What machine do you use?
by St. · in Torque 3D Professional · 06/01/2009 (1:49 pm) · 6 replies
I've just got my hands on a copy of T3D and I must admit that although overall loading times are simply shocking (I've never seen datablocks and objects load so fast before!) the in-game process confused me a little bit.
I must say that one of the main features that seduced me to buy T3D was its "ultimate compatibility" and great performance that allows T3D to be run even on an "old scrap" (like my laptop, that is Compaq Pressario V6630EM; AMD Turion 64 x2 1.9 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM and Nvidia 7150M video adapter). There, I've even found the blog record proving my words: Link
And... erm... I can't say that it's *not exactly* true... but in two words: the game lags as hell. I barely had enough patience to reach the lake in the clean template to see the new water effects (that are stunning and awesome, by the way. I've been really amazed, good job!). I've tried adjusting all graphical settings to a minimum, disabling everything and using 16bit color depth, but I still haven't noticed any real difference in performance.
Is it me and my drivers (that I updated along with DX after acquiring the engine, by the way) or T3D is really in such a desperate need for new hardware?
What machines (PCs/Macs) are *you* currently using with T3D? And how's it working for you?
I must say that one of the main features that seduced me to buy T3D was its "ultimate compatibility" and great performance that allows T3D to be run even on an "old scrap" (like my laptop, that is Compaq Pressario V6630EM; AMD Turion 64 x2 1.9 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM and Nvidia 7150M video adapter). There, I've even found the blog record proving my words: Link
And... erm... I can't say that it's *not exactly* true... but in two words: the game lags as hell. I barely had enough patience to reach the lake in the clean template to see the new water effects (that are stunning and awesome, by the way. I've been really amazed, good job!). I've tried adjusting all graphical settings to a minimum, disabling everything and using 16bit color depth, but I still haven't noticed any real difference in performance.
Is it me and my drivers (that I updated along with DX after acquiring the engine, by the way) or T3D is really in such a desperate need for new hardware?
What machines (PCs/Macs) are *you* currently using with T3D? And how's it working for you?
About the author
#2
But still, you haven't answered my question. ;)
I wonder what kind of pc would one need to run T3D without lags with Advanced Lighting turned on...
06/01/2009 (2:16 pm)
Thanks for the advice, that's much better. :)But still, you haven't answered my question. ;)
I wonder what kind of pc would one need to run T3D without lags with Advanced Lighting turned on...
#3
It's the video card which I reckon is the real weak point when running Advanced Lighting. I've got a 7900.
My initial (custom) performance tests with Beta1
Hopefully coded performance boosts on the way.
06/01/2009 (2:39 pm)
Also Advanced Lighting without sun shadows (in sun object: cast shadows), will give you nice look with about x3 fps, but objects won't cast shadows over each other. Kinda like a nicer version of Basic Lighting.It's the video card which I reckon is the real weak point when running Advanced Lighting. I've got a 7900.
My initial (custom) performance tests with Beta1
Hopefully coded performance boosts on the way.
#4
Desktop: Intel core 2 duo E8300, 2GB Ram, Nvidia 9600GT, Win XP:
Runs well on basic lighting, runs ok with advanced as long as not too much content is added.
Desktop: Intel core 2 duo 6400, 1GB Ram, Nvidia 7600GS, Win XP:
Runs ok with basic lighting as long as not too much content is added. Advanced lighting very slow without any post fx.
Desktop: Intel Pentium 4, 1GB Ram, Nvidia 6600GT, Win XP: Very slow on basic lighting.
Laptop: Intel Core 2 duo T2250, Nvidia 7300go, 1GB Ram, Win XP: Slow on basic lighting, blue screen crash on advanced.
06/01/2009 (2:39 pm)
I tested on my following systems:Desktop: Intel core 2 duo E8300, 2GB Ram, Nvidia 9600GT, Win XP:
Runs well on basic lighting, runs ok with advanced as long as not too much content is added.
Desktop: Intel core 2 duo 6400, 1GB Ram, Nvidia 7600GS, Win XP:
Runs ok with basic lighting as long as not too much content is added. Advanced lighting very slow without any post fx.
Desktop: Intel Pentium 4, 1GB Ram, Nvidia 6600GT, Win XP: Very slow on basic lighting.
Laptop: Intel Core 2 duo T2250, Nvidia 7300go, 1GB Ram, Win XP: Slow on basic lighting, blue screen crash on advanced.
#5
Yes, I see that mostly it's the video card that matters here.
I'll have to upgrade mine eventually. *sigh*
Cool, I'll make sure to try that, thanks. :)
06/01/2009 (5:03 pm)
Quote:blue screen crash on advancedHeh, interesting result. :)
Yes, I see that mostly it's the video card that matters here.
I'll have to upgrade mine eventually. *sigh*
Quote:Also Advanced Lighting without sun shadows (in sun object: cast shadows), will give you nice look with about x3 fps, but objects won't cast shadows over each other. Kinda like a nicer version of Basic Lighting.
Cool, I'll make sure to try that, thanks. :)
#6
I have an Intel C2D 8400 for a processor and a GTX 260 and I get about 70-90 FPS with Advanced Lighting at 1024x768 (Windowed, I get a bit more full screen because of Vista Aero) and that number drops a bit if I turn the Light Rays on.
06/01/2009 (5:19 pm)
The Warrior camp needs a bit more LOD work since it is pretty poly happy, but the big thing as mentioned is the Lighting. Turning on Basic Lighting is pretty much required to get any sort of performance out of older machines. There is suppose to be some performance adjustments for Advanced Lighting, but since it isn't out it is hard to speculate what the end result for Advanced Lighting will be.I have an Intel C2D 8400 for a processor and a GTX 260 and I get about 70-90 FPS with Advanced Lighting at 1024x768 (Windowed, I get a bit more full screen because of Vista Aero) and that number drops a bit if I turn the Light Rays on.
Associate James Ford
Sickhead Games