[Lightspeed]

Okay, you're trying to fix the current version of SCP before implementing new things. Thats good, and this is something you should look into.

Lately I have noticed worse and worse performance in FS2open. I thought it was due to all the cool 32bit stuff etc I had implemented into my game. But the 11_18_2003 build was soo slow that I wondered if my comp would really be that slow.

I asked about that -line thing since nobody seems to know the command line, so I could find out _what_ was causing that performance drain... Today, I made some tests...

Testing exes:

- The latest FS2_open exe (18_11_2003)
- The first exe to feature 32bit textures

In the second one, HT&L is still fairly buggy, the lighting flickers, sometimes glows seem misaligned etc. The first one has flawless visual quality.

Testing Missions:

- Clash of the Titans II, the FS2 main campaign
- To Parts Unknown, Technical Superiority

Test Conditions:

Using -htl, -t32, and -fps in both builds. The files in my data folder are exactly the same, and theyre all supported by both builds. Framerate maxima and average are in battle situations.

System Specs:

Intel P4 2400 MHz, 800 MHz FSB
512 MB DDR400 Ram, dual channeled
HIS Radeon 9800, 128 MB
Asus P4C800 Deluxe

Test Results:

The old build:

Clash of the Titans II
Maximum Framerate: 70 (thats maximum, V_sync)
Minimum Framerate: 63
Average Framerate: 69

To Parts Unknown
Maximum Framerate: 70
Minimum Framerate: 50
Average Framerate: 65

The new build:

Clash of the Titans II
Maximum Framerate: 47
Minimum Framerate: 20
Average Framerate: 27

To Parts Unknown
Maximum Framerate: 36
Minimum Framerate: 17
Average Framerate: 20

- something in the newer builds is messed up. If someone can give me the lines command line I can post up a screenshots of the lines to hopefully show whats wrong.

Please fix this, if possible. HT&L was soooo good frame-rate-wise

[Bobboau]

were the builds that were fast useing the old effect rendering code, ie were thruster glows showing through ships?

[Lightspeed]

no they do not show through ships. However, they tend to flicker.

[Starks]

I've noticed that too...

PIII Coppermine 733 MHz 133 MHz FSB
160 MB SDRAM
Chaintech GeForce FX 5200 128 MB PCI
Intel CA810E Motherboard

[Jonathan_S47]

I have also noticed a performance loss with my system. (P3 500, 512MB of RAM, TNT2 32 MB) It seems to have something to do with Direct3D 8.

[deep_eyes]

My system is a:

Celeron 400MHZ
526 SDRAM
64meg DDR RAM - RAEDON 7500 w/tv out (most features of the 9500)
Tyan Dual Motherboard (soon to have a ghz....!)

.....................

before i had a TNT2 and most fs2 open features worked (lagged).

Now they all work, but lagg is less, but i need a newer CPU to possibly compensate for the HT+L features, or just anti-alliasing in general. standard fs2_open3.5 works decent on normal. I suggest 900hmz P3 as the standard (not minimum...)

[Aggressor_Squad]

Same with my system:

Celeron 1.7GHZ
Geforce 4 MX 440-SE 64mb
384DDR RAM,

I also noticed a massive RAM drain with the newer FS2_open builds.  Takes a average of 10-20 secs after clicking 'accept' to get to the next screen.

I use the : -t32, -htl, and -fps cmd lines.

[Sticks]

Well, -t32 will use more ram than 16 bit, for sure. But really, it shouldn't be quite that bad for most folks. This is something that we really need to look into, and something that I'm not sure quite how to begin.

[Lightspeed]

maybe i dint make it clear enough:

I'm using THE SAME features on those two builds, so there should NOT be any performance difference. Or it should even be better

Somethings wrong with that new build(s). You use the same things and it runs at about 1/6 of the speed of the older build. Also, on the old HT&L build the ship sizing in techroom and briefing is not messed up.

[Taristin]

I found something odd. In my video settings tab, I have the option for both standard resolutions, but each has a x16 and a x32.  I had it on x32 unknowingly, and when I tried that with 32-bit, I had horribly low framerates. But when I put it on x16 mode, with the -t32 enabled, I had 48fps. The highest I've seen on this PC.  Does this mean anything?

[Fry_Day]

That you're using a GeForce2 MX or worse

Actually, it means that your graphics card doesn't have enough memory bandwidth. -t32 and 32bit framebuffer can both kill performance on older cards.

[Taristin]

Well, yeah, it's a GeForce 2 MX, PCI, even, but why does the video tab's 1024x768x32 run poorer, besides the obvious, I thought that the -t32 thing would nullify it either way...

[Lightspeed]

cause 16-bit takes up less space than 32-bit (half of it) -- the only problem is that things will look crap

[Taristin]

But I meant that both had the -t32 cmd line enabled, so what's the difference?

[Lightspeed]

both *attempt* to use 32 bit textures. One of them scales them down to 16 bit.

[Taristin]

Err...but the cmd line doesn't override that setting?  Stupid GeForce 2... I want a 9800pro...

[Lightspeed]

On those builds, you'll prolly even complain about your FPS with that one. Look at me, i'm a Radeon 9800 owner and i complain

A performance drop this huge is just not acceptable if it ran with incredibly higher performance just some builds ago    The main goal should be to get it to run as fast as possible, so...

[RandomTiger]

If you dont have much graphics card memory then pcx32 and t32 is not a good idea.

I think fs2_open is using too much memory for old systems. It kept on quitting when I played on my P3 450 196Meg TNT2 to up virtual memory. Ok, its not the best system but FS2 requirements was 32 Meg ram!