My Dilemma with Torque 3D
by Dark Tengu · in Torque 3D Professional · 01/26/2010 (10:43 pm) · 18 replies
So in good faith I purchased Torque3D when it was still in beta. All the usual marketing hype was there from GarageGames. It seemed at release time it was rushed out of the door because of the beat down Unity is giving most indie aimed engines right now. I must say I was not very pleased with the performance of the engine.
I would love to be able to use Torque3D because of Torque's awesome net code. Please no one take this the wrong way, but my problems with Torque are as follows:
1) Why is the rendering quality so low? I could use Leadwerks which also has a deferred renderer that looks at least 10x better and performs at least 3x better.
2) Why is the performance so bad? I get about 15-20 fps in the current T3D Alpha (?Burg? demo). That is running on a 8800 GTX 512 MB, Core Duo, 2.8 with 4 GB RAM, 1680x1050 resolution. Yes, not the best computer. But, with that same hardware I can run many games with much better visuals at 60+ fps. This is a real problem for me. And yes...my drivers are always up to date.
Please understand, I'm not trying to flame. I just really want to know if Torque3D is ever going to shine. The performance is utterly unacceptable. Not very many options out there.
C4 - Development is REALLY slowing down.
Leadwerks - Awesome renderer. The developer just doesn't understand what artists needs. No quality net code.
Unity - Looks horrible. Networking is apparently broken.
Torque3D - Horrible performance. Renderer looks like crap.
Any suggestions would be great.
I would love to be able to use Torque3D because of Torque's awesome net code. Please no one take this the wrong way, but my problems with Torque are as follows:
1) Why is the rendering quality so low? I could use Leadwerks which also has a deferred renderer that looks at least 10x better and performs at least 3x better.
2) Why is the performance so bad? I get about 15-20 fps in the current T3D Alpha (?Burg? demo). That is running on a 8800 GTX 512 MB, Core Duo, 2.8 with 4 GB RAM, 1680x1050 resolution. Yes, not the best computer. But, with that same hardware I can run many games with much better visuals at 60+ fps. This is a real problem for me. And yes...my drivers are always up to date.
Please understand, I'm not trying to flame. I just really want to know if Torque3D is ever going to shine. The performance is utterly unacceptable. Not very many options out there.
C4 - Development is REALLY slowing down.
Leadwerks - Awesome renderer. The developer just doesn't understand what artists needs. No quality net code.
Unity - Looks horrible. Networking is apparently broken.
Torque3D - Horrible performance. Renderer looks like crap.
Any suggestions would be great.
#2
01/26/2010 (11:44 pm)
The odd thing though is I have zero problems with any other game or game engine. Just Torque3D. 
#3
My system is no where near yours and I get those same frame rates. I was getting 2-5 fps until I compiled the exe in release.
01/27/2010 (12:06 am)
Are you running a debug exe? My system is no where near yours and I get those same frame rates. I was getting 2-5 fps until I compiled the exe in release.
#4
Could you generate a DxDiag report on your system and email it to me? I can look that over and see if anything jumps out at me and the others that could be causing an issue.
01/27/2010 (12:09 am)
Well, I do know that when my one of my old video cards(SLI 7600 GT's) started to eat it in my home rig I only saw evidence of it in a couple games, mostly Bioshock. The symptoms did eventually spread system wide and convinced me it wasn't a driver issue like I originally thought.Could you generate a DxDiag report on your system and email it to me? I can look that over and see if anything jumps out at me and the others that could be causing an issue.
#5
Yeah, that drove me up the wall for about 2-3 days because I totally forgot I was on a debug build. Even optimized debug builds give substantial increases in speed.
01/27/2010 (1:46 am)
Quote:I was getting 2-5 fps until I compiled the exe in release.
Yeah, that drove me up the wall for about 2-3 days because I totally forgot I was on a debug build. Even optimized debug builds give substantial increases in speed.
#6
01/27/2010 (2:15 am)
Are you running 1680x1050 with everything else maxed out ?
#7
01/27/2010 (4:55 am)
Running just the default build that comes with the SDK. Running in 1680x1050 with NOTHING enabled actually.
#8
01/27/2010 (10:42 am)
I have pretty much the same specs, but with a 285gtx. Engine runs fantastic, with nary an issue unless I do something silly. Like that time accidentally added a few extra zeros to the old shape replicator... Had to hard-boot. :P
#9
01/27/2010 (10:51 am)
As others have stated, I have had very good results running Torque 3D on my machine. My core system specs are very similiar to yours, but I have a GTX 275 video card and I consistently get 60+ FPS in the Burg level, among others. 
#10
2.4 Dual Core
2Gb RAM
GTS250 512mb
1920x1080 DTV
FPS Example - Burg
No additional post effects enabled
1.0.1 == 60-85fps
1.1.A == 30-45fps
1.1.A == 40-70fps after rebuilding
01/27/2010 (11:37 am)
And just to join in ...2.4 Dual Core
2Gb RAM
GTS250 512mb
1920x1080 DTV
FPS Example - Burg
No additional post effects enabled
1.0.1 == 60-85fps
1.1.A == 30-45fps
1.1.A == 40-70fps after rebuilding
#11
01/27/2010 (11:42 am)
Quote:Running just the default build that comes with the SDKThat's a debug build. Recompile the engine and see the difference.
#12
Intel Core2 6600 @ 2.40 GHz
2 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB
FPS Example - BURG
1680 x 1050 Resolution
PostFX Disabled
1.1A = 50-60 FPS
With PostFX Enabled
40 - 50 FPS
My work computer is twice as powerful, in CPU, memory, and video card. It runs Torque 3D very smoothly as well. In short, I have no clue why your performance is so bad. I would recommend recompiling the release build and see what kind of results you get.
Btw, it's not very fair to compare Torque 3D to a final release of a game.
1. The have poured vast amounts of dollars into art that is far prettier and more optimized than what is in our demos. The engine is more than capable of rendering art you see in Unreal or Crysis, we just do not have that level of artists helping us yet.
2. Final release games are optimized to an extreme extent, as that is an important step in the build process. Our demos are not super optimized, but they show off basics like LOD, billboards, etc.
So comparing games to a Torque 3D demo is completely off. Now, when comparing Torque 3D to other engines you have a pretty good hold of things, opinion wise. I see your desire to want Torque 3D to be better, but as you can see quite a few of us are not having your issues. I've seen beautiful artwork running in Torque 3D, and it's on par or exceeds Leadwerks.
01/27/2010 (11:54 am)
This is my home computer:Intel Core2 6600 @ 2.40 GHz
2 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB
FPS Example - BURG
1680 x 1050 Resolution
PostFX Disabled
1.1A = 50-60 FPS
With PostFX Enabled
40 - 50 FPS
My work computer is twice as powerful, in CPU, memory, and video card. It runs Torque 3D very smoothly as well. In short, I have no clue why your performance is so bad. I would recommend recompiling the release build and see what kind of results you get.
Btw, it's not very fair to compare Torque 3D to a final release of a game.
1. The have poured vast amounts of dollars into art that is far prettier and more optimized than what is in our demos. The engine is more than capable of rendering art you see in Unreal or Crysis, we just do not have that level of artists helping us yet.
2. Final release games are optimized to an extreme extent, as that is an important step in the build process. Our demos are not super optimized, but they show off basics like LOD, billboards, etc.
So comparing games to a Torque 3D demo is completely off. Now, when comparing Torque 3D to other engines you have a pretty good hold of things, opinion wise. I see your desire to want Torque 3D to be better, but as you can see quite a few of us are not having your issues. I've seen beautiful artwork running in Torque 3D, and it's on par or exceeds Leadwerks.
#13
01/27/2010 (2:10 pm)
@Mike - Thanks. I'll rebuild. 
#14
Try this and it will at least tell you if it is anything that might be on you machine....
You must have heard of a "Clean Boot", if you have not take a look at this and try it, if it runs much better I would look into what you are running in the back ground....
INSTRUCTIONS
Step 1: Start the System Configuration Utility
Click Start, click Run, type msconfig, and then click OK.
The System Configuration Utility dialog box is displayed.
Step 2: Configure selective startup options
In the System Configuration Utility dialog box, click the General tab, and then click Selective Startup.
Click to clear the Process SYSTEM.INI File check box.
Click to clear the Process WIN.INI File check box.
Click to clear the Load Startup Items check box. Verify that Load System Services and Use Original BOOT.INI are checked.
Click the Services tab.
Click to select the Hide All Microsoft Services check box.
Click Disable All, and then click OK.
When you are prompted, click Restart to restart the computer.
Step 3: Log on to Windows
If you are prompted, log on to Windows.
When you receive the following message, click to select the Don't show this message or launch the System Configuration Utility when Windows start check box, and then click OK.
Notes
You have used the System Configuration Utility to make changes to the way Windows starts.
The System Configuration Utility is currently in Diagnostic or Selective Startup mode, causing this message to be displayed and the utility to run every time Windows starts.
Choose the Normal Startup mode on the General tab to start Windows normally and undo the changes you made using the System Configuration Utility.
Step 4: Optional step to disable features
If the clean boot fixed the error, you do not have to perform this step.
Important If your problem is not fixed and you do have to follow this step, it permanently removes all restore points from your computer. The System Restore feature uses restore points to restore your computer to an earlier state. If you remove the restore points, you can no longer restore Windows to an earlier state.
This step temporarily disables Microsoft features such as Plug and Play, networking, event logging, and error reporting.
Click Start, click Run, type msconfig, and then click OK.
The System Configuration Utility dialog box is displayed.
Click the General tab, click to clear the Load System Services check box, and then click OK.
When you are prompted, click Restart to restart the computer.
If these steps helped you start your computer in a clean-boot state, you are finished. If these steps did not help, go to the “Next Steps” section. If you have to return your computer to a normal startup state, go to “Steps to configure Windows to use a Normal startup state”.
Steps to configure Windows to use a Normal startup state
After you used the clean boot to resolve your problem, you can follow these steps to configure Windows XP to start normally.
Click Start, and then click Run.
Type msconfig, and then click OK.
The System Configuration Utility dialog box is displayed.
Click the General tab, click Normal Startup - load all device drivers and services, and then click OK.
When you are prompted, click Restart to restart the computer.
01/27/2010 (2:39 pm)
You know perhaps I missed it but what OS are you running. For Vista(Being such a Memory a Hog)it ran everything poorly, but I just ran it on my laptop with an FAR less hardware than your rig and I get 40+ FPS hmmm.....Try this and it will at least tell you if it is anything that might be on you machine....
You must have heard of a "Clean Boot", if you have not take a look at this and try it, if it runs much better I would look into what you are running in the back ground....
INSTRUCTIONS
Step 1: Start the System Configuration Utility
Click Start, click Run, type msconfig, and then click OK.
The System Configuration Utility dialog box is displayed.
Step 2: Configure selective startup options
In the System Configuration Utility dialog box, click the General tab, and then click Selective Startup.
Click to clear the Process SYSTEM.INI File check box.
Click to clear the Process WIN.INI File check box.
Click to clear the Load Startup Items check box. Verify that Load System Services and Use Original BOOT.INI are checked.
Click the Services tab.
Click to select the Hide All Microsoft Services check box.
Click Disable All, and then click OK.
When you are prompted, click Restart to restart the computer.
Step 3: Log on to Windows
If you are prompted, log on to Windows.
When you receive the following message, click to select the Don't show this message or launch the System Configuration Utility when Windows start check box, and then click OK.
Notes
You have used the System Configuration Utility to make changes to the way Windows starts.
The System Configuration Utility is currently in Diagnostic or Selective Startup mode, causing this message to be displayed and the utility to run every time Windows starts.
Choose the Normal Startup mode on the General tab to start Windows normally and undo the changes you made using the System Configuration Utility.
Step 4: Optional step to disable features
If the clean boot fixed the error, you do not have to perform this step.
Important If your problem is not fixed and you do have to follow this step, it permanently removes all restore points from your computer. The System Restore feature uses restore points to restore your computer to an earlier state. If you remove the restore points, you can no longer restore Windows to an earlier state.
This step temporarily disables Microsoft features such as Plug and Play, networking, event logging, and error reporting.
Click Start, click Run, type msconfig, and then click OK.
The System Configuration Utility dialog box is displayed.
Click the General tab, click to clear the Load System Services check box, and then click OK.
When you are prompted, click Restart to restart the computer.
If these steps helped you start your computer in a clean-boot state, you are finished. If these steps did not help, go to the “Next Steps” section. If you have to return your computer to a normal startup state, go to “Steps to configure Windows to use a Normal startup state”.
Steps to configure Windows to use a Normal startup state
After you used the clean boot to resolve your problem, you can follow these steps to configure Windows XP to start normally.
Click Start, and then click Run.
Type msconfig, and then click OK.
The System Configuration Utility dialog box is displayed.
Click the General tab, click Normal Startup - load all device drivers and services, and then click OK.
When you are prompted, click Restart to restart the computer.
#15
Interesting test, but dangerous :P
Anyway I'm running it at about 12 fps too with Advance lighting and everything else off/auto. BUT ! MY system is crap, as i only have a old and low end Ati 2400 pro so that's to be expected. Your 8800 GTX 512 MB is seriously under-performing...
If you're mucking around with your system, try this too. uninstall your drivers, run a driver cleaning software like driver cleaner or driver sweeper. Driver Heaven has a paid one and guru3d hosts a free one. Then reinstall the latest drivers and try again.
01/28/2010 (2:18 am)
O_OInteresting test, but dangerous :P
Anyway I'm running it at about 12 fps too with Advance lighting and everything else off/auto. BUT ! MY system is crap, as i only have a old and low end Ati 2400 pro so that's to be expected. Your 8800 GTX 512 MB is seriously under-performing...
If you're mucking around with your system, try this too. uninstall your drivers, run a driver cleaning software like driver cleaner or driver sweeper. Driver Heaven has a paid one and guru3d hosts a free one. Then reinstall the latest drivers and try again.
#16
01/28/2010 (9:17 am)
i found the burg demo has a weird animation that cause extremely weird performance. deleting the animated meshes sped things up a large amount in weird ways ? or was this just me.
#17
Also I'm not sure if the burg demo is an optimal level to benchmark performance.
Its a great example of what you can achieve visually.
But the level itself is not exactly optimized for usage as a game level. 3 floors, quite some taxing effect and basically no occlusion.
@Cai: sounds like pretty good performance for that stone age card and AL :)
01/28/2010 (9:36 am)
Nope not just you, there is definitely something in the burg demo that is biting.Also I'm not sure if the burg demo is an optimal level to benchmark performance.
Its a great example of what you can achieve visually.
But the level itself is not exactly optimized for usage as a game level. 3 floors, quite some taxing effect and basically no occlusion.
@Cai: sounds like pretty good performance for that stone age card and AL :)
#18
Also, didn't know about the binary being compiled in debug. I can understand the purpose of that, but I am not sure why you want to have a performance gimped version out there.
The quality of the shadows is another issue. Not technically an issue with the quality, just with the way it is setup. Had a long discussion about this and eventually we changed the world editor to place the cuts at defined distances. Once you do that and get the quality up the shadows actually look pretty good. It is next to impossible to get over a distance of 175 though with only 4 cuts to look good at each progression though. Also, had to increase each texture size to 2048. Needless to say even at 3 cuts to 2048 you need at least 512MB of RAM on the video card to run it, but I find if you have anything less you don't want to be running AL anyway. Hoping we get 6 cuts down the line as it would allow to push the distance out a bit further, but for the most part the distance works pretty well since you are low to the ground and it is really hard to make out lack of shadows so far down the horizon in most instances.
01/28/2010 (1:01 pm)
Burg demo has some issues with that animation in the center. For some reason or another it will fill out the memory on a lower-end video card so there is definately something up with that.Also, didn't know about the binary being compiled in debug. I can understand the purpose of that, but I am not sure why you want to have a performance gimped version out there.
The quality of the shadows is another issue. Not technically an issue with the quality, just with the way it is setup. Had a long discussion about this and eventually we changed the world editor to place the cuts at defined distances. Once you do that and get the quality up the shadows actually look pretty good. It is next to impossible to get over a distance of 175 though with only 4 cuts to look good at each progression though. Also, had to increase each texture size to 2048. Needless to say even at 3 cuts to 2048 you need at least 512MB of RAM on the video card to run it, but I find if you have anything less you don't want to be running AL anyway. Hoping we get 6 cuts down the line as it would allow to push the distance out a bit further, but for the most part the distance works pretty well since you are low to the ground and it is really hard to make out lack of shadows so far down the horizon in most instances.
Associate Scott Burns
GG Alumni
Outside of you having 2GB more of RAM, I'm running the exact same setup as you at work and everything runs flawlessly. My home rig is AMD based with 4GB, a 9800 GTX 512MB and it runs it flawlessly. I just completed a beta test two weeks ago where the most common setup was a Core 2 Duo 1.7GHz, 1-2GB RAM, Mobile Intel 965 Express Chipset with 256MB, and even that ran perfectly. Granted that particular project had to BL because of the lower tech ceiling of the intended audience.
I know, touting successes doesn't really help you but it does help support my point. Even if it is something you don't want to hear, as no one ever likes finding out they need to replace a computer part.
Do you have any spare parts laying around to test with, or is it a laptop/desktop where you can't swap out parts?