Comments on: Performance of Panel Texture vs. 3-d Cockpit https:/2010/07/performance-of-panel-texture-vs-3-d-cockpit/ Developer resources for the X-Plane flight simulator Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:01:07 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: Guy https:/2010/07/performance-of-panel-texture-vs-3-d-cockpit/#comment-331 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:07:10 +0000 http://www.x-plane.com/dev_blog/?p=59#comment-331 I wholeheartedly support what Ben recommends: during development of my own project (DH-106 Comet 4c) I started off using the Plane Maker panel for the cockpit instruments, then changed so that each instrument was modelled in 3D. Flags, pointers, needles, and even flashing annunciators became part of the object animation. In spite of a huge rise in polygons, I saw a net gain of +6.0 FPS.
Of course, I must still use the Plane Maker panel for the radar scope – aircraft with glass cockpits must rely on it even more – but for classic aircraft with analogue gauges, I find object modelled instruments look fantastic, and work much faster.

Guy.

]]> By: Jack Skieczius https:/2010/07/performance-of-panel-texture-vs-3-d-cockpit/#comment-332 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:38:20 +0000 http://www.x-plane.com/dev_blog/?p=59#comment-332 Thank you for this.

I know i will be balancing things a lot in my Q400. There will be a 2048×2048 2d/3d panel texture region, but. hoping it was not a mistake, but i will surely find out.
dose it make a difference if your 2d panel is "very" simple. dose x-plane still think about the 2d panel when you are in the 3d cockpit?

I also noticed, while i am thinking about it. the base EFIS maps don't scale up properly. Or rather the small icons and lettering that show the various way-points and nav aids do not scale based on how large you make the texture as in other base instruments that come with x-plane.

thats all i got.
love the blog.

]]>