 | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Erik Olson
|
| | | (...) I tested the performance of, and saw a decent gain from flattening part geometry. (Perhaps 15% in BrickDraw3D for QuickDraw3D or OpenGL.) What this means is that when a part is prepared into a drawing list, it is not a list of calls to (...) (18 years ago, 7-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) Same here for LDView. LDView always flattens part geometry, and this seems to improve performance enough to be noticed. LDView does use a display list for each part, and a nested display list for each nesting level above that (as long as you (...) (18 years ago, 7-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, typically the multiplies that occur for different studs have the same rotation and scaling aspects, the only thing different is the position. So instead of repeating the multiplication on the original matrix, if the top left 3x3 values (...) (18 years ago, 7-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | (...) Actually on modern cards strips are always slower than optmized lists. You can always try adding degenerate triangles to stitch strips together to save the cost of multiple render calls (too bad PC cards don't support a primitive reset index). (...) (18 years ago, 8-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | (...) I found that performance went down somewhat when I copied and pre-translated all the studs too. I could be creating a memory cache penalty. Anyway it is only one matrix multiply per stud (stud is already flattened in itself), which goes onto (...) (18 years ago, 9-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) Okay... 15% speedup is substantial... that means that it's better to pre-transform the subfiles when generating the operations for the current file. I won't worry about the maximum depth any more then. (...) How does a renderer know which (...) (18 years ago, 7-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models? —Andrew Allan
|
| | | | The thread seems to be splitting from the original point, It is a fact that OpenGL generally places a depth of 16 on any transforms. If an LDRAW model in MPD format was presented to OpenGL as a raw data block I suspect that OpenGL would easily hit (...) (18 years ago, 8-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
