Go Back   Knife Edge > RealFlight - Designer's Corner > RealFlight G5 & G4 - Designer's Corner
Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use. | Looking for technical support? Read this!

Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11-08-2007, 02:54 PM
0xdeadbeef 0xdeadbeef is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by inky00
I find it quite amazing that we are limited to only 20,000 poly's as i believe some of the models in AFPD can have as many as 100,000 poly's in them.Why can they use soo many more than us?is it because the physics modelling in AFPD is much less processor intensive and they can get away with it more?Its an interesting topic for sure.If we could up the poly limit to 30,000 surely it wouldn't affect the FPS to much if the physics are kept as simple as possible.I am trying to model a reasonably scale Apache AH-64 at the moment and i am going to struggle to get all the detail i want in it.Shame really but you cant have it all.
From what I can tell, G3 doesn't seem to be CPU limited on a descent CPU, but mainly GPU limited - especially on 3D fields or on 2D fields with lots of depth buffer objects. Dunno exactly why this is the case, but I would assume the lack of a proper depth ordering/optimization (Octree/Portals/whatever) could be the cause. So most probably lots of pixels and zbuffer entries are not drawn once (or a few times), but several time, which is crippling the performance.
In photofields, this is augmented by the way that the depth buffer is created. While most surfaces could be defined by a two dimensional shape (e.g. a room's wall), G3 offers only 3D objects. Often multiple objects have to be arranged to approach a certain shape. Thus creation and checking of the depth buffer is slowed down.

About AFPD: the stock planes always looked pretty low poly to me. Then again, AFPD has only very basic 3D fields and no multiplayer option (with more than two players) AFAIK. There are also no complex 3D trees and it doesn't feature self shadowing. Also I guess the depth buffer in the photofields is not so prone to overlapping as the approach used in G3. So having one or two aircraft(s) in a photofield with a relatively simple depth buffer should indeed be less of a GPU burden.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:53 PM.