Is frozen time the most demanding wad there is?

[invictius]

With 3d models and hd textures on my geforce 1070, I get framerates as low as 25 on the bridge (the only part that has ever lowered my fps on most recent systems). With models off, it goes up to 45 (obviously overriding the framerate cap). I imagine with project brutality it would dip even further, but I'm trying to find maps alone that tax the system. Is there anything even more demanding than this wad on your framerate?

[Firedust]

Zdoom community map 2. After you get to the hell bit. My old laptop couldn't handle it at all, whilst it handled frozen time pretty well.

[Koros]

try this one.

http://www.prodigal-game.com/doomstuff/Island/

[TMD]

What about that New York wad?

[invictius]

Jimp Argon said:

try this one.

http://www.prodigal-game.com/doomstuff/Island/

About that... you're meant to adjust the lighting until you can barely see the switch, but I can't see it whatsoever:

TheMionicDonut said:

What about that New York wad?

Planisphere 2? It dips a fair bit when I turn corners into new areas or am overlooking the city skyline.

[Koros]

invictius said:

About that... you're meant to adjust the lighting until you can barely see the switch, but I can't see it whatsoever

You don't have to do it though, you can just hit the switch and start the game. That's what I did.

[scifista42]

Winter's Fury had a pretty slow frame rate on my computer, especially during boss battles.

[Ribbiks]

scifista42 said:

Winter's Fury had a pretty slow frame rate on my computer, especially during boss battles.

this. or even more so, some of the later areas in this: http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=35879

[Demon of the Well]

Yeah, the biggest performance hit I've seen in years was at the start of the frozen peak map in Winter's Fury--can't remember the name, but it was the one where you fight the Maulotaur minibosses at the end. I recall that map 29 of Hellbound was also quite taxing on the framerate at certain points, although that was much more one of those port-sensitive issues.

For reference, I can run "Frozen Time" with very little significant dip in performance. That's the thing, though....anecdotally, different users seem to run into performance walls in very different places, which again probably has a lot to do with port preferences and specific combinations of user-side rendering settings and the like.

[Pirx]

Well I'm amazed that doom can bring a halfway modern system to its knees (1070 here too, 4690k) and a 1440p monitor.

[Spectre01]

Because the engine is terrible when it comes to large maps with loads of sectors. Even though the overall number of "polygons" on display is pathetic in comparison to any post 2k game that runs way better.

[invictius]

Pirx said:

Well I'm amazed that doom can bring a halfway modern system to its knees (1070 here too, 4690k) and a 1440p monitor.

No way! I also have that cpu. How far have you been able to overclock that?

[Steve D]

rileymartin said:

Because the engine is terrible when it comes to large maps with loads of sectors. Even though the overall number of "polygons" on display is pathetic in comparison to any post 2k game that runs way better.

Would that make Doom framerates more dependent on CPU than GPU?

[Rayziik]

I believe all Doom ports are way more CPU based than GPU based. I'd love to see a multithread port at some point though, an 8-core would probably handle anything you could throw at it.

[Officer D]

Indeed, the performance drops coming from high polygon counts, tons of particles, hundreds of mobs, dynamic lighting, sounds, moving geometry, etc. is due to the engine limitations and not because your 16GB Ram, 4GHz CPU and 4GB GPU can't provide enough computing power.
I criticize fps drops as mapper mistakes, when creating somthing and taking it serious, your map should not only look good and play well. It also needs to run good performance wise. The only way you can gain fps in many cases, is either by tweaking your game via console commands or sometimes a nother source port will run it better, given a other soure port is supported. This refers of course to modern PC's that have more then enough hardware power.

[glenzinho]

If it's not the most demanding, it's certainly up there with Planisphere 2, Nuts and parts of Winters Fury

[Gez]

rileymartin said:

Because the engine is terrible when it comes to large maps with loads of sectors. Even though the overall number of "polygons" on display is pathetic in comparison to any post 2k game that runs way better.

Also the Frozen Time briges cause a terrifying amount of overdraw.

Here, look at this:

Specifically, from 7:52 to 12:13 for a Frozen Time render, and from 9:00 to 12:12 for the bridge in particular.

Yeah, that means that nearly 3/4 of the render time for that scene is spent on the bridge. Or, in other words, you'd get nearly four times as many FPS on that scene if the bridge wasn't there.

[scifista42]

Gez said:

nearly 3/4 of the render time for that scene is spent on the bridge. Or, in other words, you'd get nearly four times as many FPS on that scene if the bridge wasn't there.

That's not really fair to say, because FPS isn't given by rendering time alone, but by the sum of rendering time and game logic time, the latter of which tends to be more demanding. But it's still mind-blowing to watch how slowly the bridge renders in comparison with everything else.

[Pure Hellspawn]

what about those wads with the huge amount of monsters? Holy hell, 100k revenants, etc.

[Koros]

^ Nuts?

[Nevander]

If the bridges are such an issue, why haven't they been patched by the author to be less intensive? If they were replaced with a solid sector I doubt many people would care, given the FPS boost mentioned.

[Pirx]

invictius said:

No way! I also have that cpu. How far have you been able to overclock that?

It's at just 4.2 now due to that h80i cooler being noisy. A friend runs his cpu at 4.5 for comparison with an nh-d15 and it's much more silent, i'll change this when I get to, but likely we'll just get a new cpu gen sooner ;)