Patch #600 - Scene Compositor

Dec 20, 2007 at 3:07 AM
Patch 600 has been uploaded, containing a preliminary version of the scene compositor. Please review and comment, especially on the design.

Sturm, I had to comment out the message-loop code for now. The GCs were dropping my framerate from over 1000 to about 30 after 10 seconds.
Coordinator
Dec 20, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Edited Dec 20, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I won't have a chance to get the project in front of me until Friday night, can someone else do a review/commit for Shaw? Thank you in advance.
Jan 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM
So... can I commit this?
Coordinator
Jan 5, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I wish I had the time to review your stuff Shaw. But if there are no objections then I'd say go ahead.
Jan 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Is the message-loop bug fixed?
Jan 5, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Yeah, Sturm's patch fixed that.
Jan 9, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Alright, I just went ahead and committed this. I also stretched logo.dds to 512x128 with no mip maps, so there shouldn't be any compatibility issues there anymore.
Jan 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Naughty Naughty Shaw, you reintroduced the message pool bug :p

So now the engine is locked. Go fix it or I tell LordIkon :)
Jan 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM
How? I committed the patch against the latest source tree, which already had the message pool bug fix.
Jan 10, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I don't know how, but compare QSGame.cs for Change Set 8905 (right) and 8989 (wrong) and you'll see the difference.
Jan 10, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Damnit, cpc can kiss my ass! Apparently instead of real patches it just creates full copies of the changed files and overwrites the originals.
Jan 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Alright, I think I sorted it out.
Jan 10, 2008 at 6:43 AM
It seems to work now, when overviewing the terrain my framerate drops to about 60 fps, specs:
OS: Windows Vista (32 bit)
CPU: Core2 2.1 GHz
Ram: 2Gb
Gfx: ATI FireGL V5200

If I change the resolution to 1600*1200 I get as low at 25 fps.

---

With regards to the cpc issue, I think the biggest problem here is simply the naming if they had called it makepack then there wouldn't be this confusion. You are just spoiled using tools which packs differences and not whole files :)
Jan 10, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Interesting, I would expect more from that card. Do you have 256 MB of VRAM? I wonder if we're using more than that and causing your card to page data in every frame.


With regards to the cpc issue, I think the biggest problem here is simply the naming if they had called it makepack then there wouldn't be this confusion. You are just spoiled using tools which packs differences and not whole files :)


Yeah, that's true, but I wouldn't call it being spoiled. I'm used to tools following the traditional meaning of "patch." Invalidating patches across change sets isn't my idea of functionality. It seems like its impossible to have multiple patches applied to a source tree if there are any files modified by both patches. cpc doesn't even give you the option to merge the patches files, it just overwrites them. That's truly unfortunate.
Coordinator
Jan 11, 2008 at 6:35 AM
Edited Jan 11, 2008 at 6:40 AM
I get as low as 80fps at 1600x1200. Of course, that isn't really a problem to me, there isn't a single game I run at that high of a resolution. The highest I run games on my card is at 1440x900. At that resolution I average 110fps. And at our current default of 1024x768 I get 300fps.

I may be a good idea to raise our default to make sure we're testing a more common resolution for performance. Of course, any developer knows they can allow multiple resolutions so that older cards can run at lower resolutions.

Additionally Sturm, the detail of the terrain is still at medium. It could be lowered to low for older cards. Running 1600x1200 with the terrain detail on low raised my fps from 80 to around 125 on average. The farplane of the camera frustum could also be brought in, which will increase the chance of quad-tree sections being culled from view, but this depends on the developer, and if they want to use fog or not so that you can't see all the way to the farplane.
Jan 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM
This just shows that we need a reference system and a minimum bar we want to have for the engine. LordIkon can you set this, and then put it up on the homepage,or link to it?
Coordinator
Jan 11, 2008 at 9:40 PM
The minimum specs are somewhat tough to determine. I would say we pick the oldest NVidia and ATi cards we recommend. CPU is more difficult. We can't list a minimum clock speed because today's chips may run twice as fast as a Pentium4, at half the clock speed. We could say something like, "for AMD chips, we recommend an Athlon XP 1600+ or newer, and for Intel chips, we recommend a Pentium 4 2.0ghz or newer." We can also determine a minimum RAM, something like 512mb.

Some of this is truly up to the developer. We could list our recommendations to the developer, and they can choose whatever they want, but at least we told them.
Jan 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Sure there might be different requirement depending on the game implemented. But there should be a min bar for the engine. This will help people determine if they will use our engine or not.

What does the engine require just to provide the absolute min bar for a game, i.e. a map size of 256x256, a simple existing low poly MD2 model (something from polycount or similar site), a building, and environmental effects (maybe water as well?) and keep that running in 800x600 @ 60Hz

We might later want to define some specific performance scenarios, and try them on different machine layouts just to provide others with some possible performance values.