Mythruna

Do you (or are you planning to have) a Graphics Card Compatibility List?

Paul

That would be a helpful feature to have, perhaps saving Paul from answering the same questions over and over again. I could help out with the Linux side of compatibility.

It would be nice to have.  I haven't considered putting the effort in yet personally because it will change... both from the fact that card drivers evolve, the libraries evolve, and Mythruna will evolve.

But it is a good idea.

For now, you could get a card name that supports the bare minimum for Mythruna.

I haven't tried the physics demo yet, but with the current version my card barely scrapes by.
Mobile Intel 4 Series Express Chipset

With vsync off, the physics demo runs at 2500 FPS or so on my machine.  It's not very graphically taxing. :)

Oh. I'll have to test that out soon. :)
I was trying to imply that I'm not sure my card will run it once physics and AI are added.

Assuming the rest of your PC is decent then I'm not sure it will matter.  Physics and AI shouldn't put any extra effort on the GPU.

And if you are maxed on CPU then I suggest that turning off sound may also give you higher frame rates.

That would make sense... :P
Thanks for the tips!

Nvidia Quadro FX3800 with Nvidia 304.43 drivers on 64bit Ubuntu 12.04.1
Between 30 and 60 FPS depending on detail level settings on single player in the spawn area.

Is that a mobile card?

Do you have more than one CPU?

No, it's a PCIE card. I'm wondering now if the drivers are the latest as I'd expect higher fps than this.
Maybe the there is a difference between 64bit and 32bit drivers (perhaps 32bit are supported better)

Spec attached.

tbh i think that graphics compatibility is going to be a stumbling block for a lot of users and, unless addressed somehow, could put many potential players off the game. I'm in a position where i can try numerous cards (albeit not brand new ones) and I struggled to get something with which I could get decent FPS

The game is not yet optimized.  I will worry about that when I have a game.

Otherwise, I spend a whole year just making the test engine run well and still can't even compete with Minecraft alpha on features.  Plus, the longer I wait the more tech will catch up. ;)

Did we already cover what settings you run with?  Do you have AA cranked up?

I was trying to compare yours to my (now almost two years old) GTX 460... because my performance blows yours away.  But I think it's just a more powerful card in this case.  Many sites on the web seem to think the GTX line is better than the Quadros (which I always considered to be pro-level cards back in the day).

I get around 230 FPS around spawn in single player.

I have a Mobility Radeon HD 5870 and I get about 80-40 at my lab with max clip/everything but AA turned up.

tried to install the latest Nvidia drivers and screwed up the gui. Reinstalled the 'Current' version from the repository which appears to be v 295.40

Had a fiddle with the AA settings in the CP but best I can get is a stable 60FPS with clip at minimum and effects off and low quality shading.

I can put up with that but I'll try to replicate my setup on a test machine at work when I get back in Jan and test it with a selection of cards and drivers under windows and Ubuntu. Will report back my findings.

Oh! I disabled vsync and am now getting 80-350FPS depending on the detail levels (clip, post-processing and shading)

LOL.  v-sync syncs it with the display refresh... so max 60 FPS on most monitors. :)

yes, well perhaps some explanation on the initial GUI might be helpful.
There's also a combo box saying Disabled, 2x, 4x etc ??

That's for Anti-aliasing.  Disabled is the fastest... each option above that gets progressively slower but less jaggies in the visuals.

Paul: Is this kind of data sufficient?

I got a couple of utilities which show the OpenGL Version, GLU Version (not sure what that is), Direct X Support and Shader Model Support (is that the same as GLSL?)

Not sure if I should include performance specs for each card or just whether the game works or not. Doing performance specs would take much longer.

That's pretty sweet.  Too bad it doesn't dump the GLSL version, too.  You know all of that information should be available in the Mythruna client.log if the game runs at all.

I'm sure performance would be interesting but I understand it's more difficult to obtain.  My person benchmark is to just run single player and wait until the FPS settles down and then note it.  But a proper test would also be to check the various options.  I don't think that's worth it right now and maybe someday Mythruna will build in some benchmark tests.

I have GLSL 4.20. So... I'm beyond good to go.

Perhaps then those people here could post their client.log files in this thread and I can add them to the report?

Good idea.

well then heres mine :p

Guys please post your client.log files here for the cards that are known to work. You can post the ones that are known not to work too but please say so :)

The relevant part of the client.log for my main card:

Is 4.1.0 the OpenGL support version?

I guess I'll post what's relevant.

Display adapter information:
Adapter:null
Driver Version:null
Vendor:NVIDIA Corporation
Version:4.3.0 NVIDIA 310.19
Renderer:GeForce GTX 560/PCIe/SSE2
GLSL Ver:4.30 NVIDIA via Cg compiler


I'll post my lappy with AMD graphics later.

Yep.  I haven't updated my drivers in a while.  The new version of Mythruna (one not out yet) makes this clearer in the options screen.  I should fix the settings dump, too.

Ok then if I'm taking some of this stuff from player client.logs then GLU Ver, Direct X Support & Shader Model Support won't be completed for a lot of the cards. I'd be as well to leave these out I think unless they're relevant?

15 cards so far recorded

I definitely don't care about direct x versions.

When available, everything that I quoted from my client.log is useful information, I think.  Only if it "doesn't work" do I care what settings were tried and so on.

Laptop:

Display adapter information:
Adapter:aticfx64
Driver Version:null
Vendor:ATI Technologies Inc.
Version:4.2.11764 Compatibility Profile Context
Renderer:AMD Radeon(TM) HD 6520G
GLSL Ver:4.20

Looking at the information above I noticed the client.log only shows my Radeon HD 6520G (integrated graphics) but it is also in a crossfire 'array' with a dedicated Radeon HD 7670M. So my question is if Mythruna is even using the Radeon HD 7670M?

Maybe... but likely not.  If it's a "use one or the other" situation then lwjgl based games invariably seem to chose the wrong card.  For nvidia setups, it's possible to force it to use the higher end card.

Tests and data gleaned so far. I'm wishing I had more time to do FPS comparisons but just don't have sufficient time.
Generally it's going towards: Higher OpenGL and GLSL compatibility and a preference for NVidia cards which is kind of what I expected.

I'll keep going with the card I have available but it would be very handy if current players would post the relevant part of their client.log files please

Cheers

Paul

Game runs great for me and I haven't had a problem with my laptop not auto-switching to this card when starting the game in a long time.

Display adapter information:
Adapter:igdumd64
Driver Version:8.15.10.2342
Vendor:ATI Technologies Inc.
Version:4.2.11995 Compatibility Profile Context
Renderer:AMD Radeon HD 6700M Series
GLSL Ver:4.20

BTW, super thanks for compiling this list.  I'm wondering if I should stick it up on the wiki and/or give you/someone access to stick it up on the wiki.  The Mythruna wiki is sort of underutilized at the moment.

Ge-Force Mobility 7950. Works, with some graphic kinks. Put it up!

I disabled the integrated graphics and deleted my client.log to generate a new one. the client.log still showed the same 6520G but it was evident the integrated graphics were not in use because I saw a small drop in framerates so that most likely means the game has made use of the dual graphics.

(so change the HD 7670M to compatible ;))

You're welcome Paul

I've trawled the tech threads for client log files but the more people who post them here the better the data will be.

Perhaps it would be handy to also know what their average FPS is at minimum distance clip and lowest detail levels too. If I get time I'll retest the higher end cards to get their FPS scores to create a graduated scale of usability.

Paul

FPS data would be cool.  Beware, on my card the low quality shader is actually slightly slower.

<Removed>

Inappropriate thread.

How daaaare you remove your post when it is quoted.

In this case, that's fine.  Someone quoted it so we know what happened and we know he felt like it was a mistake and removed it.  That way we don't end up with 10 messages agreeing,etc..

So please just let the subject die rather than polluting the thread further.

sorry. i will try further to be more on subject, as i forgot the 4 steps that you told me at the moment...

Updated list

Wooh! Now make a "READ FIRST INCASE OF ISSUE" thread.

I'm still looking for data from current players. If you could post the last bit of your client.log file along with your average ping at 64m clip that'd be appreciated.

e.g.

Display adapter information:
Adapter:null
Driver Version:null
Vendor:NVIDIA Corporation
Version:3.3.0 NVIDIA 295.40
Renderer:Quadro FX 3800/PCIe/SSE2
GLSL Ver:3.30 NVIDIA via Cg compiler

Ave FPS @ 64m = 250

Thanks

Paul

Display adapter information:
Adapter:aticfx64
Driver Version:8.17.10.1151
Vendor:ATI Technologies Inc.
Version:4.2.11931 Compatibility Profile Context
Renderer:ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5800 Series
GLSL Ver:4.20 (Lol GLSL version is higher than the card above me >:D, and mine is supposed to be "Mobile") D: NEW SMILEY!!! RUN AND SCREAM

Thanks Monkey, any idea what your ave FPS is?

60-40. Mainly 55.

With vsynch on or off?

Off of course.

I typically leave vsync on. There are good reasons stated elsewhere as to why. Its actually a good idea.

I always keep vsync on or else the fps will go beyond the refresh rate of 60hz.

Having frame-rates above your refresh rate shows the frames less smoothly. V-sync is only useful if you have tearing display, or your frame-rate is above your refresh rate and you want smoother frame display. So, those are 2 good reasons. I don't really need it for Mythruna (I noticed Blockscape runs better than Mythruna) so I don't touch it.

Folks, I think there are still a vast number of current players who could post their client logs to help with the compatibility list.

If you haven’t done so, could you do it please?

Many thanks

Paul

Display adapter information:
Adapter:aticfx64
Driver Version:8.17.10.1083
Vendor:ATI Technologies Inc.
Version:4.1.10834 Compatibility Profile Context
Renderer:AMD Radeon HD 6310 Graphics                 
GLSL Ver:4.10

20-30FPS average.

Display adapter information:
Adapter:igdumd64
Driver Version:8.15.10.1892
Vendor:Intel
Version:2.1.0 - Build 8.15.10.1892
Renderer:Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family
GLSL Ver:1.20  - Intel Build 8.15.10.1892

4-10 FPS normal, ~25 FPS max.

Oh intel. Your GPU's are good for business but why not compete on both sides?

Good for business = cheaply made but barely functional.

Exactly. Cheap businesses.

sticky*

Updated but still need more data

Try to slap on the Nvidia GT 610 and up

I think we'll have to wait until some reports actual results versus theoretical results.

Heres the error file:

Uncaught exception from thread:Thread[LWJGL Renderer Thread,5,main]
com.jme3.renderer.RendererException: Shader link failure, shader:Shader[language=GLSL100, numSources=2, numUniforms=20, shaderSources=[ShaderSource[name=MatDefs/MyLighting.vert, defines, type=Vertex], ShaderSource[name=MatDefs/MyLighting.frag, defines, type=Fragment]]] info:Fragment shader(s) failed to link,  vertex shader(s) linked.
 
   at com.jme3.renderer.lwjgl.LwjglRenderer.updateShaderData(LwjglRenderer.java:1087)
   at com.jme3.renderer.lwjgl.LwjglRenderer.setShader(LwjglRenderer.java:1122)
   at com.jme3.material.Material.renderMultipassLighting(Material.java:799)
   at com.jme3.material.Material.render(Material.java:1028)
   at com.jme3.renderer.RenderManager.renderGeometry(RenderManager.java:658)
   at com.jme3.renderer.queue.RenderQueue.renderGeometryList(RenderQueue.java:299)
   at com.jme3.renderer.queue.RenderQueue.renderQueue(RenderQueue.java:351)
   at com.jme3.renderer.RenderManager.renderViewPortQueues(RenderManager.java:894)
   at com.jme3.renderer.RenderManager.flushQueue(RenderManager.java:850)
   at com.jme3.renderer.RenderManager.renderViewPort(RenderManager.java:1130)
   at com.jme3.renderer.RenderManager.render(RenderManager.java:1173)
   at com.jme3.app.SimpleApplication.update(SimpleApplication.java:254)
   at com.jme3.system.lwjgl.LwjglAbstractDisplay.runLoop(LwjglAbstractDisplay.java:149)
   at com.jme3.system.lwjgl.LwjglDisplay.runLoop(LwjglDisplay.java:182)
   at com.jme3.system.lwjgl.LwjglAbstractDisplay.run(LwjglAbstractDisplay.java:223)
   at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

Build version:20120627

Memory usage:
Working memory: 74% (67636552/91033600)  VM Max: 13% (67636552/518979584)

Rendering caps:

plz if u cn help HALP  :( :( :(

Even if you didn't post the whole log, I think I can predict that you have an older ATI card.  Sorry you are having trouble.  The driver writers for this card seem to think an error is useful without any actual information... or maybe they just have a sick sense of humor.

Since I can't determine anything other than "it's broke", I can't actually solve the problem with this card without having one personally.

If it's not that older ATI card then maybe you can try upgrading the drivers.

Really sorry about this.  It's very frustrating.

Ok, I couldn't be bothered to check if my card is already on this list, but here goes.

My machine itself is pretty crap, so it usually runs 10 - 20 FPS, 30 - 40 on a good spike.

It's an Nvidia Geforce 210 btw.