Duke4.net Forums: Polymer lives again - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Polymer lives again

User is online   blizzart 

#211

WT is running very laggy on my side, while Polymer including dynamic lights and TROR, Hires Textures and Models is running very well.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#212

View Postblizzart, on 15 August 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

WT is running very laggy on my side, while Polymer including dynamic lights and TROR, Hires Textures and Models is running very well.

Well, I've never, ever seen Polymer running well on anything so I'd love to see some benchmark results.
1

User is offline   axl 

#213

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 12:36 AM, said:

Here's how performance goes basically: Polymost > WT classic mode >= WT true 3D rendering > EDuke32 Classic renderer >>>> Polymer. As for frame pacing I've yet to measure it but when it comes to the general feel of smoothness World Tour wins hands down. Screen tearing is handled a lot better and the game feels a lot smoother even on a lower framerate as is the case with most DirectX 11 games.


Weird, EDuke32 classic renderer always runs butter smooth on my system. And definitely runs better than the WT classic mode.
0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord

#214

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 12:36 AM, said:

And yeah, DirectX throws multiplatform support out the window but it would still benefit Windows users a lot.


Ah so I should just quit mod development now then, since we're throwing non-Windows support out in your world. That's silly. You don't adopt a poor close-source renderer that only works on one platform instead of doing proper improvements.

Edit: I don't know what your performance is but I'm getting over 100fps in Hollywood Holocaust at 1920x1200 in classic and 60fps or higher in the Polymer with the Polymer HRP (which obviously also has models and a bunch of additional lights).

And that's without closing potentially CPU hogging applications like browsers and such.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#215

View PostMblackwell, on 16 August 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

Ah so I should just quit mod development now then, since we're throwing non-Windows support out in your world. That's silly. You don't adopt a poor close-source renderer that only works on one platform instead of doing proper improvements.

I did not say that, I only said that there are clear benefits to DX11 support that could shed some light on how to move things forward in OpenGL. There is nothing wrong with having multiple renderers from a user perspective.

Quote

Edit: I don't know what your performance is but I'm getting over 100fps in Hollywood Holocaust at 1920x1200 in classic and 60fps or higher in the Polymer with the Polymer HRP (which obviously also has models and a bunch of additional lights).

Please: benchmarks. Polymer goes to anything between 30 and 120 on my rig and in the case of classic I get around 100 too... the problem is that in WT's classic mode I have around 200.
0

User is offline   Phredreeke 

#216

My understanding is that OpenGL performance is rather poor on AMD GPUs, having a DX11 driver would make sense in that regard. But it's important such a driver doesn't make OpenGL (and as such non-Windows operating systems) a second class citizen.
0

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #217

The roadmap for Polymost is to abstract the GL calls into what is known in the AAA industry as a Render Hardware Interface layer. Then we could somewhat-easily port the code to work with multiple backends: probably D3D10 on Windows, GL on Linux and Mac, GX on Wii, and GL ES on anything ARM. We could also migrate away from the ancient GL 1.1 spec that it adheres to.

Polymer is another matter since it is much further entrenched into GL, what with the use of several dozen extensions (IIRC) and plenty of GLSL shaders.
0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord

#218

View PostZaxx, on 16 August 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

I did not say that, I only said that there are clear benefits to DX11 support that could shed some light on how to move things forward in OpenGL. There is nothing wrong with having multiple renderers from a user perspective.


Please: benchmarks. Polymer goes to anything between 30 and 120 on my rig and in the case of classic I get around 100 too... the problem is that in WT's classic mode I have around 200.



Yes, but what resolution? And what hardware for that matter? And i walked around the entire map and told you the general framerate, would you say you did the same?
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#219

View PostMblackwell, on 16 August 2017 - 11:50 PM, said:

Yes, but what resolution? And what hardware for that matter? And i walked around the entire map and told you the general framerate, would you say you did the same?

Here's the EDuke32 classic renderer:
https://www.youtube....h?v=7qgy6Gmk4E8

And here's World Tour running in classic mode at the same 1080p resolution:
https://www.youtube....h?v=fIxEqoA6Cro

As you can see I have sometime double the fps in World Tour.

Hardware: GTX 970, i7 2600, 16 gigs of RAM, Windows 10 64 bit.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 02:05 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#220

Okay so here's the more interesting comparison.

This is World Tour's performance on Hollywood Holocaust with the true 3D rendering and ambient occlusion features turned on:
https://www.youtube....h?v=Tu0rNI6jkew

And this is EDuke32 Polymer running World Tour with normal maps turned on:
https://www.youtube....h?v=3D9RuwhGwxY

Running just Polymer with the base game would of course show a lot better results but I see no point in that in a comparison with World Tour since WT does manage to use normal maps with great performance. I also did a quick playthrough of the first level of Alien World Order just to show the real struggle of Polymer. Only dropping below 60 fps a few times on one of the simplest maps of the game (Hollywood Holocaust) is not a huge accomplishment.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 10:21 AM

0

User is online   Danukem 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#221

Zaxx, you shifted your stance from saying "I've never, ever seen Polymer running well on anything" to saying that it does not run as well as other renderers (which everyone already knows).

The fact is that it runs well enough under the right conditions to be useful for many projects. And yes, we would all like to see a Polymer optimization or PolymerNG.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#222

View PostTrooper Dan, on 17 August 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Zaxx, you shifted your stance from saying "I've never, ever seen Polymer running well on anything" to saying that it does not run as well as other renderers (which everyone already knows).

Well sure, if you're running the base game on polymer then it runs fine... but what's the point? The base game barely uses any of the features Polymer was designed for.

Let's say you release a game, a fast paced FPS where high graphical settings destroy any hardware on the market to the point where nothing can run your game - the fast paced FPS - at a high framerate. On low it runs great but looks nothing like what the screenshots advertised. You'd hate the guts of that product.

Polymer shits itself the moment you throw anything advanced at it while WT's true 3D rendering setting enriches the visuals in a tasteful, colourful way that very much fits the original visual aesthetic of the game. And it does this without crippling performance.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 12:41 PM

0

User is online   Danukem 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#223

View PostZaxx, on 17 August 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

Well sure, if you're running the base game on polymer then it runs fine... but what's the point? The base game barely uses any of the features Polymer was designed for.

Let's say you release a game, a fast paced FPS where high graphical settings destroy any hardware on the market to the point where nothing can run your game - the fast paced FPS - at a high framerate. On low it runs great but looks nothing like what the screenshots advertised. You'd hate the guts of that product.

Polymer shits itself the moment you throw anything advanced at it while WT's true 3D rendering setting enriches the visuals in a tasteful, colourful way that very much fits the original visual aesthetic of the game. And it does this without crippling performance.


You are presenting a false dichotomy: either use Polymer for the base game and don't use most of its features and it runs fine, or push it hard and it runs like crap. What I'm saying is that there is a middle-ground, where you can enjoy a lot of polymer features and it still runs pretty well. There are released projects that are good examples.

As for WT: gearbox is not releasing the source code so it's a moot point.
0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord

#224

View PostZaxx, on 17 August 2017 - 02:05 AM, said:

Here's the EDuke32 classic renderer:
https://www.youtube....h?v=7qgy6Gmk4E8

And here's World Tour running in classic mode at the same 1080p resolution:
https://www.youtube....h?v=fIxEqoA6Cro

As you can see I have sometime double the fps in World Tour.

Hardware: GTX 970, i7 2600, 16 gigs of RAM, Windows 10 64 bit.



dnrate cheat or r_showfps 1 in the console

Not FRAPS.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#225

View PostMblackwell, on 17 August 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

dnrate cheat or r_showfps 1 in the console

Not FRAPS.

Sorry, won't make a new recording just because you don't like FRAPS. It was recorded with ShadowPlay, FRAPS was only used to display the framerate (I like it: nice big yellow numbers with a great update rate, the update rate of EDuke32's built in fps counter is quite poor in comparison) so the performance loss on a machine such as this is negligable. In fact I've yet to see performance loss because of FRAPS.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 01:01 PM

-1

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord

#226

I'm not talking about performance loss, I'm talking about real numbers directly from the game.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#227

View PostMblackwell, on 17 August 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

I'm not talking about performance loss, I'm talking about real numbers directly from the game.

These are real numbers, directly from the game.

Also please tell me how should I monitor the framerate of World Tour without the use of external tools such as FRAPS, RTSS or the Steam Overlay (ShadowPlay does not record the last one as far as I know). Using the same application for both versions of the game provides the 100% fair comparison.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 01:05 PM

-2

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord

#228

dnrate

It's been a cheat since Duke 1.3d

I already said that.

And no it's not a fair comparison if WT is doing things like rendering hud text on the GPU and outputting as a texture.

Edit: More explanation below.
0

User is offline   TerminX 

  • el fundador

  #229

I don't think FRAPS is accurate for classic mode in World Tour. Since World Tour doesn't set any special video modes or anything to draw classic mode, opting instead to just render to a texture, what you're seeing is the number of times per second that texture is drawn to the screen, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the number of times per second the buffer is actually updated.
2

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#230

View PostTerminX, on 17 August 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

I don't think FRAPS is accurate for classic mode in World Tour. Since World Tour doesn't set any special video modes or anything to draw classic mode, opting instead to just render to a texture, what you're seeing is the number of times per second that texture is drawn to the screen, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the number of times per second the buffer is actually updated.

I checked it out by setting up the FRAPS counter on one side and the built in fps monitor on the other: the numbers match.
0

User is offline   Sledgehammer 

  • Once you start doubting, there's no end to it

#231

My GTS 450 was able to handle Polymer without any kind of issues while in some places I experienced plenty of constant FPS drops in WT using their new render. When I had 1680x1050 screen I could play HRP with Polymer without terrible FPS drops as well.

View PostZaxx, on 17 August 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

I checked it out by setting up the FRAPS counter on one side and the built in fps monitor on the other: the numbers match.

FPS number alone isn't enough though and FRAPS isn't made for benchmark purpose and is very limited. Check this example out to get the idea how people are making benchmarks:


This post has been edited by Sledgehammer: 17 August 2017 - 01:24 PM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#232

View PostSledgehammer, on 17 August 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

My GTS 450 was able to handle Polymer without any kind of issues while in some places I experienced plenty of constant FPS drops in WT using their new render. When I had 1680x1050 screen I could play HRP with Polymer without terrible FPS drops as well.

I don't want to sound like an elitist but that's a really old card and WT has significantly higher system requirements than EDuke32. WT seems like a fairly low budget "console port" and that stuff is optimized for newer hardware. WT runs like shit on my old laptop too while EDuke32 flies on it.

Edit: As for using Afterburner / RTSS: I only wanted to show raw performance, I did not care about frame pacing and such.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 01:26 PM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#233

View PostTrooper Dan, on 17 August 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

You are presenting a false dichotomy: either use Polymer for the base game and don't use most of its features and it runs fine, or push it hard and it runs like crap. What I'm saying is that there is a middle-ground, where you can enjoy a lot of polymer features and it still runs pretty well. There are released projects that are good examples.

As for WT: gearbox is not releasing the source code so it's a moot point.

That's sad to hear since in his conversation with the community Randy pointed to the possibility of the contrary. Fuck 'em if that's true.
0

User is offline   Sledgehammer 

  • Once you start doubting, there's no end to it

#234

View PostZaxx, on 17 August 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

I don't want to sound like an elitist but that's a really old card and WT has significantly higher system requirements than EDuke32.

Yeah, and I have even much older than that.

But anyway, looks like I misunderstood you. I thought you were arguing about polymer performance and new WT render.
0

User is offline   axl 

#235

View PostTrooper Dan, on 17 August 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

As for WT: gearbox is not releasing the source code so it's a moot point.


Is this official? Or a speculation? In the first case, another sad story...
0

User is offline   Phredreeke 

#236

View PostZaxx, on 17 August 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

I don't want to sound like an elitist but that's a really old card and WT has significantly higher system requirements than EDuke32. WT seems like a fairly low budget "console port" and that stuff is optimized for newer hardware. WT runs like shit on my old laptop too while EDuke32 flies on it.


But weren't you just arguing that WT had better performance? (also, GTS450 is still around 4 times faster than GT610 which is recommended for WT on the Steam storefront)
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#237

View PostPhredreeke, on 17 August 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

But weren't you just arguing that WT had better performance?

And it has better performance (except when compared to polymost)... on newer hardware.

As for the system requirements of WT I don't think you can believe those specs for a game like this. What is "recommended" when it comes to the remastered version of Duke 3D? 30 fps? 60 fps? One of those two. At what resolution? Only Gearbox knows but if I'd have to guess I'd say those are just random general specs made up by looking at the game's performance and dialing it back.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 17 August 2017 - 01:52 PM

0

User is offline   Player Lin 

#238

I'm just so surprised someone believes FRAP(or other 3rd party softwares for fps displaying) is better then the game's built-in fps counter...
(even if the built-in may be not accurate by bugs or something but unlikely in most cases)

I always using Afterburner/RTSS overlay when play games, but I never say its fps counter would be superior, especifically when the game have built-in one...

Whatever you believe or not, using anything 3rd party software does caused some performance impacts, maybe just very, very minor.

This post has been edited by Player Lin: 18 August 2017 - 07:01 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • Banned

#239

View PostPlayer Lin, on 18 August 2017 - 06:59 AM, said:

I'm just so surprised someone believes FRAP(or other 3rd party softwares for fps displaying) is better then the game's built-in fps counter...
(even if the built-in may be not accurate by bugs or something but unlikely in most cases)

I always using Afterburner/RTSS overlay when play games, but I never say its fps counter would be superior, especifically when the game have built-in one...

Whatever you believe or not, using anything 3rd party software does caused some performance impacts, maybe just very, very minor.

After seeing what it does I'd say dnrate is just as good as FRAPS but EDuke32's built in counter is just not great.

Anyway I started benchmarking the two versions in an attempt to pinpoint why WT runs better. I suspected multi threading but the game's not great at all when it comes to that, there is some of it but it mostly relies on one core.
0

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #240

Polymost's performance issues are due to use of old APIs and the complete lack of any batching. Polymer needs a lot of restructuring so that the GPU isn't constantly synchronizing and waiting on the CPU.
0

Share this topic:


  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options