Terrain perforance issues.
by Tarly · in Torque 3D Professional · 01/06/2011 (3:48 pm) · 5 replies
I might need a little help here with T3D and terrains.
Being new to T3D, I have read some over terrains. I finally decided to delve into L3DT and picked it up at the GG Store. Aaron has been a huge help in issues I have had in the past, with both GG engine and others when it has come to terrain.
In going thru one of BundySoft’s tuts, It says that for you should not use a height field of more than 2048 x 2048 for best performance.
I was using 256x256 and 512 x 512 height maps. After getting my Sea legs under me, I decided to see what a larger map would look like.
I whipped out the L3DT T3D terrain tut and made a map of 2048 x 2048. I have to say, L3DT 2.9 Pro- Torque is AWESOME to use. Even a newbie like myself and make a map, and get it into T3D and then get into it with ease.
As I goofed around.. I decided to switch from a 2048 x2048 to a 4096 x 4096 (Bigger is better right?) Well, it took a much longer time to build a map. All the steps were the same, but.. man…. It took a lot longer for L3DT to map all that terrain.
I opened the map in Sapphire and thought I had done something wrong. It was slow.. WAY slow. But, assuming it would be better in T3D, I popped that 4096x4096 into T3D and loaded T3D up.
The first time it loaded that monster map, I rebooted my machine. Task Manager showed the machine was running. But, T3D just sat there after I clicked on go. The second time I tried loading that monster map, my wife called me away from the machine for a few minutes. I had clicked on go, and was wondering what was wrong, stepped away, and when I got back I was in the map.
Moving around the map was not a pretty sight though.
Are there settings in T3D that I might adjust? I don’t believe I have done anything any different in L3DT than I had with smaller maps. But… good lord… that 4096 map was um, ugly for performance to put it mildly.
Ideas?
CB
(Side note: What I know of maps has come from tuts that Bundysoft has posted. My terms and understanding of this is limited. Please try and keep the geek speak gentle.
<Grin> )
Being new to T3D, I have read some over terrains. I finally decided to delve into L3DT and picked it up at the GG Store. Aaron has been a huge help in issues I have had in the past, with both GG engine and others when it has come to terrain.
In going thru one of BundySoft’s tuts, It says that for you should not use a height field of more than 2048 x 2048 for best performance.
I was using 256x256 and 512 x 512 height maps. After getting my Sea legs under me, I decided to see what a larger map would look like.
I whipped out the L3DT T3D terrain tut and made a map of 2048 x 2048. I have to say, L3DT 2.9 Pro- Torque is AWESOME to use. Even a newbie like myself and make a map, and get it into T3D and then get into it with ease.
As I goofed around.. I decided to switch from a 2048 x2048 to a 4096 x 4096 (Bigger is better right?) Well, it took a much longer time to build a map. All the steps were the same, but.. man…. It took a lot longer for L3DT to map all that terrain.
I opened the map in Sapphire and thought I had done something wrong. It was slow.. WAY slow. But, assuming it would be better in T3D, I popped that 4096x4096 into T3D and loaded T3D up.
The first time it loaded that monster map, I rebooted my machine. Task Manager showed the machine was running. But, T3D just sat there after I clicked on go. The second time I tried loading that monster map, my wife called me away from the machine for a few minutes. I had clicked on go, and was wondering what was wrong, stepped away, and when I got back I was in the map.
Moving around the map was not a pretty sight though.
Are there settings in T3D that I might adjust? I don’t believe I have done anything any different in L3DT than I had with smaller maps. But… good lord… that 4096 map was um, ugly for performance to put it mildly.
Ideas?
CB
(Side note: What I know of maps has come from tuts that Bundysoft has posted. My terms and understanding of this is limited. Please try and keep the geek speak gentle.
<Grin> )
About the author
#2
as steve's mentioned
a 2048 heightmap generates a terrain with 8,388,608 poly's
a 4096 heightmap generates a terrain with 33,554,432 tri's
also with the way l3dt generates the texture alpha maps for the terrain, you will be having alot of drawcalls.
The massive hit with the 4096 heightmap is your graphics card and ram struggling to squeeze it all through a bottleneck...
Also you could have a totally flat terrain and it would have the same performance as one thats properly detailed... (actually, it may be *worse* performance totally flat as less terrain segments will be obscured from sight and culled)
Things you can do to improve terrain performance is to set the lod power higher on it. atm i cant remember the parameters name off top of my head... the defaults 16 though, ramp it upto say 32 or 64, you will notice that the terrain in the distance gets 'smoother' due to it rendering at a lower resolution. this will not improve the load time though on the mission as its still pulling from the same massive .ter file.
What are your system specs ?
01/06/2011 (11:21 pm)
2048 is the stock limit on the diffuse, 4096 works on the heightmap however it is 4x as many verts as a 2048 map.as steve's mentioned
a 2048 heightmap generates a terrain with 8,388,608 poly's
a 4096 heightmap generates a terrain with 33,554,432 tri's
also with the way l3dt generates the texture alpha maps for the terrain, you will be having alot of drawcalls.
The massive hit with the 4096 heightmap is your graphics card and ram struggling to squeeze it all through a bottleneck...
Also you could have a totally flat terrain and it would have the same performance as one thats properly detailed... (actually, it may be *worse* performance totally flat as less terrain segments will be obscured from sight and culled)
Things you can do to improve terrain performance is to set the lod power higher on it. atm i cant remember the parameters name off top of my head... the defaults 16 though, ramp it upto say 32 or 64, you will notice that the terrain in the distance gets 'smoother' due to it rendering at a lower resolution. this will not improve the load time though on the mission as its still pulling from the same massive .ter file.
What are your system specs ?
#3
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.100427-1636)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: System manufacturer
System Model: System Product Name
BIOS: BIOS Date: 03/26/08 Ver: 08.00.14
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Memory: 3328MB RAM
Page File: 391MB used, 4819MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Is the system stats.. older.. but.. still chuggin along.
I really wanted to get Grome.. but.. I don't think it would make any difference.
CB
01/07/2011 (5:31 am)
thank you guys.Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.100427-1636)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: System manufacturer
System Model: System Product Name
BIOS: BIOS Date: 03/26/08 Ver: 08.00.14
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Memory: 3328MB RAM
Page File: 391MB used, 4819MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Is the system stats.. older.. but.. still chuggin along.
I really wanted to get Grome.. but.. I don't think it would make any difference.
CB
Associate Steve Acaster
[YorkshireRifles.com]