Irrlicht is optimized for demanding scenes, not a bunch of boxes. Drop in skeletal animated models, real stencil shadows (Ooops! Not possible in GE), post process shaders (Bloom, motion blur. Oh… wait) while rendering a properly culled scene. Blender will probably freeze and crash, where as Irrlicht will produce a definitly acceptable framerate.
I’m sorry but its seems that blender don’t does better but If I remember well blender is far to be an next gen engine. Moreover most of the comercial game are using shader and stuff even old game like doom 3 or hl2. So I don’t think using an engine as irrlicht would draw away people as you said ( it’s not an next game engien as unigine or S2)
Yes, it is true that other game engines can run skeletal animations and a few other features faster than BGE, but I was referring to running polys in general. It is also obvious that blender is not a next generation engine. It doesn’t have all those nice features like real stencil shadows, post process shaders, the list goes on…
about the physics engine they all run smoothly this example try it and tell how many you have with 200 entities in blender and then on irrilicht
Yea, I agree on the physics. Other game engines can run large amounts of physics enabled objects better than blender.
I don’t know how old is your computer but even a 3 years old laptop can handle irrlitch with 100 000 poly with 20- 30 fps I made the test.
Well, my computer is about 4 years old but it can only run about 60,000 polys at 7 fps.
By the way, the irrlicht physics demo was really cool with all those real-time shadows. It ran about 8 fps on my computer. But than again, the demo you gave me runs off of DirectX, not OpenGL.
it(panda) is about 2 times slower.
I was not lying. The python tutorial with that panda in the woods scene, for example, runs about 20 fps on my computer. I know that blender could render a similar scene faster than that… unless I’m missing something important.
- Irrlicht is always set up to render complex scenes. These scenes are not comparable ontop of that. Irrlicht is set up to run well with real-time stencil shadows, and post process shaders (motion blur, bloom) with proper culling. Blender can not do these, so you couldn’t even render a nice Irrlicht scene in Blender! Blender gets 0 FPS, and Irrlicht gets upwards of 60 on a average machine.
- Culling! I’m almost certain you didn’t properly set up culling in Irrlicht. To my knowledge, Blender GE doesn’t currently have culling. Load the same scene in Irrlicht (Export it), and turn on culling. It’ll only draw the Polygons that are in view giving probably a good 50% FPS boost. That is using Irrlicht the way it’s meant to be used. No one cares if Blender is faster and rendering without Culling, since there’s no reason to not turn it on in Irrlicht.
- There’s a 1 FPS difference. This doesn’t mean it’s a 7:8 ratio, it’s just one fps. This doesn’t scale!
- You have both of them running at the same time, I’d say Blender is hogging most of the resources leaving much less for Irrlicht.
Well first, I can’t even get more than 8 fps on the demo black reaper gave me. Getting 60 fps would be impossible (atleast on my computer).
Second, the culling was used on the irrlicht game, and culling is also used in blender games too. When I look away from the high poly scene in Irrlicht, the frame rate increases. The same also happens in the blender game displayed above.
Third - yes, the ratio will change based on the amount of polys features used and/or computer. I just showed the results of my computer.
Last, I did think about this. When I changed the window to irrlicht instead of blender the frame rate stayed the same. The blender game was not hogging the resources. I’ll upload an image in a moment if you don’t believe me.