Hi,
my 2 cents from a 3D-interested (not yet experienced) user:
1. doing GIS-stuff on a notebook, no matter how performant it is, for me
is a PITA.
Clumsy keyboards, overpriced hardware. GIS-work without a large or 2
screens is useless -> so whats the point of a mobile computer then?
2. Had a 10
Hi Hannes
the two ridiculously expensive and high-end graphics cards mentioned by
> Luke sound like complete overkill. Surely reading and preparing the geodata
> for 3D display (from data providers, via storage, on the CPU?) would be the
> bigger performance/usability issue of the 3D views, right
I just noticed this thread. For what it's worth, many of my users are
running QGIS on virtual machines. I don't advertise the QGIS 3D
capabilities because it performs badly in the VM environment or not at all.
Even on my personal laptop which is a fast machine with a decent video
card, but does not
Hi all,
the two ridiculously expensive and high-end graphics cards mentioned by
Luke sound like complete overkill. Surely reading and preparing the
geodata for 3D display (from data providers, via storage, on the CPU?)
would be the bigger performance/usability issue of the 3D views, right?
I
Hey Luke
Low end graphics cards should work fine as well. If your coworker could not
run 3D on his laptop, it could have been some other problem - it would be
good to have more details (hardware spec, operating system, in what way
things did not work) so that we can fix such issues. For example, m
Hi Luke,
The higher end card should indeed give you better performance.
However, there is a hard coded limit in QGIS 3D at the moment. A 3D
scene cannot load more than 500 Mo of 3D objects even if you video card
has a lot of available memory when the 3D scene is created.
The idea is to avoid o
