"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it boils down to how many polygons are we pushing through the > pipeline every frame? How many pixels are we rendering each frame? How > many texture/state changes are we doing each frame? Is the system > thrashing it's texture cache? Are we geometry limited on your hardware? > Are we pixel fill limited on your hardware? Is your hardware not as good > as you think with rendering textured polygons? [...] > I have never run 3D apps on Octane hardware so I don't know their specific > strengths or limitations, but I would guess based on what I've seen from > other sgi boxes that your octane probably isn't very good at rendering > textured surfaces. It might be doing this entirely in software if you > don't have the hardware texture option on your box.
As we saw recently when trying out the 'hunter' model: The polygon count appears not to have any noticeable impact on the frame rate with the Octane (MXI). Some people running PC's and Erik with his O2 claimed that such a high-polygon model would decrease the frame rate. To my experience there is absolutely no difference in the frame rate of the 'hunter' compared to the default aircraft. But obviously heavy use of textures has an impact - even though my Octane is equipped with the dual TRAM option, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
