How about performance?

Suggest features for upcoming versions

How about performance?

Postby Karnizero » 16 Nov 2008 01:23

I noticed this when using scrolling sectors + static (and/or dynamic) lights on version 1.29.
The game losses A LOT of frames per second. On my computer, the game runs at 30 FPS approx, but when looking at a scrolling floor sector with a number of lights, the frames down to 10 or 12.

This also occurs when using "Floor_LowerByValue ()", "Floor_LowerToNearest ()", and all those moving ceiling/floor functions with lights.

So, i'm asking Janis if he would enhance the engine performance for that kind of common effects, if possible, of course.
User avatar
Karnizero
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 27 Dec 2007 11:52
Location: Madrid - Spain

Re: How about performance?

Postby Alex-bomber_Man » 01 Dec 2008 13:16

oh yes, i know that problem too. actualy, it is caused by quake-style lighting engine. I've already written a pm to Janis with ideas how to optimize it. the problem is in covering ALL the map with lightmap, and when some geometry in light radius is changed, the engine rebuilds a large part of this lightmap in realtime. i think it would be better to cover the map with such a thing only in light radius, and to rebuild only a small part of it. Btw, it also slowdowns on large terrains. Anywas that is only my idea, may be im mistaking somewhere, so we have only to wait Janis's answer :)
User avatar
Alex-bomber_Man
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 18:41
Location: Ukraine

Re: How about performance?

Postby Janis Legzdinsh » 01 Dec 2008 18:02

It doesn't cover all map with lightmap, only surfaces that are lit by the light source.
User avatar
Janis Legzdinsh
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 08:30
Location: Limassol, Cyprus

Re: How about performance?

Postby Karnizero » 03 Dec 2008 21:14

Janis Legzdinsh wrote:It doesn't cover all map with lightmap, only surfaces that are lit by the light source.


This means you will take a look at this?
User avatar
Karnizero
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 27 Dec 2007 11:52
Location: Madrid - Spain

Re: How about performance?

Postby Alex-bomber_Man » 12 Dec 2008 09:14

Another aspect of vavoom that have to be optimized is it's starting process. I've tested vavoom 1.20 and 1.29 starting in gl mode for doom2.
1.20 = 3.7seconds
1.29 = 24.3 seconds
What is that time for? I think that's about decorated game classes. Janis, i dont know why did you moved all the basic classes to decorate, but, please, move them back to Vavoom C, make them binary code, it will save lots of time when starting vavoom.
User avatar
Alex-bomber_Man
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 18:41
Location: Ukraine

Re: How about performance?

Postby Crimson Wizard » 12 Dec 2008 12:05

Alex-bomber_Man wrote:Another aspect of vavoom that have to be optimized is it's starting process. I've tested vavoom 1.20 and 1.29 starting in gl mode for doom2.
1.20 = 3.7seconds
1.29 = 24.3 seconds
What is that time for? I think that's about decorated game classes. Janis, i dont know why did you moved all the basic classes to decorate, but, please, move them back to Vavoom C, make them binary code, it will save lots of time when starting vavoom.


It's rather because basepak.pk3 now include raw progs source, that is being compiled each time you run a game. This was already reported -
viewtopic.php?p=6875#p6875
This can be solved by replacing raw progs by compiled ones.
Crimson Wizard
 
Posts: 881
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 14:21
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: How about performance?

Postby Alex-bomber_Man » 15 Dec 2008 20:59

I've just said about that =)
User avatar
Alex-bomber_Man
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 18:41
Location: Ukraine

Re: How about performance?

Postby Karnizero » 16 Dec 2008 17:26

Alex-bomber_Man wrote:Another aspect of vavoom that have to be optimized is it's starting process. I've tested vavoom 1.20 and 1.29 starting in gl mode for doom2.
1.20 = 3.7seconds
1.29 = 24.3 seconds
What is that time for? I think that's about decorated game classes. Janis, i dont know why did you moved all the basic classes to decorate, but, please, move them back to Vavoom C, make them binary code, it will save lots of time when starting vavoom.


I second you.
I think until 1.26 the engine loads fast, but since we got all in Decorate or not compiled progs, testing our MODS or maps makes us to waste lot of time in load processes.
I really dont know why we have all source in Decorate, instead VavoomC.

Janis, please, set all back to VavoomC.
Because VavoomC is so nice, i think Vavoom worths it. :P
User avatar
Karnizero
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 27 Dec 2007 11:52
Location: Madrid - Spain

Re: How about performance?

Postby Crimson Wizard » 17 Dec 2008 11:50

Maybe make 2 variants of basepak.pk3, one with decorate and one without? Since both ways are supported.
Personally I do not care much though, because it runs not very slow for me even so.
Crimson Wizard
 
Posts: 881
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 14:21
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: How about performance?

Postby Firebrand » 17 Dec 2008 16:54

Besides, AFAIK it happens only when the game starts, not when every other map is loaded :).
User avatar
Firebrand
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: 11 Feb 2004 08:12
Location: Mexico

Re: How about performance?

Postby Alex-bomber_Man » 20 Dec 2008 17:14

But it makes me angry when each time i'm testing my project on vavoom, i need to wait over 30seconds! Thats too much. Bring back Vavoom C classes!!!!
User avatar
Alex-bomber_Man
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 18:41
Location: Ukraine

Re: How about performance?

Postby Crimson Wizard » 20 Dec 2008 18:22

Alex-bomber_Man wrote:But it makes me angry when each time i'm testing my project on vavoom, i need to wait over 30seconds! Thats too much. Bring back Vavoom C classes!!!!

The question is: does this happen when you use raw Vavoom C code in basepak.pk3 or when you put compiled dat files as well?
Crimson Wizard
 
Posts: 881
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 14:21
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: How about performance?

Postby Alex-bomber_Man » 21 Dec 2008 23:49

I can't say - i have none of them, only standard decorate basepaks =(
User avatar
Alex-bomber_Man
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 18:41
Location: Ukraine

Re: How about performance?

Postby Crimson Wizard » 22 Dec 2008 11:46

Alex-bomber_Man wrote:I can't say - i have none of them, only standard decorate basepaks =(

That's absolutely impossible, there should be core VavoomC progs in this or that form.
For example, check basev/common/basepak.pk3/progs/ - whatever folder there - /
Which files do you see? Are these *.vc files or *.dat files?
Crimson Wizard
 
Posts: 881
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 14:21
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: How about performance?

Postby Alex-bomber_Man » 24 Dec 2008 22:39

There are decorate txt files! in actors folder. Look it yourself.
User avatar
Alex-bomber_Man
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 18:41
Location: Ukraine

Next

Return to Feature suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron