Jean,
It sounds to me you're still using j3d1.2.1beta1 or earlier versions.
We've recently released j3d1.2.1beta2, please give it a try.
regards,
Chien Yang.
Java 3D Team.
> X-Lotus-FromDomain: RES
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:26:20 -0500
> From: Jean-Marie Dautelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Shape3D Performance.
> Comments: To: Uma Sabada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi Uma,
>
> >> (2) specify multiple geometries per Shape3D thereby reducing the number of
> Shape3Ds in the scene.
>
> When the geometries are added to a single Shape3D, there is no difference in
> performance, still 20 microseconds hit PER geometry!
> Only when all geometries are merged into a single geometry and then added to a
> Shape3D, this multiplicative cost is avoided (for my application, it more than
> doubles the frames rate).
>
> Does'it mean that the bookkeeping is performed on a geometry basis?
>
> Regards.
> Jean-Marie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Uma Sabada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/07/2001 02:43:18 PM
>
> Please respond to Uma Sabada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: (bcc: Jean-Marie R Dautelle/RES/Raytheon/US)
> Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Shape3D Performance.
>
>
>
> Jean-Marie:
> There is internal bookkeeping needed to render each Shape3D which
> results in increase in memory footprint and affects performance when there are
> several thousand dynamically changing Shape3Ds in a scene. There are couple
of
> ways to reduce the number of Shape3Ds in a scene:
>
> (1) use .compile() - Java3D will internally combine Shape3D when
> possible
> (2) specify multiple geometries per Shape3D thereby reducing the
number
> of Shape3Ds in the scene.
>
>
> -Uma
> Java3D Team
>
>
> > X-Lotus-FromDomain: RES
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:10:14 -0500
> > From: Jean-Marie Dautelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [JAVA3D] Shape3D Performance.
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Hi,
> > For our project we have thousands of Shape3D with very small geometry. When
> > rendering (using nVidia Quadro, Linux-86 800Mhz), our benchmark indicates
that
> > each Shape3D is taking 20 microseconds (no appearance) and up to 30
> microsecond
> > when an appearance node is used to set different colors.
> > This has to be compared with the geometry rendering: 15 nanoseconds per
> vertex!
> > It seems there is a huge penalty in breaking the geometry in Shape3D.
> > This doesn't make any sense!
> > The cost of a TransformGroup is 16 microseconds. Why is a Shape3D more
> expensive
> > than a transform (at least the transform is doing something, i.e. save
> > transform, multiply transform, restore transform)?
> > Any explanation is welcome.
> > Thanks.
> > Jean-Marie Dautelle.
> >
> > ===========================================================================
> > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> > of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
