From: Torsten D. <To...@t3...> - 2011-07-12 13:37:10
|
Am 12.07.2011 10:18, schrieb tho...@jy...: > > Well, there's also a reason - the different design philosophy - and at > some point you may want to consider that before you merge. Rest assured, there won't be any merge of the weather system without you ;-) > > If you compare a system that tries to understand atmospheric conditions > and terrain interaction with one that draws what you specify, then there > are pros and cons to each: I have to postpone this discussion to after the release which completely consumes all my time I am currently able to dedicate to fg. >>> Do you see this as a problem with the 3D clouds generated by the Local >>> [..] >> It's 3d clouds in general but the local weather has the biggest impact >> [..] > In a single monitor setup, it's just not true that Global Weather is > [..] The issue is with 3d-clouds. It's not a question of global/local weather. Because local weather relies on 3d clouds, it appears to be much slower than global weather with 3d clouds disabled. My conclusion is, that our current 3d cloud implementation does not scale very well with screen size. > > If the problem gets worse when a single cloud is in view, it could be down > to texture resolution - a single cloudlet texture used by Stuart is > probably 120x120 whereas some of my large Cu cloud lets are ~1024x512 - > that should give you a different performance footprint... Some people had > issues with GPU memory, in which case dds textures helped (didn't help for > me). Our four GTX460 have 2GB GPU memory, each. That's probably not the bottleneck. I hope I have some more time for discussing this in a just a few weeks. Thanks, Torsten |