meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | May 5 at 12:08 | |
| stats | profile views | 20 |
|
Feb 21 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Oct 21 |
accepted | What advantages does DirectX 11 have over DirectX 10? |
|
Oct 21 |
accepted | XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? |
|
Jun 20 |
asked | What advantages does DirectX 11 have over DirectX 10? |
|
Jun 19 |
asked | Problem loading shaders with slimdx |
|
Jun 13 |
accepted | Is it possible to index different vertex attributes with different index buffers? |
|
Jun 13 |
asked | Is it possible to index different vertex attributes with different index buffers? |
|
May 24 |
accepted | Minecraft style XNA game collision? |
|
May 24 |
comment |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? Really? Larger view distances look much better. youtube.com/watch?v=440YpjL54Y8 |
|
May 22 |
accepted | Geometry shader questions? |
|
May 20 |
comment |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? Yeah I did have that, my view distance is about 1.4km though from corner to corner and about 1km^2. |
|
May 20 |
asked | Geometry shader questions? |
|
May 8 |
comment |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? I store it in the vertex buffer as 4 bytes for the position. On the GPU it turns it into float4 when it draws it and turns the halfvector2 into float2 as the gpu doesn't support float16. But that's just the drawing isn't it? In the vertex buffer it just takes up 8 bytes per vertex. |
|
May 8 |
comment |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? I have a gtx 680 and it has 2gb of ram. There's about 1.86e7 vertices, and 2.79e7 indices when it works at 60fps, and 1.98e7 vertices and 2.97e7 indices when it lags like crazy. Each vertex is 8 bytes (byte4 for position and normals then halfvector2 for texture atlas coords). And each index is 4 bytes. (1.98e7*8+2.97e7*4) bytes in megabytes = 264.358521 megabytes. Copied from the above comment. |
|
May 8 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
May 8 |
comment |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? I have a gtx 680 and it has 2gb of ram. There's about 1.86e7 vertices, and 2.79e7 indices when it works at 60fps, and 1.98e7 vertices and 2.97e7 indices when it lags like crazy. Each vertex is 8 bytes (byte4 for position and normals then halfvector2 for texture atlas coords). And each index is 4 bytes. (1.98e7*8+2.97e7*4) bytes in megabytes = 264.358521 megabytes |
|
May 8 |
comment |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? I have 2 vertex buffers and 2 index buffers for each chunk, 1 for transparent materials and the other for normal ones. I added code to the original post. |
|
May 8 |
revised |
XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? added 2214 characters in body |
|
May 8 |
asked | XNA significant loss in fps by just adding a few hundred thousand more triangles? |
|
May 7 |
accepted | XNA game looks laggy below 100 fps? |
