Game Development Community

[Bug Beta 1.1] Decreasing the "Ammount" parameter on a particle emitter causes T3D crash/System Lockup - RESOLVED

by Greg G · in Torque 3D Professional · 06/10/2010 (7:26 pm) · 4 replies

If I decrease the "ammount" paramter on a particle emitter to 0 my system either locks up or torque crashes.

If the number is low or not zero then I get random crashes that occur some of the time when I look at the particle emmitter.

It may just be the total number of particles in the scene i'm not sure.

The most sure fire way to reproduce it has would be to increase the lifetime of the particle and then decrease the ammount pn the emitter (less = more particles).

I am running the latest hardware drivers for all my hardware, tried this with and without AREO enabled, and am running windows Vista 64 bit.

The fact that this causes a total system lockup some of the time is the worst part as it cost me alot of work today. If anyone knows anything about this I would love to hear it.

Thanks

NextNext Thread
PrevPrevious Thread
More from Torque 3D Professional


Associate Steve Acaster
[YorkshireRifles.com]
#1
06/11/2010 (2:01 am)
That "amount" slider is the amount of time between new particles in ms. Count each one as a billboarded object. Too many particles and your system will grind to a halt.

Also possible issue with occlusion query which may or may not have been fixed.

Torque 3D Owner Greg G
ESALPllc
#2
06/11/2010 (11:08 am)
Keep in mind I don't have to get any where near a number of particles that will cause my machine to lag down. There just has to be a relative large number of them. I still get 60 or 70 fps when my entire screen flashes black and somtimes freezes my computer completely. We are able to reproduce this on several machines at work.

Everything has the latest hardware drivers we are running NVIDIA GTX 285 video cards.

Full Sail QA&U Lab Intern
#3
07/07/2010 (11:16 am)
Logged as TQA-546

Associate Scott Burns
GG Alumni
#4
08/20/2010 (6:13 pm)
This appears to have been fixed in 1.1 Beta 2, or at least QA was unable to reproduce it with that build. I'll move this to pending for now.

@Greg G
Let me know if you're still having this problem in 1.1 Beta 2 or not. If you are then it may be a hardware specific issue.