Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Bug Reports / Why is DBP v1.06 10fps faster than v1.063+ ?

Author
Message
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 9th Mar 2007 02:10 Edited at: 10th Mar 2007 13:52
Why is DBP v1.06 10fps (25%) faster than v1.063+ ? I used the exact same code, just compiled it in both versions.

Some others have noticed it too in these threads...
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=100899&b=1
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=101671&b=1

Here are some screenshots for proof...


http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
Olby
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 10th Mar 2007 00:44 Edited at: 10th Mar 2007 00:45
Someone told me that TGC was bought by M$ and now they are rapidly slowing down DBPro to meet rest of slow products line. Well okay I am joking.

My guess is that the problem is hiding in the fact that the latest DBPro version u6.5 and probably u6.3 also uses slightly newer version of DX9.0c than u6.0 and thus there maybe were introduced some new slowdowns.

AMD Sempron 3.1+ Ghz, 512MB Ram, ATI R9550 256MB Ram, Sound Blaster Live!, WinXP SP2, DirectX 9.0c, DBPro 6.5
http://www.myspace.com/producerolby
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 10th Mar 2007 12:09 Edited at: 10th Mar 2007 14:02
I'm pretty sure 6.0 required DX9.0c too.

In my test I used the exact same code, the exact same PC spec, and the exact same Direct X.

For anyone who doesn't believe it, all i can say is... try it yourself! I too was sceptical unil I tested it

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 10th Mar 2007 14:36
Important info for anyone else testing this..

Be careful because if you click Launch.exe it will always load the latest version no matter which directory it was run from!

You have to run Editor.exe to get the different versions loaded.

It's always best to double check in help too just to make sure it says the right version number

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 10th Mar 2007 16:32
I didn't support this initially - but my latest test reported on the following thread suggests there is indeed a problem when many objects are shown or present:

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=101671&b=1
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 10th Mar 2007 17:27
I just did some tests on a new project with 40 animated objects (cloned then instanced) and there was no speed difference between 6.0 and 6.3.

It's wierd. Maybe it is because I have 500-4000 objects in my main project.

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
KuRiX
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2007
Location:
Posted: 11th Mar 2007 01:10 Edited at: 11th Mar 2007 01:24
Someone said that this problem is due to frustum culling.

To notice this problem, you need to have objects behind the camera, or really far. In 6.0, they are not rendered, in 6.3+, they are.

Or this is what i read...

Just try this code:



In v 1.06, when the second sphere goes down, the poly count goes from 620 to 310.

In v 1.065, the poly count remains at 620.

So, in my game, where i use three cameras, all the objects get rendered by the three, so, with 1.06 i gain more than 100 FPS.

No pain, no gain.
Miguel Melo
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2005
Location:
Posted: 11th Mar 2007 17:59
Ouch.

I have vague plans for World Domination
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 11:24
I think if some people want no culling and some people do want auto culling then maybe it should be an option in the Exe Settings window to keep everyone happy.

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
KuRiX
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 12:07 Edited at: 12th Mar 2007 12:07
Why don't you want culling?. Why do you need objects that are not on the camera view to be rendered?.

Anyway, if the culling has been always no, why deactivate now?.

This is a bug that must be fixed asap.

Cheers.

No pain, no gain.
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 12:28 Edited at: 12th Mar 2007 12:31
My results from Lees test

Version Fps.. Init Free
....6.0 30-59 2703 18,844
....6.3 12..... 2765 18,625
....6.5 12..... 2406 10,875

Setup and Delete objects has improved with 6.5 but Fps/culling is still a major issue.

@Kurix, I'm happy with using the standard culling, but I heard some people asked to handle this themselfs and maybe thats why Lee left it out. If so an on/off option is needed and I'd probably default to on (for those who don't know its an option)

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
Olby
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 16:29
For god sake cant they just add a simple SET AUTO CULLING mode command?

AMD Sempron 3.1+ Ghz, 512MB Ram, ATI R9550 256MB Ram, Sound Blaster Live!, WinXP SP2, DirectX 9.0c, DBPro 6.5
http://www.myspace.com/producerolby
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 16:57
Quote: "For god sake cant they just add a simple SET AUTO CULLING mode command?"


They still need to sort out the problem though. What's the point of adding extra complexity without resolving what appears to be a bug first?
Roxas
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2005
Location: http://forum.thegamecreators.com
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 20:00
I think they removed for while.. The culling system was actually crap if you ask me.. It only increased by 10 fps and it did only hide few polygons when it should hide lots of more polygons.. I have tested my game and i keep my sight on polygons and max amount what it have hided was 200 polygons and there was over 2000 polygons(if we dont count terrain) out of the camera.. And it doesnt cull terrain SO PLEASE TGC BRING BACK THE OLD CULLING SYSTEM OR IMPROVE IT PLEASE (need for terrains for sure ) !!!



GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 12th Mar 2007 22:51 Edited at: 12th Mar 2007 22:52
Would be nice if they culled by limbs so we didn't have to worry about chopping up big levels and we could just use a standard 3D program to build worlds.

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
KuRiX
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Mar 2007 12:15 Edited at: 14th Mar 2007 12:15
Has TGC confirmed this? are they going to fix it?

Regards.

No pain, no gain.
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 15th Mar 2007 02:32
Yeah, Lee seems to be looking at it. Frames per secoond is kinda important for a game programming language

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
Freddix
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Sep 2002
Location: France
Posted: 23rd Mar 2007 18:13
I experience smaller frame rate too ....
With Upgrade 6.2c and older I get Higher frame rate and on 6.3c lower frame rate !!!!

It's more significant on X-quad Editor.
when I load the map of the game demo "Treasure Hunter" with Upgrades 6.2 it run at 60~70 fps and with upgrades 6.3+ it run at 18~19 fps !!!

What the hell !!!

Gandalf said: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Odyssey-Creators - X-Quad Editor - 3DMapEditor
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 23rd Mar 2007 18:35
Quote: "and with upgrades 6.3+ it run at 18~19 fps !!!"


Including U6.6? It should have resolved some slow running and closedown problems.
Freddix
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Sep 2002
Location: France
Posted: 23rd Mar 2007 19:09
with U6.5 and U6.6 I expericne some crashes I'll have to turn off all shaders I use to test.

Gandalf said: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Odyssey-Creators - X-Quad Editor - 3DMapEditor
Freddix
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Sep 2002
Location: France
Posted: 23rd Mar 2007 19:39
I made some tests with X4 and U6.6 ...
X4 Work again very well :p Even with Evolved Fresnel water shader active and X4 games run again faster

Gandalf said: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Odyssey-Creators - X-Quad Editor - 3DMapEditor
KuRiX
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2007
Location:
Posted: 24th Mar 2007 02:27
Yes, i can now confirm that they have fixed the clipping issue, so i am using 1.066 now and it goes well.

No pain, no gain.
GatorHex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 9th Apr 2007 22:19 Edited at: 9th Apr 2007 22:19
Yes 1.066 works good for me too, thank you!



http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-08-08 19:44:11
Your offset time is: 2025-08-08 19:44:11