next »

[TheeeVoid]

  I have seen a lot of people on the forums talking about low fps, and i was thinking how could you fix this, so then it hit (easiest solution out of all of them) you should have a lower quality button, what do you think about this?

[ayoriceball]

...

http://mythruna.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=20111217_Release_Notes

[TheeeVoid]

*FACEPALM*

[FutureB]

  LAWL!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a Great Idea

[TheeeVoid]

F8 just changes shading quality, lets say mythruna was 256x256 i was thinking there should be an option for 128x128 textures and 64x64

[pspeed]

F8 just changes shading quality, lets say mythruna was 256x256 i was thinking there should be an option for 128x128 textures and 64x64

Texture size makes almost no difference in most cases.  I did try it once on one of my machines that gets 2 FPS (and this was some time ago in Mythruna dev... it's probably worse now).

The number of textures seems to make far more difference.

Anyway, I will have options for all of this someday.  I have to be careful what I sink my time into.  If it's something simple or something experimental (like the F8 setting) then I do it... otherwise, I end up spending time making a game that runs really great on all machines but still looks a lot like Minecraft.

[Moonkey]

WRONG... Texture sizes ALWAYS help the computer in most cases. There's a mod for Minecraft called AdventureCraft (search it up if you want to know more) and you can run scripts in it. Well there's a map for that mod that has Buttons that you press and they change the maps texture sizes. 256x256 128x128 and 32x32. I tried them and the highest one had a small drop on my FPS... The lowest (default Minecraft texture size) helped my FPS. Just in case computers have problems with Texture size maybe you should implement it because it could help more people with low grade computers play the game.

[ayoriceball]

WRONG... Texture sizes ALWAYS help the computer in most cases. There's a mod for Minecraft called AdventureCraft (search it up if you want to know more) and you can run scripts in it. Well there's a map for that mod that has Buttons that you press and they change the maps texture sizes. 256x256 128x128 and 32x32. I tried them and the highest one had a small drop on my FPS... The lowest (default Minecraft texture size) helped my FPS. Just in case computers have problems with Texture size maybe you should implement it because it could help more people with low grade computers play the game.

It's still a very minor difference. If you can run Minecraft at 60 fps, and then run a CoD game at 60 fps...

Running higher resolution texture packs only reduces my fps by about 3 or 4 frames. Turning off tree leaves transparency makes a way bigger difference.

[pspeed]

Also, Minecraft is a poor example because as far as I know they already use a texture atlas and so only have a few textures in memory.

Mythruna still uses many textures... at least one per material type and sometimes more.

Smaller textures will help really memory starved cards but a texture atlas would be more likely to help even those cards.

[Moonkey]

It's still a very minor difference. If you can run Minecraft at 60 fps, and then run a CoD game at 60 fps...

Running higher resolution texture packs only reduces my fps by about 3 or 4 frames. Turning off tree leaves transparency makes a way bigger difference.

Then how come you can run better on mythruna with /trees low... Trees on high I can run without a performance decrease, but /flora low has to be on. Or I get 3-1 FPS. Also I'm having problems with looking at man made buildings... Towers, and towns. It goes down to 10-5 FPS when looking at a tower... There's a problem with seeing player built things, but I don't know what's wrong.

[ayoriceball]

I run both Mythruna and Minecraft better with non-transparent tree leaves. I suppose our graphics are different.

[pspeed]

It's still a very minor difference. If you can run Minecraft at 60 fps, and then run a CoD game at 60 fps...

Running higher resolution texture packs only reduces my fps by about 3 or 4 frames. Turning off tree leaves transparency makes a way bigger difference.

Then how come you can run better on mythruna with /trees low... Trees on high I can run without a performance decrease, but /flora low has to be on. Or I get 3-1 FPS. Also I'm having problems with looking at man made buildings... Towers, and towns. It goes down to 10-5 FPS when looking at a tower... There's a problem with seeing player built things, but I don't know what's wrong.

Just for the record:
/trees low uses about 1/3 the triangles as /trees normal.  People who are triangle-limited will see a marked improvement.

The trees always use transparent textures even the green spongy ones... it's just the transparent parts are smaller.

/flora low uses about the same triangles but they are not transparent, they do not move, and there is not 3 texture look-ups per pixel... also the flowers go away completely.

When looking at human made stuff you are seeing different materials than normally appear in the natural world, ie: the "textures on screen" doubles, easily.  This is why I say that texture switches are one of the more critical things on the slower cards.  The best test of this of all is to go find a secluded and deep ocean and go to the bottom.  You will only see stone and dirt... if your frame rate is really high then you are "texture switch limited".  In other words, the more different textures you have on screen the slower you will run.  A texture atlas can fix this problem and I'm 90% sure Minecraft uses a texture atlas.  It also reduces object count which can be a good thing for CPU bound systems.

It the tower you are looking at is only stone and dirt then it may be something else can could just be down to triangle count.  You can kind of get an idea of what's going on if you enable full stats with F11.  It will show triangle/vertex counts, object counts, number of shaders in use, etc..

[Moonkey]

Then maybe you could imlement a texture atlas for computers that have problems rendering multiple textures at once? Also if you call a texture atlas a PNG with ALL the games' textures in it then yes Minecraft uses a texture atlas.

[pspeed]

Then maybe you could imlement a texture atlas for computers that have problems rendering multiple textures at once? Also if you call a texture atlas a PNG with ALL the games' textures in it then yes Minecraft uses a texture atlas.

Yes, I will implement a texture atlas some day.  It is a significant change and probably won't happen until after alpha.

Yes, a texture atlas is where all of the games textures are in one image... called an atlas.  This means that the game doesn't have to switch the texture.  They can send a single one up to the GPU and then just use different texture coordinates to reference different parts of it.  It also means that more of the geometry can be batched into single objects where usually they'd be separated by material.