Skip to main content
GameDev.net gamedev.net
🔒 Locked

SSlllooowwwww :(

Started by kieren_j Jan 2, 2001 at 4:24 AM 7 replies 600+ views
Original Post
kieren_j
kieren_j
The new engine (XTerminate Terrain Engine) runs about 50 times slower than the older one. On average, it takes about 5 minutes to load (minimum options, just hangs around after all loading stages). Then about every 2 minutes in the main loop, I get a frame! Why is this? I know my specs are awful (see below), but the last engine was loads faster. Pentium 166 MMX 48MB Ram 400MB free swapfile-drive space NVIDIA TNT2 (PCI)
tcs
tcs
The new engine is faster, much faster. The lighting calculation takes more cycles...

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
Tim--------------------------glvelocity.gamedev.netwww.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
Julio
Julio
For some reason the text doesn''t display, but the engine noticeably runs smoother.
p800
128 Meg RAM
GeForce 256 32 Meg

HHSDrum@yahoo.com www.polarisoft.n3.net
My HomepageSome shoot to kill, others shoot to mame. I say clear the chamber and let the lord decide. - Reno 911
tcs
tcs
Some stats:

The engine loads in 14 seconds on my first system and in under 10 on my second (with all options turned on and the biggest heightmap that is included in the demo). Don''t tell me that is slow ! Even with the lighting calculations, it''s still faste than the first demo. The demo pushed well over 500K Tri/s on a GeForceDDR card at a resolution of 1280x960 while having all options turned on, I don''t think that this is slow. Under ten seconds on a good system, maybe five on a 1Ghz...

I guess you people that say the engine runs slower are horrible at math ;-) The first demo had 74x74x2=10K polys and ran at 24FPS on a GeForce DDR and with well over 40FPS on a GF2 which means that it pushed 240K Tri/s. A heightmap in the new demo with 178x178x2=63K polys runs at 8FPS on the same system. This means the K Tri/s is now 504... This is more than TWICE the polycount. So you want to tell me that this is slower ???

I never noticed any of the font artifacts people keep reporting, I would say that is a problem with the W98/95/ME drivers. I had lots of problems with black/white textures on thise OS when using large amounts of textures. Windows 2000 has problems with big textures, my two Windows 2000 geforce systems can''t display 2048 textures. Driver bugs ;-)

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
Tim--------------------------glvelocity.gamedev.netwww.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
zedzeek
zedzeek
i think it runs slower cause its a lot more memory intensive. using the standard map used 140mb memory on my computer (which only has 64mb listen to the harddisk scream hehe i thought it was gonna explode ).
nice to see the option dialog at the start tim, allowing ppl not to run in full screen and other stuff. what u could do is add an option ''texture detail'' which is what ive done also quake3 and UT do it as well.
todo this when u load in a texture eg skybox top default size 512x512. run it through a filter eg gluScaleImage(..) which will scale it down depending on what option the user has choosen eg
best (1x1) 512x512
OK (1/2x1/2) 256x256
worst(quickest) (1/4x1/4) 128x128.
on certain ppls machines this''ll make a huge difference. eg the skybox as it stands now is about 4.5mb memory just for the textures, which on a 8/16mb video is a sizeable chunk of memory just for the skybox alone.
btw the terrain looks great

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux
tcs
tcs
The old demo also used those amounts of textures, the only difference is that this demo is more optimized and has large landscapes, on EVERY system configuration it is faster, but it appears to be slower because the new terrains use MUCH more polygons ;-)

The demo should use about 25MB of video RAM (Buffers & Textures), so it runs well on the target systems. And that''s GeForce & Radeon... But you are right, the skybox textures take up more RAM than a 1024x1024 landscape texture ;-) Maybe I should scale them. I have build in fast scaling code, so I could even do it myself...

The problem is just that people are bad at math ;-) Just because you get lower FPS it doesn''t mean that the engine is slower ;-)


Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
Tim--------------------------glvelocity.gamedev.netwww.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
zedzeek
zedzeek
true if i use the old heightmap of 74x74 its about 50% quicker on my machine than the old version.

74x74 map (old version) == 7 fps on my computer
178x178 map (new version) == 0.001 fps (no shit )

to get an accurate speed difference u have to use the same map on both version''s

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux
tcs
tcs
OK, in extreme cases like your computer this might be true. I won''t even try to use MS Word on 64MB ;-) And a GeForce Radeon card with 32MB Video is also neccessary to run the demo, so this should explain why it is so slow on your system. But the new demo is faster on any system that meet the minimum requirements.

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity
Tim--------------------------glvelocity.gamedev.netwww.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.

Sign in to reply to this topic.