"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:rgl### [at] tritonimagicode...
|
| Why not try it out?
|

OK, tried it out.

My first idea, a separate mesh for each texture, was a failure. One mesh
with 2500 vertices, 250 textures, and 1500 face and texture indices had
a peak memory usage of 608,867. A group of 250 meshes, each with 10
vertices and 6 face indices had a peak memory usage of 698,799. The mesh
without textures used 337,203 and the texture definitions used and
additional 144,640 for a total of 481,843. So, one big mesh used 127,024
for texture lists and indices, and the group of small meshes used (for
the purposes of the test) 216,956, more than 70% more!!

Removing normals did help a little, although I was surprised that the
number of entries in the normal_indices had *no* effect. The number of
entries in the normal_vectors did. The above mesh with a normal defined
for each vertex used 367,203 bytes. The mesh with onlt 1500 normal
vectors used 355,203.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message