Great, so if I understand well, XP10 will be able to load “a little bit” more than XP9 …

Merci pour l’offre de Pizza, mais je les aime chaudes alors il va falloir la servir pronto !!

Right. In X-Plane, the textures are scalable using LOAD_CENTER, at least up to a point, but the mesh is pre-baked. So … you can throw a lot of texture res at X-Plane but you can’t throw a ton of mesh detail. We’ll grow the architecture to scale the mesh too, at least up to a point. (I think there are limits to the usefulness of high-res meshes, but there’s no question that the current limits are too low.)

Because FSX has separated mesh (raw data) from vector data, and made realtime tesselation, LOD etc… determined by the user in graphics options (the circle of LOD… distance). All things outside the circle is not loaded.. or with less details.

X-Plane has baked TILES, and ALL the 6 tiles must be loaded with FULL details.

I am playing with Condor scenery at this time, and there is the same system as FSX… no vector data, but raw “mesh” with little tiles draped over.

Sinon, tu veux une pizza, Mr Madine ? 😀

(I really can’t understand why FS – sorry, don’t bite .. lol- is able to have large orthoscenery with very accurate mesh … I think I have seen somewhere some 1.2m meshes !!!!)

I used three things to look at perf – sadly two of them I can’t share.
1. I have an app from another company that is covered by NDA. (But: it’s really just a very short program that does gl draw calls, so no magic there…it was useful to validate that X-Plane’s “real world” overhead was within reason.)
2. X-Plane itself…much easier done in XP10 with a few source modifications to check certain cases. (A build flag can be turned on that provides more hooks into rendering for this purpose.)
3. When X-Plane is set to ‘thrash’ memory, the transfers are visible via “driver monitor”, a tool that comes with Apple’s developer tools. You see “texture page-ons”, which really means “meshes or textures that need to be in VRAM.