Just a quick one to say thanks for the fps stuff gents. I'm busy this weekend, but will come back to this with a proper answer shortly.
---------- Post added 09-07-12 at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was 08-07-12 at 19:01 ----------
Okay, so lets address this fps stuff:
I can't say I agree. Even decent / top range computers are somewhat struggling with AU.
Unfortunately that's not true. My rig runs AU in excess of 70-100 fps even with a ton of XR fleet vessels added. Tech-wise my rig is actually about a year old, although quite new to me: Intel(R) Core i5-2500k @ 3.6GHZ, 8GB RAM, GeForce GTX 580, Win7.
If AU was the only base of its type in existence, it'd be ok, but if you're hoping the AU technology becomes standard for base making, then we have a problem... pun not intended...
This is a valid point, but I think it's important to remember that not all bases need be as complex as AU wrt meshes and textures. I warrant the code over-head is not the issue, the polys, textures and transparencies are. Therefore, multiple bases are only a problem if all bases are as detailed as AU. And then, it's only a problem for less up-to-date pcs tbh. I stated from the start of AU dev that some users may struggle with the gfx demand, and although I have tried to be as efficient as possible, I don't intend to change that. But that does not undermine the concept of multiple bases using the code tools. It just undermines the ability for some users to have all the pretty bells and whistles, unfortunately. Also bear in mind that LoD options will enable people to reduce the demand in exchange for less detail. This will also allow us to isolate exactly which elements cause the most demand: meshes, textures, transparencies, code, beacons etc etc..
I have some crude data:
Starting off with the default beta scenario ...snip... even though none of the other four bases are in view.
Thanks for that detail. It makes me want to ask the following question, to all of you: What fps do you normally get/expect from Orbiter on average, and how does AU compare with that?
I also try to spawn multiply AU bases around the globe.
With 5 Au bases it stabilize at 36 FPS.
My PC specs:
Intel core 2 duo E 4400 at 2 ghz.
2 GB RAM
nVidia 9600 GT with 512 GDR 3 ram.
Thanks for the numbers. 36 fps with that rig would be pretty good right?
I done several experiments with the standard AU base.
With this "full house" my frame rate does not drop significantly.
And the best news is there is no CTD at all.
Good news. It's interesting to see that extra vessels had no impact on fps. It would seem that AU is playable for you then?
Also, it is worth noting that I think nearly all users will experience a prettier and smoother experience in the dx9 client, as the dx7 engine has limits as you all know. Admittedly it is not compatible atm, but worth bearing in mind for the future I think.
Would it be possible to add cargo storage/management for the hangars, similar to woo482's UCGO warehouse, but controlled by TowerMFD?
I'm not that familiar with woo's addon, but the TA crane will offer cargo management options. Are you asking for the ability to spawn cargos directly into the hangar? or?