I've had a my first short go with Rembrandt on my new machine yesterday. The test case was a small airport in Sulawesi (Indonesia) (WAAJ) where I'm discovering a very nice scenery. There are no static or shared models to speak of, there is some forest around, and that's basically it. I chose fair weather, i.e. a modest cloud cover. The aircraft was the PAF team DR-400 in the latest version.
All Rembrandt functions work out of the box very nicely. I started with a dawn scene and tried the landing light illumination first. This gave me a good 30 fps. I then switched to noon and tried shadows. I have to say that since I am more the VFR virtual pilot, I almost never fly at night, lightmap for internal illumination work fine for me, and so shadows are the main selling point of Rembrandt which attracts me. The initial shadows coming up by default were rather ragged and flickery (the last is a problem for me, I tend to get headache when looking at some sort of flickers unfortunately), so I played with shadow map size, cascade ranges and filtering till I had a nice result. To my dismay, at this point the framerate counter gave me a mere 15 fps (no shader effects on at this point). For comparison, the same scene renders in Atmospheric Light Scattering with all details maxed out (including tree motion) with solid 60 fps. Am I doing anything wrong? Did I miss any optimization which makes the shadows run fast enough? Am I just unlucky and my system has some unspecified problems chewing Rembrandt? Does anyone else get significantly higher framerate out of shadows with filtering? I am running on an GeForce GTX 670M, which is usually a pretty fast beast. I mean, maybe it's just me, but this appears to confirm a suspicion I wrote earlier that trying to pack ALS functionality into Rembrandt will end up being way too slow. If I have a mere 15 fps before any shaders, then I can't reasonably apply 800 lines of extra computations and expect no performance impact. Does anyone have a semi-solid case which would argue that this would be fast enough? I'm sort of trying to make my mind up if I should focus on that before the next release (which is why I did the test), but it seems hopeless to me. It's okay and flyable as it stands, but I don't see how to cram lots of extra stuff in. * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
