> Referring to my poor experience with these two computers , i conclude , i > can accept a decrease of performance, without loosing any FG facility. > I'll be far from "the single frame per second" your are talking about.
First of all, there are people who get a single frame per second with Rembrandt and have said so on this list or in the forum, the fact that you get decent performance doesn't mean that everyone does so as well. We're not developing FG for you personally, there are other users as well. Kindly take note of that. Second, according to what you wrote here on this list, ALS is unusably slow for you. That won't change when you run it under the Rembrandt rendering framework because you have to run pretty much the same operations, just inserted into different stages of the rendering process. Thus, if the algorithms of ALS are unusably slow now, they will remain so if you run them under Rembrandt. Despite of what you may think, Rembrandt is not a magic tool making everything run faster - deferred rendering has specific advantages over the default (e.g. for multiple light sources for instance) and specific disadvantages (e.g. no acceleration due to interpolation across triangles for a coarse mesh as for terrain). Please go back and read what I wrote and try to understand how deferred rendering works before continuing this discussion, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time. > Hum, Given your answer, you have probably some personal memory leak. I'd appreciate if you could refrain from any more insulting language if you want to continue this conversation. * 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
