Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

The mission has low fps. Searching for a solution.


Gadavre

Recommended Posts

Maybe some team members will join discussion ( @Dragofer, @kingsal ) and share their opinion.

In the worst instance of the issue (which I posted as screenshot), there are about 17 x 3 ~= 55 models at same location.
Maybe the author of the model did not anticipate such "massive" usage.

The fact that leaves are alpha-tested quads which overlap each other does not help, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New important information

This information may be unpleasant for developers, but I can not remain silent....

I tested this mission in game versions 2.07 and 2.09

This mission version works with high good fps  in the game version 2.07. ddaazzaa is a professional  mapper and a very kind person.  May God grant him health and long life!  Now anyone can play his mission if he has weak hardware, but in version 2.07

 

 

In version 2.09, low fps in this mission. We, Players, would like to see this   perfomance issue resolved in version 2.10

Developers, you are the best! I am sure that you will succeed!

Edited by Gadavre
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gadavre said:

I tested this mission in game versions 2.07 and 2.09

This mission version works with high good fps  in the game version 2.07.

Which scene do you test?

What is the difference in FPS numbers exactly?
Note that you can use "getviewpos" / "setviewpos" console commands to get into same position across several launches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stgatilov said:

Which scene do you test?

What is the difference in FPS numbers exactly?
Note that you can use "getviewpos" / "setviewpos" console commands to get into same position across several launches.

 

tested the   exterior territory of the castle

Yes, I use " getviewpos"

In version 2.07   59 - 60 fps

in version 2.09, the lowest fps is  14-15

blackgrove_15.jpg

blackgrove_15_2.jpg

Edited by Gadavre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, stgatilov said:

I tried on TDM 2.07, this FM does not start at all.

@Gadavre, are you sure you used version 2.07?
If you open game console, you will see the four-digit revision number in its bottom-right corner.
Please tell me what you see on the version which is supposedly 2.07.

TDM 2.07/64 #8079

ddaazzaa made a new version with compatibility for 2.07

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i5XHI_CGqrVRLtT1LRLe4cjBaaLgkQ0u/view?usp=sharing

Edited by Gadavre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stgatilov said:

Maybe some team members will join discussion ( @Dragofer, @kingsal ) and share their opinion.

My take would be that it may be worth combining models by selecting them and exporting them with DR's model exporter in order to reduce the number of draw calls. Especially the architecture modules, since each piece has a lot of materials that need to be drawn.

If a light hits any part of such a combined model, the whole model will be rendered again. So you need to be careful how you merge models that are around lights.

Combining LOD-enabled is a little trickier since you'd need to export the lower-detail models as groups, too, and update the LOD spawnargs.

For the hedges, it'd be good if someone made a medium detail stage. Could open a thread in the art assets forum, yes.

Generally speaking you can figure out what's dragging down your FPS by temporarily deleting certain pieces, i.e. the architecture modules. That'd show what things may be worth optimising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dragofer said:

My take would be that it may be worth combining models by selecting them and exporting them with DR's model exporter in order to reduce the number of draw calls. Especially the architecture modules, since each piece has a lot of materials that need to be drawn.

It won't help with the problematic model: 50 models is not many, it is 250K triangles which is too many

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cabalistic said:

If that's true even with `r_useNewBackend 0`, then the most obvious candidates would either be changes to the model/materials itself in-between those versions, or changes in culling behaviour on the frontend. How does 2.08 perform?

As far as I remember, 2.08 is as slow as 2.09.
New/old backend does not make any difference.
r_showPrimivites shows the same numbers in 2.07 and SVN, so I don't think culling is involved.

I have created issue: 5598
Also extracted an almost minimum test map, it is already in SVN (and attached to issue too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this might get a little more complicated.

2.07:

blackgrove_noragdoll_2021-04-27_18_08_55.thumb.jpg.25982dfc2975f4a2f97d3b50a9c0fec0.jpg

2.09:

blackgrove_noragdoll_2021-04-27_18_00_05.thumb.jpg.8df13e14d3b207b616f0178ea2fc941a.jpg

@GadavreI know this is probably not your intention, but your posts often read as if you accuse everyone around here of doing a bad job. But as you can see, issues are typically a little more complicated than they may appear at first sight. We do definitely strive to improve the mod, not make it worse. But we are only a handful of hobbyists working on the project in our spare time. We don't have the resources of commercial studios to test everything on every possible system. Just something to keep in mind :)

That being said, the profiling on my system is pretty clear: GPU time is approximately similar, but 2.07/2.08 are CPU bound due to draw call inefficiency. 2.09 focussed on improving that part specifically, and so the framerate improves quite a bit. Obviously, these improvements do not help if you are GPU bound, but there's also nothing here that would suggest that 2.09 should perform that much worse.

I'll try and test on a weaker GPU to see if I can reproduce the issue there. You might also try and update your drivers and system, if there are updates available. Just in case...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, stgatilov said:

As far as I remember, 2.08 is as slow as 2.09.
New/old backend does not make any difference.
r_showPrimivites shows the same numbers in 2.07 and SVN, so I don't think culling is involved.

I have created issue: 5598
Also extracted an almost minimum test map, it is already in SVN (and attached to issue too).

Off the top of my head - VBO ends up in the system RAM?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, cabalistic said:

That being said, the profiling on my system is pretty clear: GPU time is approximately similar, but 2.07/2.08 are CPU bound due to draw call inefficiency.

I suggest going to bugtracker for technical details.

I have Ryzen 1600 and GeForce 1050ti, and for me the difference is pretty clear.
Perhaps we should recheck with default configs on both versions, just to be sure...
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cabalistic  I have no doubt, that version 2.09 is better, superior to version 2.07 in some way....  You've done a great job.  Almost now there are no such free game projects in the world as this one.  your contribution to the development of the game is very significant.... And the project continues to develop...

But I'm asking you very much. Do not make new versions of this game available only for owners of powerful gaming computers. You can always leave ability  of playing with the performance as in 2.07. For those who wish it

 

P.S.

But it's up to you, the developers, to decide . The choice is yours. I will accept any choice you make. As a last resort, I will use version 2.07

Edited by Gadavre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gadavre said:

Do not make new versions of this game available only for owners of powerful gaming computers. You can always leave ability  of playing with the performance as in 2.07.

This is what I mean. You seem to think that's our goal, or simply a matter of choice. It is not. But we simply can't test on every possible hardware, we have neither the time nor the resources. The changes in 2.09 are designed to benefit more powerful hardware, yes, but they are not designed to make weaker hardware worse (except really old hardware, perhaps). And in general, they don't. This is a particular case, and we'll have to figure out why. And reporting performance regressions is very much appreciated. Just leave the analysis and assumptions to us ;)

Btw, I did a brief test on my work laptop with a 1050 Ti. Performance does drop slightly in @stgatilov's scene, from about 200 fps to 180. So there is a regression, but it's nowhere near your magnitude. I haven't been able to analyse it further, because nSight for some reason refuses to access performance counters on the Laptop, will have to figure that out first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nbohr1more said:

Are we doing a true apples to apples comparison ( 32-bit color on 2.08 / 2.09 )?
Both compared with shadow map vs shadow map ?

I tried to set 32-bit color, tried to disable tonemap, tried old backend --- made no difference for me.

I used stencil shadows, because 1) that's default, and 2) they are softer to GPU.
Anyway, this scene has no lights except ambient and no shadows.

I have posted my results in the issue.
It seems that rendering cost on GPU has doubled for me.
The only thing which comes to my mind is VertexCache changes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R550/64b: 100 vs. 60 fps, seemingly limited by backend/gpu

Afterburner reports lower VRAM usage by SVN vs. 2.07: about 1010 vs 1080MB. But I'm not sure how the texture compression changes affect this. Is there any way nSight can tell where the VBO is located?

Retested with uncompressed textures:

image.png.d47c2dca8f69ddc454645de949cbe642.pngimage.png.5d905fac5fd58a737a26ea39c544c115.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Are you sure that antialiasing is set the same for both? Are you sure that you haven't changed settings for each executable in your graphics control panel differently?

In 2.07 running 4xAA was doable with not that much performance penalty.

In 2.09 running 4xAA would cause an almost 4x decrease in performance, at least that's what I've experienced.

  • Like 1

I always assumed I'd taste like boot leather.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • The Black Arrow

      Hey @nbohr1morehow come the zombies in The Dark Mod don't have a "resurrection" mechanic to it, similar to how Thief has it?
      They're quite a weak creature as of right now, it's merely a walking corpse that slashes you, making attacking them to kill them an actual strategy.
      Would be better if they had some cool mechanism to it that truly makes them a danger, such as the resurrection idea itself.
      · 2 replies
    • Ansome

      Query: when was the last time a zombie in a video game was unnerving or scary to you? I'm chipping away at my anniversary submission and I've been trying to gather opinions on the subject. I'm perfectly capable of lighting them well, changing their sfx, and creating effective ambience, but I'm worried that zombies at their core are just too overdone to be an effective payoff to the tension I'm creating.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      The Lieutenant 3 is out! Congrats Frost_Salamander! ( raising awareness )
      · 2 replies
    • OrbWeaver

      Has anyone had any luck with textures from Polyhaven? Their OpenEXR normal maps seem too washed out and give incorrect shading in the engine.
      · 5 replies
    • datiswous

      I tried to upscale the TDM logo video. First try:

      briefing_video.mp4 You can test it ingame by making a copy of the core tdm_gui.mtr and place it in your-tdm-root/materials/ , then edit line 249 of that file into the location where you placed the new briefing.mp4 file.
      What I did was I extracted all the image files, then used Upscayl to upscale the images using General photo (Real-Esrgan) upscale setting and then turn it back into a video.
      I might have to crop it a bit, the logo looks smaller on screen (or maybe it's actually better this way?). My video editor turned it into a 16:9 video, which I think overal looks better than 1:1 video of original.
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...