Peter Hertel wrote:
> If you are going to
> use that camera angle, what about only parsing the trees in view?

Wow, that's a very neat idea.

I'm going to have to poke around some more and get a better idea of 
where the bottlenecks really are--most of the time seems to be spent 
actually parsing the meshes, and there's only two plant meshes in this 
scene (one tree and one bush).

Cranking down the number of leaves/branches per plant made most of the 
difference, but I hit a point of diminishing returns, and reduced the 
total number of trees to squeeze out that last bit of performance.

So, at this point I really don't know if eliminating off-screen meshes 
is going to help. Those mesh files are getting parsed anyway, and the 
overhead associated with large numbers of trees seems to come simply 
from the sheer number of rand() calls.

I'll play with your idea if I have time, but probably I'll just bite the 
bullet and accept one or two extra seconds of parse time per frame. :-)

> Wow.. I think this is my first post here since 2003 or something...

I hope that you'll post more in the future. :-)

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

With so many of even the larger [near-earth asteroids] remaining 
undiscovered, the most likely warning today would be zero -- the first 
indication of a collision would be the flash of light and the shaking of 
the ground as it hit.
     -- From http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/intro_faq.cfm, allaying the 
fears of the American public

Post a reply to this message