nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Performance between different versions of Palladio

biaozeng

Hello, during the use process, I found that there is a significant performance difference between Palladio version 1.7 and version 2.0. I opened the same file to test the build speed, and their information is shown in the following figure. Is it possible to obtain the performance of version 1.7 on the new version

企业微信截图_20230829092154.png 企业微信截图_20230829092213.png 企业微信截图_20230829092609.png

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

SimonHaegler

Regarding performance, I did some initial tests (25 buildings with ~20mio polygons):

Palladio 1.7 in Houdini 18.0: 6.1s
Palladio 2.0 in Houdini 19.5: 5.8s

So we cannot yet see worse perf in Palladio 2.0.

Would you mind sharing some of your scene parameters, for example:

How many initial shapes do you have?
How complex are your rules, e.g. how many attributes do you have?
Do you use inter-occlusion (between models)?
How many assets do the rules insert?
How many textures do you use?

Ideally, if you could share an example scene where you see the perf difference would be best!

Thanks & best,
Simon

SimonHaegler

I'm not completely sure I understand your requirements for the location of the RPK file.

Here is what I meant by using $HIP:

1. Create project with rpk subdir

Screenshot 2023-08-31 102722.png

2. Copy your RPKs into it:

Screenshot 2023-08-31 103419.png

3. Assuming you store your hip files in the project root, you can then reference the RPKs with the $HIP variable:

Screenshot 2023-08-31 103326.png

I hope this helps!

biaozeng

In order to use path variability, I used attribute nodes myself to replace the pldAssign node, but its height did not take effect

All comments

biaozeng

I usually use them to generate hundreds of thousands of buildings, but my previous conclusions may not be rigorous. After using them for these days, I have discovered some differences between 1.7 and 2.0. Perhaps I will still use the latest version, which is consistent with our team's version. In the future, I will post new feedback on this forum to communicate with everyone. Thank you for developing this plugin

SimonHaegler

Regarding performance, I did some initial tests (25 buildings with ~20mio polygons):

Palladio 1.7 in Houdini 18.0: 6.1s
Palladio 2.0 in Houdini 19.5: 5.8s

So we cannot yet see worse perf in Palladio 2.0.

Would you mind sharing some of your scene parameters, for example:

How many initial shapes do you have?
How complex are your rules, e.g. how many attributes do you have?
Do you use inter-occlusion (between models)?
How many assets do the rules insert?
How many textures do you use?

Ideally, if you could share an example scene where you see the perf difference would be best!

Thanks & best,
Simon

biaozeng

In order to use path variability, I used attribute nodes myself to replace the pldAssign node, but its height did not take effect

SimonHaegler

Thanks for the info - we will try to reproduce the changes you saw.

Regarding RPK path: we recommend to use a Houdini project, create an RPK directory in there and then use the $HIP variable to reference the RPK relative to the Houdini scene. I hope that works for you.

biaozeng

帕拉迪奥-2.0.0+B6-HDN19-5-640.PRT3-0-8905.win10-VC1427-x86_64-rel-opt.zip

帕拉迪奥-1.7.0+B199-HDN18-0-460.PRT2-1-5704.win10-VC141-x86_64-rel-opt.zip

I am using these two versions
Additionally, I have a question about whether the RPK file can be locked on the node because if the path where the RPK is stored changes, it will no longer work

SimonHaegler

Thanks for the report!

Regarding performance: with which Houdini version did you do the comparison? Did you build Palladio yourself?

Regarding attributes: just to be sure, you say that the original initial shape attributes are not passed through anymore?

biaozeng

I noticed that there is a significant difference in the attributes they convey on the original object. In 1.7, simply check Re mit set CGA attributes to transfer the attributes, while in 2.0, you need to create the same name attribute that needs to be exported in the rules and then check Re mit set CGA attributes

Join the Conversation

Signed in members can post, follow updates, and more. New here? Register a free account.

Quick Links

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.