Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing the Ultimate 3D Community as a guest. This means that you can only read posts, but can not create posts or topics by yourself. To be able to post you need to register. Then you can participate in the community active and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you are already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is U3D very slow or is it me?; rendering geometry
Topic Started: Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM (583 Views)
copilot
Member
[ *  * ]
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Edited by copilot, Mar 3 2009, 07:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eansis
Member Avatar
ghost
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be a very low amount for a scene in any modern game...when I render that many with U3D however, I get about 100 fps. I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Thats what happens on most computers. Might be because of Game Maker im not sure. Try it in C++ if you can and report the results.
VOTE FOR BUDDY ROEMER HE'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, DOWN TO EARTH AMERICAN GUY WHO ISN'T PART OF THE BIGBROTHER CONSPIRACY

Til'c
 
Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson. They will infact calm up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Despellanion
Member Avatar
Forum God
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
copilot
Member
[ *  * ]
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 08:04 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Do you think that gamemaker is the issue? There are only about 10 instances in the scene, does that matter? I'm not complaining about 150fps, I'm just saying that comparatively, U3D can render about a tenth of the polygons at that speed vs. something like the unreal 2 engine.
Edited by copilot, Mar 3 2009, 08:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eansis
Member Avatar
ghost
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 08:23 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 08:04 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Do you think that gamemaker is the issue? There are only about 10 instances in the scene, does that matter? I'm not complaining about 150fps, I'm just saying that comparatively, U3D can render about a tenth of the polygons at that speed vs. something like the unreal 2 engine.
Yes because without rendering anything, just using the U3d dll in Game Maker will decrease the fps by 200% on most computers.
VOTE FOR BUDDY ROEMER HE'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, DOWN TO EARTH AMERICAN GUY WHO ISN'T PART OF THE BIGBROTHER CONSPIRACY

Til'c
 
Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson. They will infact calm up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Despellanion
Member Avatar
Forum God
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 08:23 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 08:04 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Do you think that gamemaker is the issue? There are only about 10 instances in the scene, does that matter? I'm not complaining about 150fps, I'm just saying that comparatively, U3D can render about a tenth of the polygons at that speed vs. something like the unreal 2 engine.
Not to sound rude, but you should do some studying before comparing U3D+GM with the engine of CoD4 and Unreal :P there's a huuuge difference in capacity.
Edited by Despellanion, Mar 3 2009, 09:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
copilot
Member
[ *  * ]
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 09:43 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 08:23 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 08:04 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Do you think that gamemaker is the issue? There are only about 10 instances in the scene, does that matter? I'm not complaining about 150fps, I'm just saying that comparatively, U3D can render about a tenth of the polygons at that speed vs. something like the unreal 2 engine.
Not to sound rude, but you should do some studying before comparing U3D+GM with the engine of CoD4 and Unreal :P there's a huuuge difference in capacity.
I realize that. I'm not trying to hold U3D to those standards. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Roelor has a picture in his sig of 1.3 million polygons being rendered at 25 fps. How come I can't do 35k polys at more than 150? There seems to be quite a discrepancy there and I'm pretty sure it's not my computer (E6700 + 8800GT). Can you guys think of any reasons there may be for poor polycount performance?
Edited by copilot, Mar 3 2009, 09:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Despellanion
Member Avatar
Forum God
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 09:56 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 09:43 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 08:23 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 08:04 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Do you think that gamemaker is the issue? There are only about 10 instances in the scene, does that matter? I'm not complaining about 150fps, I'm just saying that comparatively, U3D can render about a tenth of the polygons at that speed vs. something like the unreal 2 engine.
Not to sound rude, but you should do some studying before comparing U3D+GM with the engine of CoD4 and Unreal :P there's a huuuge difference in capacity.
I realize that. I'm not trying to hold U3D to those standards. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Roelor has a picture in his sig of 1.3 million polygons being rendered at 25 fps. How come I can't do 35k polys at more than 150? There seems to be quite a discrepancy there and I'm pretty sure it's not my computer (E6700 + 8800GT). Can you guys think of any reasons there may be for poor polycount performance?
One reason can be that your 35k poly model has many texture materials. High poly models with no texture materials will run very efficiently. Once you add about 50-100+ materials, things will start to run significantly slower.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eansis
Member Avatar
ghost
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 10:24 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 09:56 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 09:43 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 08:23 PM
Despellanion
Mar 3 2009, 08:04 PM
copilot
Mar 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Is it just me or does U3D seem extremely slow with rendering geometry? 35,000 triangles would be an extremely low amount for a scene in any modern game. I can get a solid 60fps in games like CoD4 when there are hundreds of thousands of polygons onscreen. When I render that many with U3D however, I get about 150 fps.

I don't know what's wrong. I disabled alpha blending, made sure there was only 2 materials in the whole scene, Set a maximum draw distance for the camera, made sure there was nothing but rendering in the step events...If I go from 35,000 triangles to 10,000 triangles I double my frame rate. So is it just U3D that is slow?
Are you complaining that you "only" get 150 fps? Remember that it is Game Maker you are using.
Do you think that gamemaker is the issue? There are only about 10 instances in the scene, does that matter? I'm not complaining about 150fps, I'm just saying that comparatively, U3D can render about a tenth of the polygons at that speed vs. something like the unreal 2 engine.
Not to sound rude, but you should do some studying before comparing U3D+GM with the engine of CoD4 and Unreal :P there's a huuuge difference in capacity.
I realize that. I'm not trying to hold U3D to those standards. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Roelor has a picture in his sig of 1.3 million polygons being rendered at 25 fps. How come I can't do 35k polys at more than 150? There seems to be quite a discrepancy there and I'm pretty sure it's not my computer (E6700 + 8800GT). Can you guys think of any reasons there may be for poor polycount performance?
One reason can be that your 35k poly model has many texture materials. High poly models with no texture materials will run very efficiently. Once you add about 50-100+ materials, things will start to run significantly slower.
Yeah try to keep materials and bones to less than 10.
VOTE FOR BUDDY ROEMER HE'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, DOWN TO EARTH AMERICAN GUY WHO ISN'T PART OF THE BIGBROTHER CONSPIRACY

Til'c
 
Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson. They will infact calm up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Best
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Frame rates can be quite misleading. Here is a little graph illustrating it (click it). The x-axis is the time in milliseconds needed per frame, the y-axis is the framerate (frames per second):
Posted Image
The conversion from fps to computing time in ms is 1000/x, the other way is also 1000/x (drawn in the graph). Simple math so far. What matters is the following.

125 fps means that one frame requires 8 milliseconds to be computed. Probably two to four go to Game Maker. One probably goes to Ultimate 3D tasks, which need to be performed in every step (e.g. background clearing). So the actual drawing is probably somewhere in the range from 3 to 5 milliseconds. In roelor's case it is 25 fps, which makes a 40 fps. Probably about 35 are used for drawing. That is quite a bit more than in your case. So keep in mind to think in milliseconds, not in fps, when it comes to performance considerations. It is more clear. You have a "budget" of 33 milliseconds, everything you do costs a little.

In addition to this the triangle count is quite a bad measure for the rendering cost of a scene. Factors with about the same relevancy are the number of pixels, which need to be computed and the number of so called batches. The first factor implies that big triangles have a higher cost than small ones. A batch is the result of a communication between the CPU and the graphics device. Whenever a bit of geometry is drawn you get one and also in many other cases. Keeping this number low is important. The draw call count is a rough measure for the number of batches. Roelor used small cubes (with small triangles and few pixels) and he probably created big packs of geometry to have few batches.

Other than that I might point you to statement on Game Maker.

To answer your question in short:
Yes, Ultimate 3D for Game Maker is slow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reikyrr
Forum God
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I used textured buildings (simple ones of 23 triangles a piece), The texture was a 256x256 png. The purpose of this test was to check the efficiency of my model. (not a very good test I guess but it has given me a basic measurement of performance and such.) I also disabled the step() function
Edited by Reikyrr, Mar 4 2009, 12:15 AM.
~Inspirational quote~
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skarik
Member Avatar
kitten eating scum
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Okay, I'm going to try Enigma now.



Nah, J/K.

Best thing is to reduce the number of DLL calls so Game Maker won't wait for each thing to finish. I know that the inverse FPS drop I get from a texture projection in Game Maker is about twice as much to a texture projection in other games.

I like Dr. B's reasoning. It rhymes with seasoning.



SO yeah, if you can figure out how to get the window handle of the window in Enigma, you could always use that instead of GM. I'm not doing it since I'm way too far with Stickman already. I want to kill Game Maker before I'm done.
Blog|EHS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
copilot
Member
[ *  * ]
Thanks for the input guys, Dr. Best your explanation was especially good! One thing I did notice is that when I have stencil shadows enabled, the triangle count goes from ~6,000 to ~60,000 when only the terrain is in view. This happens whether or not I have CreateShadowOptimizedGeometry(); called. Any ideas why this may be or a possible workaround? 54,000 triangles is a large portion of my budget!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Best
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ultimate 3D uses stencil shadows and those are based upon shadow volumes, which are made up of triangles. More precisely they are made up of very many triangles. And the volumes need to be rendered twice. This is why the triangle count raises like this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
copilot
Member
[ *  * ]
Dr. Best
Mar 4 2009, 10:06 PM
Ultimate 3D uses stencil shadows and those are based upon shadow volumes, which are made up of triangles. More precisely they are made up of very many triangles. And the volumes need to be rendered twice. This is why the triangle count raises like this.
Thanks, that explains it!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Questions about Ultimate 3D · Next Topic »
Add Reply