[Papervision3D] Optimizing performance: anything else I can do?

[Alan Pinstein]

> Evidence :
> http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/06/mip-map-what.html

Ralph-

I appreciate the link. However, I read that article long ago (it's a  
good one!) and implemented mipmap friendly images. This has greatly  
improved performance and quality (it reduces artifacts) when the  
viewport is scaled down.

However, my problem is not with performance when things are scaled  
down. I am interested in improving full-screen performance, and as  
previously indicated, due to the nature of our application, mipmapping  
is not useful at full screen.

Additionally, that link says absolutely nothing about L2 caches having  
anything to do with mipmapping. Clearly mipmapping can work entirely  
in "userland" and don't need to take advantage of processor tricks for  
them to yield benefit (though perhaps L2 cache locality could play a  
role, I am not sure).

Alan

>
> Ralph.
>
> On May 9, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Alan Pinstein wrote:
>
>>> Flash stores those textures (power of 2 textyres) in the l2 cache  
>>> so they are faster to retrieve.  If you use  
>>> BitmapMaterial.MIP_MAPPING = true (or whatever the command is)  
>>> then it should do it for you automatically.  It is not mip-mapping  
>>> in the typical meaning of 3d.   I think this is only done up to a  
>>> certain texture size, but i'm not sure what it is.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this? I have searched the web and the  
>> Adobe site for information on this and find none. I don't mean to  
>> be skeptical, but I find that often online people give advice that  
>> is unfounded in reality and after wasting many hours previously  
>> chasing ghosts I now require references before I fully believe  
>> these things.
>>
>> Have you got code, links, presentations etc where you learned this  
>> information?
>>
>> Besides, my images are ~34MB in memory which clearly won't fit in  
>> an L2 cache. Even if I change this to 512x512 textures these are  
>> still 1MB in memory. My machine has only 4MB of L2 cache and could  
>> only keep 4 of these, which covers only 1024x1024 pixels. On a  
>> 1900x1200 screen, it would seem that cache thrashing alone would  
>> make this approach useless in helping performance. (These are kinda  
>> rough guess calculations, so please tell me if I am making any  
>> incorrect assumptions).
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Papervision3D mailing list
>> Papervision3D at osflash.org
>> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/papervision3d_osflash.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Papervision3D mailing list
> Papervision3D at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/papervision3d_osflash.org