Balanced Annihilation V5.8

Post by jK » 26 Oct 2007, 18:53

With ground scars though, the larger they are the worse the FPS drop.

I also know why. It is because it doesn't do a LOD check, it always splits the texture into mapquads with 16x16 in size (very small). So 1 ground scar can easily split into 0.5k-5k polygons (what wouldn't be slow, if it wouldn't calc those vertexes+texcoords for each scar every frame on the cpu).

CautionToTheWind · Post by **CautionToTheWind** » 26 Oct 2007, 19:36

Mr.Frumious wrote: Cut out the middle man. Open Wiki access to the TDF/FBI files.

Anarchy Annihilation!

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 26 Oct 2007, 20:18

MR.D wrote:Ground scars seem to be behind the worst FPS slowdowns in my experience with spring..

.

yes try with .give all and selfd after it. I get 15 fps from 70 just becvause of scars.. it gets better after 30 secs when these grey shades dissaper. Running on lowest settings.

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 26 Oct 2007, 20:56

Turn off groundscars! I have groundscars pretty low, and they dont give me any grief at all. Air is the major bottleneck in every game i play...

...its a pity fighter spam is the only way to stop bombers. It means most larger games end in lag out.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 26 Oct 2007, 22:03

Saktoth wrote:Turn off groundscars! I have groundscars pretty low, and they dont give me any grief at all. Air is the major bottleneck in every game i play...

...its a pity fighter spam is the only way to stop bombers. It means most larger games end in lag out.

interesting... .give 400 armhawk laggs CPU prety bad - game speed drops to 0,75 and 25 fps when patroling. Laggs even more than 500 flashes which is weird. I allways thougt that air requires much less pathing than ground units. Looks like other way around.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 26 Oct 2007, 22:19

Air requires collision checks.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 26 Oct 2007, 23:01

Ground tends to collide when moving, since the pathfinding engine doesn't calculate units as anything other than points in time.

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 26 Oct 2007, 23:30

Air lags HORRIBLY. A strong fighter patrol (which is mandatory in longer games) will grind your PC to a stuttering halt. I thought this was common knowledge, i mention it often enough.

LordMatt · Post by **LordMatt** » 27 Oct 2007, 00:02

DZHIBRISH wrote:I think lordmatt should immediatly join BA's development team.Or at least join BA's cheerleader squad.

EDITED:
Scratch the first suggestion.

I'm a proud member of BA's cheerleading squad and talk with noize quite a bit when he's working on BA.

[Krogoth86] · Post by **[Krogoth86]** » 27 Oct 2007, 00:13

I didn't test it yet but I was surprised that in The Fifth Millenium the late games ran pretty fast - I think that thousands of Nanospray particles from all the Nano Towers lag even more than fighters...

Pressure Line · Post by **Pressure Line** » 27 Oct 2007, 01:32

[Krogoth86] wrote:I didn't test it yet but I was surprised that in The Fifth Millenium the late games ran pretty fast - I think that thousands of Nanospray particles from all the Nano Towers lag even more than fighters...

ive noticed the same thing in other games that dont have fac assisting.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 27 Oct 2007, 13:09

which is why nano towers suck. you could try optimizing the nano particles textures? likie, how kernel panic swapped them with diffrent graphics, swap BA nanoparticles for less textured versions for performance? mind, that might look pretty scrappy

Otherside · Post by **Otherside** » 27 Oct 2007, 13:16

instead of particles cud u have like a straight laser dunno if that wud lag less

MR.D · Post by **MR.D** » 27 Oct 2007, 14:03

A single beam object replacing about 30 streaming particles, sounds like a plan to me.

As long as nobody starts bitching about Supcom stuff

Otherside · Post by **Otherside** » 27 Oct 2007, 14:11

nano spray just causes tons of unesscary lag a single beam to build would be better maybe just for nano towers ? or all cons

just make the beam distiguishable from a laser in some way :]

but yeh if it reduces lag it wud be ownage

rcdraco · Post by **rcdraco** » 27 Oct 2007, 15:39

You could also spend $300 and get a pc that can handle it, I
'm looking at about $550 for this rig, and you can build one under $300 on newegg better then mine.

You can't just remove nanoparticles, they ARE ota. >_<

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 27 Oct 2007, 15:42

That should be about 30 nanoparticles per second I think so the total count for a build "ray" would be 30*time to move from emitter to target. I don't think the texture you paint on these has any impact on the performance. Even if you just make an explosion generator that looks exactly the same it'll be faster since it obeys Max Particles.

Mr.Frumious · Post by **Mr.Frumious** » 27 Oct 2007, 16:28

Shouldn't the inefficiency of nanospray be considered an engine bug, and thus any fixes at mod-level are hacky workarounds?

Somebody make a patch.

Otherside · Post by **Otherside** » 27 Oct 2007, 17:04

draco any unneeded cpu strain shud be fixed.. ? not every1 can afford a new machine nm how cheap u say it is for ya

Zpock · Post by **Zpock** » 27 Oct 2007, 17:11

Scrolling beam texture?

Spring RTS Engine

Balanced Annihilation V5.8

well