Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: TrashMan on October 06, 2004, 02:35:22 am
-
Can it be turned off?
I have Athlon 1,9, 1GB DDR, 333Mhz, and GForce 4 Ti 4200 64Mb, and whenever a s hip with more than 10 textures entesr the screen, I experience slowdowns (Colossus is a kiler).
And all that is turned on is 32bit textures, jpg/tga, ship models in ship selection, glowmaps and nebula intersecting hulls....
-
turn off pcx32, first. Secondly, that's why HTL has map limits; the way many of the freespace ships are mapped is completely inappropriate for the way HTL deals with rendering. The colossus is a prime example.
-
Given that practiclly all Fs2 shps use many textures, HT&L was not such a good idea (well, not unless you re-texture all FS ships...)
Thnx for the headz-up
-
Except that since HT&L FS2 has run much faster for me, even because of that.
-
Yeah, AFAIK even with the map limit changes HT&L should still be an order of magnitude quicker than regular.... I guess the only exception would be if you were using a ridiculous amount of maps.
-
if you're running slow in HT&L mode it means one of two things:
A) Your video card is a piece of **** [but we know this already]
B) you have too many cpu/gpu-sucking features turned on
-
C) a combination od A and B
-
Kazan, you realize that a year and half ago GF 4200 != piece of crap?
-
also, the SCP was designed specifically for newer computers. >1 ghz at least.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan, you realize that a year and half ago GF 4200 != piece of crap?
But a year and a half in human terms translates to over 20 or so computer years.....
-
Still, the game should run.
And TrashMan, see if -nohtl still works, or use all the stuff you use now with retail/extremely old build. Look at the difference in framerates.
(Try to get glowmaps in retail.......)
-
My machine has less Mhz, less RAM and an even slower graphics card (Radeon 8500 LE) - and the game runs flawlessly with all features activated. You haven't, by accident, activated AA/AF in your graphics card setup or the launcher? Just a guess, that's the point where it gets sluggish for me.
Otherwise : aim for background processes. Virus checker, filesharing, whatever. Some tools virtually drain a system.
-
One thing I probably have mentioned before. This might be related. Whenever a Hatshepsut appears, my framerates drop by no less than 15 or so FPS. Am I the only one with that issue?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan, you realize that a year and half ago GF 4200 != piece of crap?
anything from nVidia was never not a piece of ****
-
Turning off HT&L must be one of the most stupid things to do.
a) Stuff will definately NOT work properly anymore (skyboxes for instance, hi-poly models, etc. etc.)
b) Your game will be INCREDIBLY much slower (to a really unplayable extent)
Well, with the specs you posted it shouldn't be that bad; the GeForce doesn't cut it of course. Get a clean system (i.e. no background **** running and recently installed) and turn off the most video memory intensive features (-pcx32 out of the ones you named).
You may also want to check the SCP content you're running with.
-
Considering the fact that Athlons start at a cpu speed of 800 mhz, I believe Trash man has a 1.9ghz cpu qwith a 333mhz BUS. he also has a TI Geforce card which is QUITE superior to a Geforce 4 MX. Those specs are more than enough to run SCP with HT&L quite well.
Many of the new texture enhancements for SCP are made with JPG's, TGA's, and PCX32 formats. Those formats, in my opinion, are memory hoggers (well perhaps not pcx32, but I'll do some benchmarks with it soon).
I've been insisting this for a while now that DDS textures be used for ALL textures considering the performance gains it produces. One of the computers I use is a 2.56ghz P4 with a Geforce4 MX. I did a test with Lightspped's new multi-nebula textures which use a TGA format and got a framerate of 25-40 FPS. I converted it to a DDS format and my FPS jumped to 60-120 FPS. Would you call that a performace nudge for the better?
I'm willing to reformat ALL enhanced textures (glowmaps/shinemaps/other) textures to a DDS format.
Note the following screencaps took away 5 fps from the TGA and 15fps from the DDS when I pressed the "printscreen" button.
TGA:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/TGA.jpg)
DDS:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/DDS.jpg)
-
Do it! :D
Wait, do I need to do anything special (command line?) to run DDS textures?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
anything from nVidia was never not a piece of ****
*cough* GeForceFX anyone ? :lol:
-
Trashman, are you using Lightspeed's new shinemaps with that Colossus? I'm trying to do a benchmark comparing DDS vs TGA with multitexture FS2 ships.
-
Somehow I doubt Kaz was saying that when the GF2 was on top of the heap.
-
As I suspected.... the same results for the Colossus. The stock PCX 256 color textures perform much slower than the DDR 24bit RGB version.
PCX:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/TGACol.jpg)
DDS:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/DDSCol.jpg)
"Prt Scr" button took 6 fps from the DDS picture and 4 from the PCX.
So all in all, this shows a 50 percent increase in performance.
-
Omniscaper: MY EYES!!! they burn!
use 8-bit or down-size them. EVERYthing, but DDS! It's just too horrible to look at, and even at your relatively high JPG compression the artifacts are just too horrible to look at.
If you want to optimize, optimize. There's several ways to achieve that. DDS is the worst of them.
-edit: As for the thrusters, there's a MUCH more efficient way to save memory with them, without any visual quality loss. I could probably release a fixed version in a day or two if it's that much of an issue to people. It'd cut down the memory usage even more than using DDS, while looking indistinguishably similar (as opposed to DDS' horribly artifacted uglieness).
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Trashman, are you using Lightspeed's new shinemaps with that Colossus? I'm trying to do a benchmark comparing DDS vs TGA with multitexture FS2 ships.
There are no new shinemaps from me for the colossus. Just thought i'd mention that ;)
-
LOL, Lightspeed. I understand and agree with your position with DDS in reguard to colo gradiations. I'm just giving advice to folks with mid to low end computers to get boost with their aging systems.
Just remember DDS was specifically designed for Direct-X. So expect better performance.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Somehow I doubt Kaz was saying that when the GF2 was on top of the heap.
i've always said that nVidia chips are PIECES OF ****
FPS is not a total measure of 'quality'
-
There's ways to do it without completely killing people's eyes.
-
No new Colossus texture? That's okay, Lightspeed. The texture-releases kind of make you an infallible god.
*sacrifices heathens
-
Lightspeed, your prejudice against DDS never ceases to amaze me. You truly are a perfectionistic artist. And thats not necessarily a bad thing when you have an uber computer.
I use DDS when running on this aging 2.56ghz P4 with Geforce4 MX. When using my home Xeon 2.6ghz with Radeon 9500 pro (still no shine maps... DAMN YOU ATI) I use your flawless TGA's.
-
There will be, but as of yet there isn't. I just like how people
a) think their slowdowns come from my stuff when absolutely nothing new is in there (i.e. collossus textures)
b) still think TGA are used in my releases :D
and wehey, due to the current situation, I have changed my signature!
First linky is a comparison chart of different (including memory saving) ways to store files, with the artifacting of each format ,etc, clearly shown.
Second linky is there to find your optimal file format for individual effects, choose from four candidates and read up your ideal file format :)
-edit: check the linkies, Omniscaper. You shall see. It's just not an option for backgrounds and/or effects. Besides, all my shine1.5 textures are DDS (why? simple. Most textures do NOT use smooth gradients, but are "chaotic" enough to not cause TOO many artifacts. Also, the larger the texture, the less intense the DDS artifacts will turn out. DDS is good for really really large ship textures.)
-
Whoa!!!! What program are you using to create dds? ASomething's amiss. My own comparison results are not that drastic.
-
They are. Heck, I can even see it through that heavy JPG compression on your nebula screenshots.
The only way to save DDS without those problems is saving them uncompressed, which in turn, makes them the same as TGA.
-
OUCH!!!
Don't post those Colossus shots again!!
and not because of dds artifacts, but because that model is TOOO horrible, it makes me sick:)
Holy **** it was a long I did not see that ship and I didn't remember she was so damn crap:)
-
You cant see DDS artifacts on the collossus image anyway. The thrusters are too far away, artifacts get killed due to JPG compression, and he "conveniently" doesn't have the nearer and larger rear thrusters in the screen on the DDS version.
-
Are you accusingh me of something.... let me repost FAIR screenshots then.
Lightspeed, I didn't mean my previously posted picture comparisons. I got Photoshop running right now and did my own comparisons and they are not that drastic. Can you send my your uncompressed comparison chart?
-
I haven't even checked for artifacts since I was already shocked enough by the brick in the middle of the screen:D
-
Karma! Stop it!
Lightspeed, I understand you're desire to maintain a certain quality level, but DDS is the only way forward Either that or stick with 256-color PCXs.
-
Pictures updated and results the same. I just realized that the Colossus still uses stock PCX textures and have changed the caption accordingly. I will now make TGA versions of the PCX. I put the thruster glows out of the picture because it kills this Geforce4 MX no matter what format. I guess there are just too many textures for this POS card.
I think this is an unexpected win for DDS. They out perform STOCK textures which run in 256 colors.
BUT BACK TO TOPIC!!!!
Didn't mean to turn this into a DDS VS TGA skirmish. (but the war aint over Lightspeed ;))
Trashman, as you can see, the Colossus kills fps because of high number of textures and thruster maps. DDS helps performance in reguard to its own textures. Like Lightspeed said, DDS works well with a ship such as this. It also works well as PCX replacement.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Lightspeed, I didn't mean my previously posted picture comparisons. I got Photoshop running right now and did my own comparisons and they are not that drastic. Can you send my your uncompressed comparison chart?
I can send you the uncompressed TGA & DDS graphics, if you want. And yes, I use Photoshop as well.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Pictures updated and results the same. I just realized that the Colossus still uses stock PCX textures and have changed the caption accordingly. I will now make TGA versions of the PCX. I put the thruster glows out of the picture because it kills this Geforce4 MX no matter what format. I guess there are just too many textures for this POS card.
I think this is an unexpected win for DDS. They out perform STOCK textures which run in 256 colors.
BUT BACK TO TOPIC!!!!
Didn't mean to turn this into a DDS VS TGA skirmish. (but the war aint over Lightspeed ;))
Trashman, as you can see, the Colossus kills fps because of high number of textures and thruster maps. DDS helps performance in reguard to its own textures. Like Lightspeed said, DDS works well with a ship such as this. It also works well as PCX replacement.
He doesn't outright deny DDS its own right, instead he states that DDS is not capable of properly storing color gradients, which are abundant in effects and some background images.
Instead DDS he suggest TGA for those - and prooves that it IS possible to make them useably small.
However he himself uses DDS for ship textures since they are chaotic enough to use the format.
I really apreciate your effort to bring the old textures up speed. However some ships are really problematic, like the Hatsepsuth, and the Collusus you took under your scapel. Though baking/uw-ing some of those ships could help a lot - though Bobbau's latest Orion remake makes me wonder wheter that is possible.
-
::SIGH::
I am merely trying to help Trashman get better performance with the Colossus in particular. DDS and TGA have their good points. TGA for quality, DDS for performance.
I am not attacking Lightspeed for using TGA's which I use myself. I was merely using his nebulas as an example of a heavy TGA use scenario. If I had a lousy rig, and FSO was unplayable because of his TGA usage, I would recommend people to use DDS so they can still see his hard work though in a lesser quality. The suggestion is not a personal attack on Lightspeed. EVERYONE with dated hardware must sacrifice quality for performance. Its a balance issue that will always be there. I doubt Lightspeed would want people with low end rigs to avoid his work altogether because their hardware can't handle it. I'm merely suggesting some form of compromise.
Am I biased for DDS, yes. Do I agree with Lightspeed's assesment of DDS failings, yes. DDS suck at subtle gradiations, and compression techniques, but they are excellent in improving performance, ESPECIALLY large textures ranging from 1024x1024 to 4096x4096.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
One thing I probably have mentioned before. This might be related. Whenever a Hatshepsut appears, my framerates drop by no less than 15 or so FPS. Am I the only one with that issue?
nope, happens to me too..
And just for your information, I'm never running any background processes. Hate those things...
DDS textures? Do it Omni!
Shinemaps? Hmm.. I did downlaod onyl a few, none was for Colossus, but I re-instaled FS2...Now, come to think of it, I didn't delete the Maps directory... But I don't recall my ships being shinemaped in-game...
And allso just for the record, the slowdown isn't that cathastrophich or that common. Game runs rather well most of the time at max details. But that sez nothing, since I played Far Cry wiht no slowdowns....
-
TrashMan, as per your problem. Is this a recent development, or have you always had these performance drops?
If it is recent, there is a slim chance that you might be experiencing a problem I had some time ago. Early this year, I had my main WinME OS fail on me. My girlfriend's brother repaired it for me and replaced my os with Win98SE. After that, FSO performance seemed half of what it had been. For months I played this cripled FSO until I discovered by accident that he never installed my VIA AGP drivers. My GF2MX 32MB AGP card had been behaving like a PCI card all those months. I installed the AGP drivers (but had to drop back from 4X to 1X to avoid some crashing and texture problems) and FSO hummed like a finely tuned engine... though I was running without shinemaps to save performance. Now I run with an R9600XT and a beefed up system core, so I'm laughing... most of the time.
Later!
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I am not attacking Lightspeed for using TGA's which I use myself. I was merely using his nebulas as an example of a heavy TGA use scenario. If I had a lousy rig, and FSO was unplayable because of his TGA usage, I would recommend people to use DDS so they can still see his hard work though in a lesser quality. The suggestion is not a personal attack on Lightspeed. EVERYONE with dated hardware must sacrifice quality for performance. Its a balance issue that will always be there. I doubt Lightspeed would want people with low end rigs to avoid his work altogether because their hardware can't handle it. I'm merely suggesting some form of compromise.
Am I biased for DDS, yes. Do I agree with Lightspeed's assesment of DDS failings, yes. DDS suck at subtle gradiations, and compression techniques, but they are excellent in improving performance, ESPECIALLY large textures ranging from 1024x1024 to 4096x4096.
8-bit PCX is better than DDS. However, if you use "-pcx32" it consumes the same amout as a TGA file. Another option is to use downscaled TGA versions. BOTH of those suggestions are substinentially better than DDS.
-
To each his own. :p
-
lightspeed is why FSO can eat up to 300megabytes
-
Originally posted by Kazan
lightspeed is why FSO can eat up to 300megabytes
I tried enabling the "show-stats" or whatever flag, and it said I only had 144MB out of 516MB of RAM free. I have nothing whatsoever running in the background.
Is that FSO eating up nearly 400MB of RAM?! Yup. It sure is.
I have -JPGTGA and -GLOW and -SPEC.
Turn off -JPGTGA, and I only gain 3 MB of RAM. TGA files aren't that bad, and I don't see how I could live without Lightspeed's thruster glows.
-
Of course Lightspeed is also why it doesn't use well over 380Meg as it has done in the past even without the memory leaks. Concsious beautification, that works for me.
Originally posted by Blitzerland
I tried enabling the "show-stats" or whatever flag, and it said I only had 144MB out of 516MB of RAM free. I have nothing whatsoever running in the background.
Nothing except Windows itself and a constantly resizing memory cache. Before running the game open up task manager (assuming it's 2000 or XP) and look at the physical memory free. While running the game subtract that previous number from what it lists as used and that would be a more accurate count. It's still probably going to be in the 280-300 meg range though.