On Wed, 13 May 2020 23:42:40 GMT, Nir Lisker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If this were an even remotely representative use case, then no, the >> performance hit would not be OK. The test was >> designed as an artificial "worst-case" stress test: a single mesh with a >> large number of very large (window-sized) >> quads stacked on top of each other. Any real-world use case won't do this. >> We should make sure that we aren't seeing >> any significant performance drop when rendering spheres (at a couple >> different tessellation levels) or boxes. > >> We should make sure that we aren't seeing any significant performance drop >> when rendering spheres (at a couple >> different tessellation levels) or boxes. > > I missed this. Do you mean that the test should create a mesh of a sphere > instead of a flat surface? I would say in addition to rather than instead of, since both are useful. What might help is to add the sphere test plus the pathological test I put together into your test program so we can select between them. And then get a few of us to run that updated program and post results. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/43
