and framerates between 15 and 20 fps work for me. There is no such thing as standard performance - I can completely freeze my computer by asking 250 km visibility in custom scenery in atmospheric scattering rendering scheme and heavy cumulus development out to max. range, in which case I end up with 3-4 fps. I can also go above 100 fps by disabling 3d clouds and choosing 10 km visibility range in default scenery. I try to adapt the options to what I want to do and what I want to see. > It would be very helpful in determining if some change brought improvement or > made performance worse by a proper measuring > instead of staring at the FPS counter in the bottom of the screen during > gameplay and 'estimating' if things improved or not. Not that simple. For instance, I do many tests with 1200x900 screen resolution to be able to watch the console, but actually fly with 1920x1200 resolution. For lower screen resolution, it pays off to transfer more work to fragment shaders and reduce the load of vertex shaders. However, since the number of fragments more than doubles for full resolution, a different workload balance leads to the best result. The smaller your screen resolution, the better is it to let the fragment shaders do all work. So if there's an improvement to the code might depend on what screen resolution you run. Other changes bring improvements if your graphics card plays along, but deteriorates matters dramatically if not. And so on. Cheers, * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
