• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Zouflain

[C++] Advice needed for implementing smarter and more efficient quadtrees

1 post in this topic

I'm implementing a quadtree for the spacial partitioning of a very large group of objects (target is 400k and trying to get it as fast as I can (target is no more than 50ms for all 400k). My initial naive approach was only able to handle about 1,000 objects in 27 seconds, but I've since been able to get it down to 10,000 objects in 113ms mostly by paying close attention to unnecessary move, copy, and temporary operations. I'm comfortably certain that there are no more such operations that can be eliminated.

The quadtree is a structure with two std::unordered_set: the first contains the id#'s of all objects inside the tree node aka "owned" objects, and the second contains the first plus any object close enough to the node's border to be included aka "known" objects. It also has a bounding rectangle defined by its top-left and bottom-right points (can be instantiated Rect(x1,y1,x2,y1) to avoid unecessary Point() constructors).

At every update, every known object is inserted into the quadtree. The quadtree is updated with quadtree::insert(const Point& where,const uint64_t& which).
--The method checks first if the quadtree has any children AND if it's depth is < a maximum AND if it has > max objecs within it. If that's true, it creates 4 children and dumps both of it's id containers into the children.
--The method then checks if it has any children - if so, call quadtree::insert for each child. If not, then check if the bounding rect contains "where"
----If the bounding rect contains "where" insert "which" into both containers
----If not, check if the bounding rect collides with a rect formed around where Rect(where.x-width/2,where.y-width/2,where.x+width/2,where.y+width/2). If so, add it to just the "known" container.

Unfortunately, after profiling 10 iterations of 10,000 randomly distributed objects, this leads to about ~408,000 calls to quadtree::insert (~37% execution time), 3,570,000 rect constructors (~6.6%), 7,256,000 point constructors (~10.38%), 3,586,000 stl emplacements (~13.21%).

The only really meaningful way to further optimize this that I can see would be to find a less naive way of splitting the quadtree, so that the top node needn't dump every "known" object into every child, which is what is dramatically multiplying the number of constructors. Any advice in this regard would be seriously appreciated.

Barely Annotated Code:
[source lang="cpp"]
bool LogicTree::insert(const QuadPoint& where,const EntityID& which){
bool within = false;

//check if split needed
if(children.size()==0 && depth < MAX_DEPTH && owned.size()>MAX_ENTITIES){
Coord width = bounds.rightBottom.x-bounds.leftTop.x,height = bounds.rightBottom.y-bounds.leftTop.y;
QuadRect c1(bounds.leftTop.x,bounds.leftTop.y,bounds.leftTop.x+width/2,bounds.leftTop.y+height/2),
c2(bounds.leftTop.x+width/2,bounds.leftTop.y,bounds.leftTop.x+width,bounds.leftTop.y+height/2),
c3(bounds.leftTop.x,bounds.leftTop.y+height/2,bounds.leftTop.x+width/2,bounds.leftTop.y+height),
c4(bounds.leftTop.x+width/2,bounds.leftTop.y+height/2,bounds.rightBottom.x,bounds.rightBottom.y);
children.emplace_back(new LogicTree(c1,depth+1));
children.emplace_back(new LogicTree(c2,depth+1));
children.emplace_back(new LogicTree(c3,depth+1));
children.emplace_back(new LogicTree(c4,depth+1));
for(auto& child : children){
massInsertChild(child);
}
}

//Pass to children or insert
if(children.size()>0){
for(auto& child : children){
if(child->insert(where,which)){
within = true;
}
}
}else{
if(bounds.contains(where)){
owned.emplace(which);
known.emplace(which);
within = true;
}else if(bounds.intersects(QuadRect(where,MAX_RANGE))){
known.emplace(which);
}
}
return within;
}
[/source]P.S>If this comes out as a solid block of text, my appologies - for some reason this forum likes to delete my newline characters.

Edit: Attempt #1 to fix the whitespace nuke. Also fixed a mistake (400k not 3mil, lol).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... new LogicTree ...

A quick, drive by, guess of possible optimization opportunities: be sure allocation uses dedicated pools (the more spatial awareness you can cram into the implementation the better - cache is a bitch too, especially with trees).

Had relatively recently a case where using a pool made an over 100 TIMES (or was it over 1000?) speed difference although allocations were relatively rare compared to work done within the allocated objects - reason being: heap degrades to a standstill extremely fast if one does not use it sparingly/sensibly (LogicTree sounds like massive heap abuse).

 

edit:

"target is no more than 50ms for all 400k" ... i would say you have about 500 cycles to work with per insert. Way more than needed for the instructions themselves, EXCEPT - one cache miss penalty per one memory access alone can be up to 200-500 (*). Without being cache friendly i do not think your goal is achievable. Other than that, totally doable.

 

*) Can't remember any typical numbers for x86 of the top of my head, random estimates.

Actually reading from main memory is very slow (~30-100, depends on current clock speed etc)

Cache miss itself (4-60, depending on how many cache levels missed).

TLB miss (15-300, depending on how much of the relevant structures are in cache + how OS implements it, can easily be much slower)

Edited by tanzanite7
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0