Graf Zahl Posted September 1, 2009 Probably not. Unless someone comes along and helps me. I've got far too little time to work on this... :( 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Dancso Posted September 16, 2009 Graf Zahl said:Whoo said: You need to optimize the engine, seriously. You need a reality check, seriously! Have you even read Myk's post above about Doom and hardware rendering? Doom will never *ever* be able to get the same performance out of modern hardware as newer games. Modern games optimize their data so that they can handle it with a relatively small overhead before passing it to the hardware. Doom can't do that. A lot of stuff has to be recomputed each single frame - and there's very little that can be done about it. http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=21478&p=421972 Is there a problem with doing whatever's possible to optimize? Hell, it could be an option to toggle on or off. Or better yet, adjustable draw distance! 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Graf Zahl Posted September 16, 2009 Cheap, shitty and generally a bad idea. Not going to happen - ever! 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
phi108 Posted September 16, 2009 I think mipmapping helps performance in that regard. The areas are still drawn, but the texture isn't full resolution. I'm not sure though, but I think mipmapping increases performance in GZDoom and the Source engine. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
ReFracture Posted September 16, 2009 Gonna be honest: Outside of running stupid shit like nuts.wad, I've never managed to bring GZDoom to a low framerate. What exists for GZDoom that gives most people performance issues? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Graf Zahl Posted September 16, 2009 On some extremely wide open maps the frame rate may break down, e.g. UTNT's final map. Another issue may be certain portal effects. They require a setup that can badly stall the hardware. Disregarding that, none of these issues are coding related. They all are caused by the GFX card hitting the limit and no code optimization will make them go away. The last few days I implemented VBO support for flat rendering (no walls yet) and the code execution time measurably decreased. But the frame rate did not increase because this is not the limiting factor. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
LexiMax Posted September 16, 2009 esselfortium said:Well, I for one can't wait to not be able to play any new GZDoom mods on my 2007 laptop that runs Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and Portal flawlessly. Bring it on. It's funny that you bring this up because Half Life 2 and Portal both use...*gasp*...different rendering pipelines for older cards. Unless Graf is removing the old renderer anytime soon (hint: he's not), it's just like Half Life 2 defaulting to DX8 or DX7 mode when it detects DX9 is too hard on your system. Whoo said:You might not be able to get it as opitimized, but you certainly could do a hell of a lot better. Take a look: Column A is Gzdoom, Column B is GlBoom Didn't Doom have a 35fps cap? These are hundreds of frames per second. Play prBoom+ then if it's so much faster for you. Besides, anything over 60 is unnoticeable unless you're a quake playing sperglord anyway. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Baby Bonnie Hood Posted September 18, 2009 I mainly stick to ZDoom. Not out of favoritism, but because I can't play GZDoom more than once per PC session (it'd BSoD my laptop if I tried to play it again a second time). 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
entryway Posted September 20, 2009 Graf Zahl said:The last few days I implemented VBO support for flat rendering (no walls yet) and the code execution time measurably decreased. But the frame rate did not increase because this is not the limiting factor. GLBoom-Plus can use VBO for skybox and flats. I have these results on map05 @ epic.wad with my config and Core2Duo 3.0 + GForce 8800 GTS: glboom-plus_immediate - 272fps glboom-plus_drawarrays - 282fps glboom-plus_vbo - 282fps 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Graf Zahl Posted September 20, 2009 Interesting. My results are a bit different. Immediate and VBO are nearly the same speed but glDrawArrays with a software storage buffer is noticably slower. And if I use glArrayElement performance breaks completely down. What driver version are you using? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
entryway Posted September 20, 2009 Graf Zahl said:What driver version are you using? The latest WHQL. 190.62 I think. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
entryway Posted September 20, 2009 Graf Zahl said:Immediate and VBO are nearly the same speed but glDrawArrays with a software storage buffer is noticably slower. And if I use glArrayElement performance breaks completely down. Strange. glDrawArrays should be faster. gl_sky_detail 8192 (SkyDome drawing code is from o-o-old gzdoom, but with support of VBO) glboom-plus.exe -geom 640x480w -nosound -warp 12 (32 bits, trilinear, Aniso16x, AA4x) immediate - 36 fps drawarrays - 53 fps vbo - 487 fps 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Starke Von Oben Posted September 28, 2009 I've toyed around with Gzdoom, but to be honest if I want to make true 3D floors I'll edit Quake. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.