Since the random buildings are now in the effect system, I've run a few tests with the lightfield shaders yesterday.
The good news is: It works just fine. The bad news is: It eats performance like mad. For comparison: Without lightfield shading, I had a test case involving a large urban area (Las Vegas in this case) in which I had 30 fps given the weather without any buildings. Populating the city with random buildings at density 1.6 reduced me to 28 fps. Using the urban shader effect (quality 3 I think) instead gave me 25 fps. I think this is more or less what Stuart is seeing as well (?). With Lightfield shading on, Las Vegas in about the same test case without buildings comes with 20 fps. With random buildings, I'm down to 10 fps even for a density as low as 0.5 (urban shader isn't implemented in the scheme, so no number here). This indicates there's some scaling going on which I don't really understand. The additional amount of vertices thrown in by the buildings doesn't seem to be so large that the dramatic framerate loss could be explained. The two shading strategies seem to scale drastically different, and I have no real idea why. I don't think it's a problem with the random buildings, more something I don't really understand. Maybe I should try to come up with a distinct model shader, putting more work to the fragment part based on the theory that buildings are often more vertices than pixels? * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
