Targets.INI and frame rates question

[+quack74 329]

Would it be better on the frame rates if there were fewer [TargetAreaxxx] with more Targets(xxx) attached to them or more [TargetAreaxxx] with less Targets(xxx) attached? Is it harder to process one or the other?

 

[+Soulfreak 6,485]

That doesn´t count.

What counts is the number of objects, their texture size & lod size.

[ignacioc91 101]

It is the concentration of targets in an area that counts. A target area that is too crowded will have an effect on the frame rate when flying over it. 

[+Florian 394]

The Buechel airbase i´m currently working on, has about 50 buildings (tower, shelters, hangars), 1200 lights (taxiway lights, streetlamps) and 450 trees.

Most of the stuff is built into a single LOD file. For that reason i will end with just 140 target entries, but with (i guess) almost 400.000 Polygons to render.

Surprisingly the base runs pretty smooth, even on my old and outdated rig. Most important point is, the strict use of JPG instead of BMP and of course, the lights and trees just need 2 Texture files!

So the biggest hit on frame rates are textures, i guess.

[Streakfalcon 57]

so jpegs are easier on a system than bitmaps?

[+Florian 394]

For sure! An 2048*2048 BMP File has 12 MB, while the same texture in JPG only uses 0,5 MB!

[SFP1Ace 33]

For sure! An 2048*2048 BMP File has 12 MB, while the same texture in JPG only uses 0,5 MB!

 It uses less space on the hard drive, but decompresses to exact same size in Video Card's memory. You only saving the disk space, nothing more.