Mmmmm... few quick tests as I was just coding the beast... with "flip false" and FPS counter from here:
http://www.blitzbasic.co.nz/codearcs/codearcs.php?code=237
...I get ~740 frames per second with my nebula/starfield bg object - which has 116 triangles in total and one 2048*2048 map (nebula) and one 256*256 map (starfield).
This using GF7800GTX and "Graphics3D 1024,768,0,2".
If I take the bg object away I get ~1460 frames per second... so it did drop to half but it also draws maybe 3-4 times more pixels on screen.
But if the speed is enough good in the end it does not matter... and you can't do a space game using black background - it looks so dull! :) Luckily there's not that much other stuff in the space so I think that you can safely use skybox there.
[edit]
Fullscreen FPS: with nebula/starfield 986, without 2115. So it seems to be consistent at least, and fullscreen is always faster than windowed, I think.
[edit]
And these both were "debug on" - Duh! :)
http://www.blitzbasic.co.nz/codearcs/codearcs.php?code=237
...I get ~740 frames per second with my nebula/starfield bg object - which has 116 triangles in total and one 2048*2048 map (nebula) and one 256*256 map (starfield).
This using GF7800GTX and "Graphics3D 1024,768,0,2".
If I take the bg object away I get ~1460 frames per second... so it did drop to half but it also draws maybe 3-4 times more pixels on screen.
But if the speed is enough good in the end it does not matter... and you can't do a space game using black background - it looks so dull! :) Luckily there's not that much other stuff in the space so I think that you can safely use skybox there.
[edit]
Fullscreen FPS: with nebula/starfield 986, without 2115. So it seems to be consistent at least, and fullscreen is always faster than windowed, I think.
[edit]
And these both were "debug on" - Duh! :)