Hi Gianluca, I have a feeling something is wrong with your setup, as we do these sort of graphs in our viewer and get way higher framerates. I get about 60 fps rendering 1920x1080x2 (=red-green stereo) on my Geforce 1080, with a static scene of 1.1 M vertices (886k triangels) and in a similar shape ~9200 matixTransforms each with a ref to mostly the same tree (4.5k vertices, vk triangels) A few questions: where seems to be the bottelneck when you enable the stats? What os/gfx combo do you use? if you dump out the scene and load it into the osgviewer, does the framerate improve? are you sure you're not useing a windows debug build?
Regards, Laurens. On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:21 PM Gianluca Natale <nat...@europe.altair.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a performance issue in my scenegraph that I cannot completely > understand. > > My scenegraph is made by a main matrix transform, with these 2 children: > > - One geode that renders a big object on screen (the geometry in the > drawable can take up to several thousands vertices); > - One group node that in its turn has 200 children, each made by a > matrix transform and a geode. The drawable in each of those geodes is very > simple (no more than 100 vertices) > > It seems that this configuration allows me to have at most 50 fps. > > I feel that this should be rendered much faster. > > > > So I made some experiment. If I remove the 200 matrix transform attached > to the group node I mentioned above, > and directly apply the transformations to the vertices of the geometries > in the 200 drawables of the small objects, performance improves a lot, till > 100 fps. > I investigatd a bit inside OSG code (I’m using OG ver.3.4.1), and > apparently the only overhead due to the additional matrix transformations > is a call to glLoadMatrix (I’m using the old ffp). > How can you explain such an improvement? > > My real problem is that I would like to replace the 200 matrix > transfromations with 200 auto-transform matrices, since I’d like those > small objects to keep constant size on screen. > > But if I do that, I cannot remove the 200 transformations at all, and I’ll > end up with a bad performance. > > Any idea about what I can try to make rendering of my scenegraph faster? > > > > Thanks, > > Gianluca > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org >
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
