OK back to reality ...
quote:
If he's running that card at 1600x1200, he may have a fillrate problem. Cards may have been filling the screen since the 1980's, but the screens didn't have so many pixels until recently. ;-)
hmm, I realy doubt he's running @ 1600x1200 resolution. Nice try though.
he has no texturing, its a simple 8 triangles ... so you are telling me he's fillrate limited ? For this case, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard (unless he has culling disabled, but I don't think that will hamper things).
quote:
well, I can render for example a 40000 faces mesh (not all tris seen) and I get 125 frames. The problem is when I get really close to the polys.
lets focus here, he's not rendering 40000 face mesh. If he is fillrate limited it is because it's self inflicted not because his hardware can't handle it. GET A GRIP PEOPLE.
anyway enuf bickering ... if he can post some code that would help lots.
Why is this eating so much FPS?
You know, if he is running at 1600x1200, and is getting 130 FPS with a full screen drawn, and with overdraw and no back-face culling, that could easily get up to around 500 megapixels per second, around the fillrate of his hardware. Programs have been filling the entire screen since the 80s, but not at high resolutions, multiple times per frame, at 130 frames per second. I could easily imagine that this is a fillrate limit, partially caused by abusive overdraw.
The problem is fillrate. The performance decreases only when the polys get closer to the screen. He might be even destroying and recreating the vertices each frame, but it doesn't change the fact that the fps is decresing when there are more pixels to draw. Stop worring about performance till you have actually something, where performance might be an issuse. You are drawing some polys and you have a crappy video card, so you are fillrate limited. You draw them closer, so you have twice as much pixels to draw, so you have half the performance assuming that you are still fillrate limited. Easy.
So HexDump, you didn't really answer anyone's questions. We're all obviously curious what resolution you're running at among the other things that were asked of you. If you want us to help, we have to know more about this problem, although it definitely looks like a fillrate issue.
Chris
Chris
Author
Hello,
Sorry, but I have been out all day. First I´m running in windowed mode at 800x600. I´m not destroying vb/everyframe. I noticed that I left Culling to None, I fix it and now I get some more fps, about 200, but is this ok?.
Sorry for the waiting,
HexDump.
Sorry, but I have been out all day. First I´m running in windowed mode at 800x600. I´m not destroying vb/everyframe. I noticed that I left Culling to None, I fix it and now I get some more fps, about 200, but is this ok?.
Sorry for the waiting,
HexDump.
Quote:Original post by HexDump
but is this ok?.
if you game is playable to your satisfaction then it's ok. typically games shoot for 60FPS. your's is well above that so i'd call it OK. i really wouldn't worry about this stuff till you have some game coded that's more involved than a pyramid. at that point you can run a profiler if your game is dropping below your target framerate and figure out where the bottle-necks are. I also wouldn't bother with using windowed mode as your benckmark unless that's really how your game will be played. windowed mode is significantly slower than fullscreen so that could very well be your problem right there. test it in full-screen and see if the problem remains.
-me
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
