Could do with a comparison on metrics ...
by Andy Wright · in Torque 3D Professional · 12/19/2010 (12:21 am) · 7 replies
Hey all,
I could really do with some figures to compare against to be honest, cant find much about on what others are getting on the metrics results on their projects with just a terrain, gideon and scattersky running.
I know its also all relative to what else they have running in the background, aswell as the map resolution, ammount in view, and texture settings. however im just wondering if im pissing in the wind with these figures here. its a slightly modified beta3 binary, has sahara, the autolayer painting resource, and a couple modifications to the terraindata to allow the basetex dds to go upto 4096, instead of being clamped at 2048.
Metrics are as follows:
FPS 130.6 Max 353.5 min 0.4 mspf 7.65697
GFX Polycount 1046370 Drawcalls 168 RTChanges 7
Terrain Cells 23 Override 60 Draw Calls 23
now honestly, having nothing to compare these with, its like aiming for an invisible benchmark (Lower poly's and under half of the 370ish draw calls that what the deathball desert map has in most views, thats all i have to really compare against...)
anyway this is how it looks with the 4096 basetex dds, actually it *really* helps out the underlying diffuse map covering the zone, was wondering if anyone had any ideas on what the major negative would be on having that size clamp set to 4096 instead of the default 2048 cap other then the basetex.dds's size going from 2.66 mb to 10.6 mb
I could really do with some figures to compare against to be honest, cant find much about on what others are getting on the metrics results on their projects with just a terrain, gideon and scattersky running.
I know its also all relative to what else they have running in the background, aswell as the map resolution, ammount in view, and texture settings. however im just wondering if im pissing in the wind with these figures here. its a slightly modified beta3 binary, has sahara, the autolayer painting resource, and a couple modifications to the terraindata to allow the basetex dds to go upto 4096, instead of being clamped at 2048.
Metrics are as follows:
FPS 130.6 Max 353.5 min 0.4 mspf 7.65697
GFX Polycount 1046370 Drawcalls 168 RTChanges 7
Terrain Cells 23 Override 60 Draw Calls 23
now honestly, having nothing to compare these with, its like aiming for an invisible benchmark (Lower poly's and under half of the 370ish draw calls that what the deathball desert map has in most views, thats all i have to really compare against...)
anyway this is how it looks with the 4096 basetex dds, actually it *really* helps out the underlying diffuse map covering the zone, was wondering if anyone had any ideas on what the major negative would be on having that size clamp set to 4096 instead of the default 2048 cap other then the basetex.dds's size going from 2.66 mb to 10.6 mb
About the author
#2
10.6 for the diffuse, 242kb for the detail map
That is it, just the single material.
12/19/2010 (12:55 am)
That is a single diffuse map on that terrain, with a 512x512 detail map10.6 for the diffuse, 242kb for the detail map
That is it, just the single material.
#3
Older cards often don't support 4k textures so it depends on what hardware you are targeting. I guess that for a game in development now, it should be quite okay to expect 4k texture support.
12/19/2010 (4:14 am)
Quote:was wondering if anyone had any ideas on what the major negative would be on having that size clamp set to 4096 instead of the default 2048 cap other then the basetex.dds's size going from 2.66 mb to 10.6 mb
Older cards often don't support 4k textures so it depends on what hardware you are targeting. I guess that for a game in development now, it should be quite okay to expect 4k texture support.
#4
I think to be honest at the moment as long as me and jondo can run it, were good lol, our systems are far from groundbreaking, mine was a budget PC off the shelf 2 years ago lol. Intel dualcore e2220 2.4 ghz, 9800gtx+, 2gb ddr3 ram so pretty base level system nowadays for gamers.
It's just all practice at the moment anyhow, gotta wait untill all of the logic is running in the background to see what we can graphically push outta the engine for our game.
Using the 4k diffuse on terrain like that makes hell of a visible difference from the 2k one, it gets too pixellated. Only grumble at the moment is sometimes it seems to get artifacts on it that arent on the original 4096 its pulling from, but thats not too noticable atall once theres a detail map down on it
12/19/2010 (10:42 am)
Thanks Rene,I think to be honest at the moment as long as me and jondo can run it, were good lol, our systems are far from groundbreaking, mine was a budget PC off the shelf 2 years ago lol. Intel dualcore e2220 2.4 ghz, 9800gtx+, 2gb ddr3 ram so pretty base level system nowadays for gamers.
It's just all practice at the moment anyhow, gotta wait untill all of the logic is running in the background to see what we can graphically push outta the engine for our game.
Using the 4k diffuse on terrain like that makes hell of a visible difference from the 2k one, it gets too pixellated. Only grumble at the moment is sometimes it seems to get artifacts on it that arent on the original 4096 its pulling from, but thats not too noticable atall once theres a detail map down on it
#5
12/19/2010 (10:43 am)
Whats a good way of monitoring cpu & gpu usage while its running? 
#6
Also:
12/19/2010 (12:21 pm)
Isn't that what PerfHud is for? I think there needs a few code changes to get it to work ... there is a thread on it somewhere.Also:
echo(getTextureProfileStats());To tell you just what is getting used in texture memory.
#7
12/19/2010 (2:55 pm)
cheers steve 
Torque Owner deepscratch
DeepScratchStudios
so thats 10 for the terrain base texture.
you got materials on that terrain?
say 5? at 2.66 ea?
and bump maps? 2.66 ea.
and detail maps? 2.66 ea.
you got a player? he got 2048 textures? another 2.66
he has a bump map? +2.66
he has a detail map?
you have more players?
they have textures? bumps? details?
see where I'm going with this??
all these textures need to be loaded to be rendered.
bigger takes longer, and holds more buffer space.
more takes longer and holds more buffer space.
this happens every tick, every second you play.
move the camera, and everything has to unload, load the new view, repeat.
this is a huge load.
so yes, I would think it could become an issue.
do a metrix for textures, then look at different things, the sky, the terrain, models, go into fly mode, look at the player,
you'll see a lot of megabytes there, sometimes more than some peoples entire system memory,
that is a huge b/neck in any engine.
that being said, I too use 4096's for my terrain bases, even tried 8192, overkill.