Pushing in front your supposed to be know how is not an argument ,
usually the more person' s know how is great the less they are pretending
to have it.
Please stop to pretend to be the best.
Don't tell the FG feature can't be improved with Rembrandt by exposing
some similar eye candy you are getting with your ALS,
Have you thought about the Rembrandt lights functions, and others effects.
For sure the way you have been developing has created a big gap, thus it
would be difficult to mix both systems.
Anyhow the GPU CPU systems is less significant, than the programs which are
developed, and the way they are using the resources.
Thank
Ahmad
On 18 June 2013 18:26, Renk Thorsten <thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi> wrote:
> > 3/ To wait for better development reaching the target to have REMBRANDT
> > and
> > ALS working well all together, and definitively included within FG.
> (...)
> > The basic content remains the same, some Aircrafts are flying with
> > Rembrandt not with ALS , others are flying with ALS not with Rembrandt
>
> Much has been said about this already. So I'll be brief (by my
> standards...).
>
> Please consider: The framerate you get to see depends, with full eye candy
> on and on modern CPUs, almost exclusively on how fast the GPU can process
> the shaders. Shader execution speed depends measurably on the number of
> operations performed. I've now had three years to gain hands-on experience
> benchmarking shaders what runs how fast - I believe I do have a good
> understanding of what's going on by now.
>
> You seem to imagine a 'best of two worlds scenario' here. Just looking at
> the operations which the GPU needs to perform for ALS+R and comparing with
> ALS or R alone, the following is far, far more likely to happen:
>
> * The framerate of ALS+R will be a bit slower than the minimum of the
> framerate you get in Rembrandt now and the framerate you get in ALS now.
> You say you can't run ALS on your machine right now - you'll also be unable
> to run ALS+R, because it will be even slower.
>
> * I have yet to see a plane in which the normal mapping is properly
> declared fails to render properly under ALS, but assuming for a moment it
> exists - for a plane to render under ALS+R, it would have to render now
> under ALS *and* under Rembrandt. Which is to say, if it doesn't run under
> ALS now, it won't run under ALS+R, if it isn't Rembrandt compatible, it
> also won't run under ALS+R. So the number of planes which renders properly
> for you will be even smaller.
>
> * As a result, we would be advertizing features which almost no one can
> run. You won't be able to run it because ALS fails to be fast enough for
> you, I won't be able to run it because Rembrandt fails to run fast enough
> for me, so we'll end up creating a major PR disaster with endless user
> complaints about abysmally low framerates and posts all over the place 'But
> I can run <insert 3d game here> without any problems, so Flightgear must be
> really badly written.'
>
> So all problems which the individual rendering frameworks have now will be
> worse. You will also combine the features of course, so you could render
> gorgeous sunset scenes with long shadows cast by mountains - but what's the
> use if that happens at 10 fps?
>
> I have yet to see any real argument why this shouldn't happen. I have test
> data how much you save by perfect z-buffering as used in deferred
> rendering, and that will mitigate the problem but not solve it. Frankly,
> I'm not keen to spend half a year coding something just to create a stream
> of complaints about unusable framerates. All tests I have done so far back
> me up. So - are you sure you would want it even if less planes work and you
> get less framerate than now? Because asking for features just costs a few
> lines of typing, implementing them is a lot more expensive.
>
>
> * Thorsten
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
