That sounds great Eric! Thanks for the comparison numbers. /Jens
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Eric Mootz <[email protected]> wrote: > The memory consumption of emPolygonizer4 can grow quite fast. The more > input particles and the higher the level of detail the more memory it will > consume. > emTopolizer2 however meshes things bit by bit which results in neglectable > memory consumption no matter how your level of detail might look. > > So with heavy setups emPolygonizer4 can easily go up to 10 Gig and more of > RAM whereas emTopolizer2 will only use a couple of hundred megabytes. > > Speed wise it depends a little on how the input looks like (amount of > particles, spacial distribution, ..), but on average emTopolizer2 is *at > least* twice as fast. In most cases it will be even 2-10 times faster. > But in my opinion the speed is not as important as the memory consumption. > Fact is that with emPolygonizer4 you will eventually have memory problems > and with emTopolizer2 you won't. > > Here a concrete example that I just tested. Note the memory consumption. > > Hardware: Sony Vaio Laptop, Intel i7m, 8 Gig Ram. > OS: Windows 7 64 bit. > Software: SI 2012 SAP > > *A.)* The input was a small liquid simulation with roughly 2000 > particles. > The level of detail was set to 50, which resulted in a mesh with about 2.4 > million polygons. > > emPolygonizer4: > time: 30 seconds. > max. RAM: 2.6 Gig. > > emTopolizer2: > time: 10 seconds. > max. RAM: about 0.15 gig. > > *B.)* Same input, but this time with liquid filaments enabled which > results in roughly 270000 particles. > The level of detail was set to 50, which resulted in a mesh with about 1.5 > million polygons. > > emPolygonizer4: > time: 55 seconds. > max. RAM: 2.7 Gig. > > emTopolizer2: > time: 26 seconds. > max. RAM: about 0.2 gig. > > -- Jens Lindgren -------------------------- Lead Technical Director Magoo 3D Studios <http://www.magoo3dstudios.com/>
