BulletEngine - Githubissues

voxelinc / voxellancer

A Game about Voxels in Space

http://voxellancer.chrdw.de

14 stars 2 forks source link

BulletEngine #579

Open mrzzzrm opened 10 years ago

mrzzzrm commented 10 years ago

Depends on #563 #568 Fixes #414

Code still needs cleanup and doc, maybe Line::intersects() can be optimised, but here it is: the BulletEngine

Bullets of one kind are handled by the BulletEngine, if they have general.instanced=true
The BulletEngine draws Bullets of one kind instanced. That means more rendering performance and almost no overhead (which was quite significant for me) creating those bullets.
InstancedBullets are moved much more efficient, using just one Line-WorldTreeQuery per frame

Please test it and report back. Expect significant improvements in the F2 battle, but there are still perfproblems with splitdetection and in VoxelRenderData::updateBuffer() (when using the homebase)

mrzzzrm commented 10 years ago

I added documentation and removed the WIP. Architecture stuff will happen with #542 and Line-intersection at some later point.

psieg commented 10 years ago

generally looking good. couldn't enjoy the performance because I'm on laptop on battery this is going to be fun to merge with transparency...

mrzzzrm commented 10 years ago

Beside the naming of the WorldElementBuilder, anything else?

gersseba commented 10 years ago

I agree with the renaming, voxelobject sounds good. Runs smooth on my machine, code looks fine :shipit: after renaming. But I think this is a major change so maybe wait for a second shipit

mrzzzrm commented 10 years ago

Did the renaming ;)

psieg commented 10 years ago

weren't we about to de-singletonize the world to allow sectors? because there is an awful lot of World::instance() in this diff.

mrzzzrm commented 10 years ago

I don't think the de-singletonizing was for this PR. I have a pretty complete branch (that misses some other things) for sectors where World::instance() is gone, though

psieg commented 10 years ago

is there a PR for that? If both should be merged... In order to not have the trouble when merging, maybe this feature should already be built without needing that lateron. Just a suggestion

mrzzzrm commented 10 years ago

I made this mergeable again and looked over the code once more. I would probably solve it more generically today, but I think it is fine as it is. What do you think, one more shipit?