how fast should this be?
hi!
i have written a small program rendering a large piece of terrain. it uses an interleaved array of 500 000 vertices, normals and texVertices, and renders them with a main- and a detail-texture in a single pass using ARB.
there is no quadtree or LOD, no ROAM, no frustrum culling, nothing like that. the whole array is rendered at every frame.
the result i get from that is around 12fps on an athon1000 with a gf4 ti440.
do you think i did a good implementation, or are the results i get slow? fast? what do you think? i am pretty unsure about how many fps i should get from this method ...
any comments welcome!!

sebastian
i have written a small program rendering a large piece of terrain. it uses an interleaved array of 500 000 vertices, normals and texVertices, and renders them with a main- and a detail-texture in a single pass using ARB.
there is no quadtree or LOD, no ROAM, no frustrum culling, nothing like that. the whole array is rendered at every frame.
the result i get from that is around 12fps on an athon1000 with a gf4 ti440.
do you think i did a good implementation, or are the results i get slow? fast? what do you think? i am pretty unsure about how many fps i should get from this method ...
any comments welcome!!

sebastian
this is just my opinion, but i think 12fps is horribly slow. but then again you are rendering 500 000 vertices.
I'm not sure this is the right forum to be asking about PC performance numbers -- this is a Mac forum.
However, what's really important more than the number of vertices & whatnot is the number of triangles.
I guess if they're arranged in the obvious way (a regular square grid), that means you're drawing about 1000000 triangles each frame, which is 12000000 triangles per second.
That seems a bit slow for your system, but probably not very much too slow. I'm willing to bet you'll get a decent performance improvement if you put them in a display list.
However, what's really important more than the number of vertices & whatnot is the number of triangles.
I guess if they're arranged in the obvious way (a regular square grid), that means you're drawing about 1000000 triangles each frame, which is 12000000 triangles per second.
That seems a bit slow for your system, but probably not very much too slow. I'm willing to bet you'll get a decent performance improvement if you put them in a display list.
Possibly Related Threads...
| Thread: | Author | Replies: | Views: | Last Post | |
| fast billboards | reubert | 2 | 2,419 |
Oct 7, 2004 04:41 AM Last Post: OneSadCookie |
|
| Too fast! | Silden | 7 | 3,453 |
Apr 16, 2003 02:40 PM Last Post: Mars_999 |
|

