motorsep

I was thinking about making 2-layer skybox (skybox inside of a skybox), where 1st layer (closest to player so to speak) would have mountains and whatnot, and the sky will be transparent, and the 2nd layer (behind the first one, farthest from player) would have clouds and I would scroll it. Is it something possible to do out of the box? Any idea how material with transparent parts of the skybox would look like? Is there any way to blend/transition one skybox into another? Like day skybox into night skybox ? Thanks!

Why no screenshots? o.O

Fun fact - renaming our engine to Wolf2MP.exe yields 1 fps in the menu o.O Rage.exe boosts fps a bit. That's Doom 3 BFG based, not Doom 3 based engine.

Seems like Wolf2MP is the best bet right now. No Quake 4 MP profile ?

Oh, cos on YouTube videos Wolf2MP looks like WolfET How much is performance better with that one ? What about Brink profile or Quake 4 MP (seems like Quake 4 MP would be closer to id Tech 4 than anything else)?

Why not to try Brink, Wolfenstein 2009 MP, Quake 4 MP and see if any of those have even better optimizations ? (since all of those id Tech 4 based)

Ouch :/ @Bikerdude: Do you think you can explain to AMD about 13.1 atioglxx.dll performance boost ? (if you can tell them about BFG engine, maybe it will give them better clues, since TDM doesn't have break down on timing for various subsystems)

Same in a sense as "poor as it used it be" ?

So, any news on this issue? I would imagine AMD engineers should really be able to pinpoint the issue knowing that 13.1 works and current driver doesn't.

I can't wait for this game to come out!!! Putting on my wishlist!

Nah, I don't have light-gem in my game.I thought you moved something on GPU (particles or something else). Since SteveL suggested to moved something on GPU, I began to wonder how you made rain. Cos if it's particles, moving particles to GPU isn't trivial task. And if you made rain with some other technique, not with particles, I would like to know how it's implemented

So I have two questions - how do you do rain in TDM and how did you fix this performance issue? (I use particle systems for my rain)

that may be.. I figured maybe he could just warn us about hiatus Btw, there is Trenchbroom 2.0 (still raw) which has new arch and can support Doom 3 / TDM mapping. The author now accepts third party commits, so if you feel strong, might want to add support for Doom 3 into Trenchbroom.

Install different driver maybe? It's funny that even on Blender, you don't go around making devs to spend time and make it work on obsolete hardware - you buy new hardware than can handle Blender. Even switch OS if you have to. I am not even talking about Unreal Engine 4, Unity, Maya, etc.

I figured I should ask, since github repo hasn't gotten any updates for the past month, and 2.0.3 was never finalized to be a release build.

Simple workaround - install Windows 7 64bit and be happy.

I doubt Phoronix has any weight in this matter. He has been bashing AMD for ages, and nothing has changed on the OpenGL front.

So anyhow, I wonder what now?

It only works for pre-R9 GPUs

This is insane o.O

Ok, does anyone want to hear a crazy story? (Not an April fools' joke). I just got an e-mail from my buddy with AMD 7850. I asked him to drop atioglxx.dll from 13.1 Win8.1 32bit driver next to our game's .exe and run the test. His GPU timing was 21.1ms in the test case. With 13.1 atioglxx.dll being dropped next to .exe brought GPU timing to 7ms !!!!! o.O WTF AMD?!?!?! So now we'd need to figure out why rendering backend chokes driver, and perhaps that would be a solution for Win7/8 users (or maybe even Win10). You might want to try this with TDM.

Interesting results. I had performance issues on NV with shadow maps in my engine (RBDoom 3 has really screwed up shadow map, performance wise), but Nvidia fixed the driver and performance is smooth now. However, one of my team mates has exactly the same AMD GPU as you do, on Windows 8.1 64bit, and he gets like 18 fps with or without shadowmaps, where I get stable 60fps :/ Thanks for testing.

Thanks! https://github.com/RobertBeckebans/RBDOOM-3-BFG/releases

Does anyone here, with AMD R7/R9, have Doom 3 BFG ? Can you test it please with RBDoom 3 BFG and see if it performs at stable 60 fps ?

My games runs extremely well on Nvidia, very decently on Intel (for Intel) and horribly on AMD. It's not the content, it's the driver or engine or both. But now that I see AAA games running poorly on brand new AMD cards, I can see it's more driver than anything else. I can only support one line of AMD, as it's not feasible to me to spend $1000 to buy several GPUs and have our programmer debug each GPU with every new driver version. Note that HD4000 and around that are not supported in the new drivers. So any improvements made in recent drivers require gamer to purchase new GPU. So why support old junk? I couldn't even find more recent cards online. Either out of stock, or cost as much as R9. Maybe it's a good strategy for free 100% FOSS games to support every piece of hardware out there, but for indies it is not. Indie business implies less money spend on development, because it's hard to even break even nowadays. So going with Nvidia/Intel and ditching AMD (at least for release time) only means losing 28% of market. Potentially someone who wouldn't even play my game. Although 28% is sizable, it's not critical at this point. I wish 40fps was the case. I wouldn't even raise the subject. But it's 60fps on NV vs 18fps on AMD (about equal hardware specs). The worse this is the AMD market is so fragmented, it's not even funny. Steam stats show more mobile AMD GPUs than desktop being used. I can't afford to buy a laptop just to get a hold of AMD 8800 for example :/ I wish there were aggregated stats showing how many desktop systems use AMD, and what are the most popular GPUs are out there. Based on Steam stats R7 and R9 are the model lines that have most users with AMD. The bad thing about R9 is that 280X and 285 are supposedly vastly different models (architecture wise; so I'd have to buy both to make sure R9 line fully tested and supported, if it's even possible) :/ No AMD support means if it doesn't run well, then I told you so in the minimum specs - no strings attached. If I say AMD is supported, then I will be facing unsatisfied AMD users who I can not help. I am still hoping to get to the bottom of performance issues to eliminate engine from the equation.