They desync with linux builds and with the official release build.Caydr wrote:They desync period, of they desync with linux builds?Tobi wrote:They desync.
Evidence of major performance increase in new version(?) 56k
Moderator: Moderators
I know I'm biased since I don't use linux, but a 40% performance difference just for compatibility seems unreasonable when the majority of players use Windows.
This would be a nightmare to develop for probably, but maybe there could be a Windows-only version, just for people with slow computers? Maybe some autodetect in the lobby, where if all players in a game have Windows, it uses the VS build? People would be confused by the inconsistent performance, but for a lot of people here, 40% FPS increase would be the difference between being able to run refractive water, shadows, and reflective units or not. Or, just being able to participate in larger games with more players/units.
How many games have you been in where one or two players with crappy computers slow down a large game? That could be largely elminated with a 40% efficiency boost.
This would be a nightmare to develop for probably, but maybe there could be a Windows-only version, just for people with slow computers? Maybe some autodetect in the lobby, where if all players in a game have Windows, it uses the VS build? People would be confused by the inconsistent performance, but for a lot of people here, 40% FPS increase would be the difference between being able to run refractive water, shadows, and reflective units or not. Or, just being able to participate in larger games with more players/units.
How many games have you been in where one or two players with crappy computers slow down a large game? That could be largely elminated with a 40% efficiency boost.
If the Visual Studio version causes desyncs then that means replays would also be broken / desynced across versions. I don't think anyone wants to switch to a system which breaks replay compatibility across platforms.This would be a nightmare to develop for probably, but maybe there could be a Windows-only version, just for people with slow computers?
All the active devs (tvo + trepan) are using linux, so dropping linux compat is not really going to happen i think.
And optimizations are always relative... if you wait long enough it will be less and less a problem because of improving hardware
Especially with cpu-killing supcom as a competitor, i think dont think its really an issue.
And optimizations are always relative... if you wait long enough it will be less and less a problem because of improving hardware
Especially with cpu-killing supcom as a competitor, i think dont think its really an issue.
It isnt linux that causes it, its a multimillion dollar budget at microsoft R&D that does it.
Nobody has really tested VC++ builds save me who tried once and found it crashed when playing the mingw32 builds as soon as the game started, presumably caused by the checks spring does that peopel keep mentioning when they talk about cheating using modified binaries.
Nobody has really tested VC++ builds save me who tried once and found it crashed when playing the mingw32 builds as soon as the game started, presumably caused by the checks spring does that peopel keep mentioning when they talk about cheating using modified binaries.
Besides that, a release VS8 build of trunk crashes while loading unit and weapons (SmallDivide, XTA 8.1), and the debug build runs fine at about 20% of the performance of MinGW.
Either way, as JC suggested, there's no discussion about the release compiler vendor possible anyway
(can just argue 'bout the GCC version )
(But I may take a look at enabling somewhat more optimization, at the expense of features and bug fixes of course)
Oh, and tooleh fails indeed
EDIT: k it runs fine with war evolution. Now tested MinGW build and VS8 build on Small Divide doing nothing, camera at default position I get ~82 FPS in VS8 build, 62 FPS in MinGW build. Pressed tab once to zoom out to full map view, then the FPS reduced to ~44 FPS in VS8 build and ~47 FPS in MinGW build, So depending on the situation a VS build is 6% slower to 32% faster, which indicates (as I expected) that 40% is exaggerated: I get an average of 13% FPS increase.
Either way, as JC suggested, there's no discussion about the release compiler vendor possible anyway
(can just argue 'bout the GCC version )(But I may take a look at enabling somewhat more optimization, at the expense of features and bug fixes of course
)Oh, and tooleh fails indeed
EDIT: k it runs fine with war evolution. Now tested MinGW build and VS8 build on Small Divide doing nothing, camera at default position I get ~82 FPS in VS8 build, 62 FPS in MinGW build. Pressed tab once to zoom out to full map view, then the FPS reduced to ~44 FPS in VS8 build and ~47 FPS in MinGW build, So depending on the situation a VS build is 6% slower to 32% faster, which indicates (as I expected) that 40% is exaggerated: I get an average of 13% FPS increase.
Last edited by Tobi on 21 May 2007, 21:27, edited 1 time in total.
That may indeed be cause for concern, if only to increase engine stability and reliability. The fact it crashes under release but not under debug suggests that its pointer related.
Perhaps it would be best modifying release builds to include at least line numbers rather than full debugging databases, that should yield much more information.
Perhaps it would be best modifying release builds to include at least line numbers rather than full debugging databases, that should yield much more information.
