On Friday 09 June 2006 12:06, Roberto Inzerillo wrote: > > Texture size has a litle impact on filtering time and a huge one when > > card memory is completely filled. In that situation, swapping begins > > and very low fps are encountered. > > I have to conclude that adding details to an object using textures is much > better (from a performance point of view) then adding details to the > geometry. Correct?
Performance impacts from geometry is very minimal compared to that from textures. You could degrade performance very quickly if you are not careful with textures, but A LOT of vertices would be needed to result in the same kind of performance loss. Another problem from using textures is that the details would eventually turn blur when the camera is close enough to the object. This is especially a problem for buildings -- particularly buildings inside an airport, since the users could observe them very closely. You would never get this problem if you use geometries for details. In conclusion, spend freely on polycount, but be very conservative with textures. > Let's say I fly above an airport. Let's say the airport ground is filled > with a 100 3d objects (I am not exagerating) each one consisting of a .ac > file which includes two versions (high res and low res) of the same object. > <snip> Instead of two versions, I would suggest you to create one very-high-detail model using geometries instead. You could divide the details in such a way so that they can be removed as the camera moves away. Ampere _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
