Computer Resources To Work With

You can skip this.
OK, I’ve been working on a rather simple LOD script for use in the BGE. I would like to know what would be considered a rough estimate of what a typical(non-gaming/workstation) computer can handle with a decent frame rate in vertices. As in i want to know how many Vertices can be in a ground mesh where each needs to have collisions on too. Like i know my computer can handle ridiculous amount of non collision vertices but can’t handle nearly as many collision dependent vertices.

If you wouldn’t mind helping me by posting your computer specs and a rough estimate of the amount of non collision and collision based vertices that your computer can render with at least 30 fps.

For example my now deceased desktop:

  • Phenom 955 Quad core 2.2Ghz

  • 5Gb DDR2

  • Windows Vista 64x

  • ATI Radeon 5670 1GB DDR5

  • 0.5 million non-collision vertices

  • 3,000 collision based vertices

Not an amazing machine but it was decent. Now i would like to know the total range i have to work with in a game.

I’ll include a poll to if you don’t care to post your system specs. It’s data non the less and it can be useful to more than just me.

how do i get the estimation values so i post mine here?

Well, just to understand, you are looking for different values here, correct? One is how many faces a computer can render before dropping below 30 FPS (not doing anything else; purely on the Rasterizer), and the other is how many faces a computer can render as well as calculate physics on before dropping below 30 FPS.

For large poly-counts or large amounts of objects in a scene, using Display Lists can greatly speed up the rendering process, so that is what I will be using for my tests, as well. In addition, GLSL mode is more costly on the FPS than Multi-texture mode. I could go with GLSL mode for my tests, but seeing as everyone doesn’t have GLSL support, I’ll use Multi-texture mode for results focused on pure speed. Here are my results:

Multi-texture mode, Display Lists on:

Collision-less = 122,880 faces
Collision-enabled (static, default collision of Triangle Mesh (no collision bounds) ) = 122,880 faces

Collision didn’t eat anything up. Did you want rigid body instead?

Specs:

Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition
Sony VAIO Desktop PC
3.59 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM
EDIT: ATI Radeon X800 XT Graphics Card

I guess mine is 1,000 to 5,000 vert. before acting weird (go through object)

Spec:
P4 3.0HT
ATI 4650 1 GB DDR2
1 GB Ram DDR1

How I test:
Make a plane.
Make a monkey.
SubD the monkey up to desired vert count.
Monkey is soft object.
Drop monkey! §

Btw, I think its better to start something as optimized as possible.

I think a centralized testing blend would be a good idea, because mziskandar’s test is far more invasive than my own was.

Sorry i should have specified.

I meant a rigid body of some type. I suppose a a subdivided cube falling onto a plane would be fine.

the reason for both was collision taxes both the GPU and the CPU.

can i redo the poll? Or should i just start a new thread with a better setup and more thought out options?

The poll is pointless if there is no reference. Why not add some test blends so performance can be judged equally.

Oops, i voted wrongly, sorry!