Sign in to follow this  
Guest R_Driscoll

Framerates

Recommended Posts

The two packages Grays AAF and McChord AAF both have large numbers of objects, and feedback suggests they cause framerate issues. A couple of points may help generate discussion, maybe leading to ways to improve framerates. I think framerates are affected most by number of polygons, rather than the rendering of the polygon itself, especially since the MIP format uses scaled versions of graphics for different distances.Since I handwrite the objects (rather than use a graphics rendering package), I use the minimum possible number of polygons. (Well not the minimum - my tree uses 6 polygons, Jon uses just two - he's more economical. And they look better too. Rats). However a lot of objects use many polygons. Most of the aircraft created as static objects use 1000-2000 polygons. I.e about 500 to 1000 of Jon's trees could be used instead.My balloon is a good example. Its not really my model, I simply uploaded it after adapting it to Seattle. It was made professionally, so uses 1200 polygons. If I made a balloon, I would use about 200 I suppose. So to increase framerates, turf some of those B52's, balloons, BAE's etc. You don't have to sell the concrete!The new scenery objects for UK are mid-range - using 100's of polygons but not thousands. I cheat a lot - using cut and paste to go faster. But I'm not going to create curved headlights on my cars - it would increase the polygon count without being a real benefit. After all, you're in the sim for flying, and getting away from the airport is what its all about. That said, I hope that the growing object collection adds some enjoyment to the pain of having to land again, and a spot more realism to the whole trip.I think moving objects also add to the overheads - but since most moving objects are planes at an airport, that might just be an impression rather than a real problem.When you use FLED, the object window displays the polygon count. So as the Old Knight says, "Choose wisely." Or maybe, delete wisely!I have no problems with anyone taking any of my scenery packages and adding, deleting, reposting or whatever they want to do with them. I.e adjust the package to your needs.Hope this generates some useful ideas,Robert D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Makes sense to me!I recently went on a foresting binge (!) and noticed no major drop in framerates, except when I included lots of houses. Having a DC3 or such parked at the airport is also nice, but it slows the darn thing down too much.I haven't uploaded my bikes yet because of this. Having a few bikes screaming around the neighbourhood really slows things down. I then tried simple, 2 polygon bikes (thin - flat!) which still look OK from a distance but without the framerate hit. I may just upload the simple ones after all.Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, maybe test with both models at once - using LOD. Call the complex version BIKE0, the simple one BIKE1 (same name, different last number), install into SEATTLEGEN, reload using FLED, and FU3 should display the complex model when close, the simple one at a distance, saving MASSES and MASSES of lovely framerate (yummy yummy). But you may have to make some compromises still with the complex one. Bikes are supposed to be fast ...thanks for your comments on BSP - maybe you could test & compare both versions? Gotta rush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bikes are supposed to be fast ..."I wonder what's gonna happen when the engine switches from ~60 polygons to 1? As I can't make the bikes lean when turning, they look a bit weird close-up unless they're parked :-( When I moved the model path so the bike didn't get too close to the viewer, I noticed that my 'thin' bikes looked the same. At this point my heart dropped because I've spent 20-30hrs creating the 3d model from a textfile and it looked no better that my first attempt :-grr The only advantage of the complex models is they respond better to daylight changes - the 2D ones always look a bit duller because the sun doesn't shine on the sides! Hence why I dropped the Duke 900SS. The blue-grey colours looked like grey mush most of the time :-(So, I'm still undecided. I have a few other things to upload soon (parking lots, more trees, bushes, a serious hedge with transparency, some wooden packing crates and a fire extinguisher...) so I might just do it and see. Honestly, to get lots of headlights moving back and forth under the flightpath, the 2D models do a better job without the framerate hit of the 3D cars for example. The MX track is a killer - I get 5fps when close to it so I've given up on that one!I'll try the two different BSP.EXE files tonight. As I mentioned, I only tried the JAS one 'coz the normal one kept on giving errors with larger 'e' files. I tried the other one and it worked. In hindsight, I don't want to use 500+ polygon models so it may make no difference. I'll email it to you so you can try it. I don't know how it works anyway so you may be able to shed some light here.Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this