Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Bugs that have been resolved.

Moderator: Graf Zahl

Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Blue Shadow »

Tested with: 2.1pre-1942-gbddad29
Spoiler: GL Stuff
I ran The Ultimate Torment and Torture with that build, and... my framerate was just in the ground.
User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Rachael »

Are you using TUTNT take II?

What map were you on when you experienced the framerate drops, and what position were you at, and what were you doing?

And lastly, what is the effect of using the "Freeze" cheat in the console?
Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Blue Shadow »

I was playing "vanilla" TUTNT, with no extras. The framerate drop happens from the get-go. The map was the first map (TNT01), in the starting room. The freeze command didn't change anything.

I ran the game again and went on explore in the level; it'd seem that the drop in performance is related to the sky. It happens if you're in a sector where there is a sky or there is a line of sight with the sky...
User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Rachael »

I started playing it to see if I could get similar problems. Classic Daniel Gimmer mapping - while he does put lots of attention and detail into his work, and his mapping is absolutely stunning and beautiful, his biggest weakness - his Achilles's heel - he can't design anything that runs smoothly on anything slower than the power rigs he uses. ;)

At any rate, I did experience framerate problems towards the end of the level, but these seemed to be due to actor pollution more than anything. I doubt his DECORATE scripts are cleaning up after themselves, causing a creeping slowdown to eventually happen because of the number of actors the game has to process. The "freeze" cheat I mentioned fixed the problem temporarily for me - but due to this problem, I was experiencing similar framerates, sometimes even slower, and this is on a gaming laptop that's no more than 2 years old.

Throughout the entire first "episode" - my laptop fans were kicking up to full throttle, though, and it doesn't usually do that unless I am playing a new game like Fallout 4.

One other thing I forgot to ask you - what version of GZDoom are you running?
Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Blue Shadow »

Eruanna wrote:what version of GZDoom are you running?
2.1pre-1942-gbddad29 (it's the first thing I mentioned in the opening post :P).

That build notwithstanding, with TUTNT, the performance is generally fine on my machine (it's a laptop I got in 2012, but only started using as my main computer a year later), except for the final map where you scale the big mountain to reach the final boss.
User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Rachael »

Blue Shadow wrote:2.1pre-1942-gbddad29 (it's the first thing I mentioned in the opening post :P).
Sorry, I missed that. XD

Have you tried the 1.8 series, now that they have been getting some updates? The 2.x branch just does not seem to like ATI's whatsoever for whatever reason, or at least none of the ATI's I've tested with them run well. You can try this build to see if it makes any difference.

EDIT: Just updated my GZDoom from today's build, and got the same problem.
Spoiler: GL Info
Typing "toggle gl_noskyboxes" causes the framerate to stabilize again, so the issue is obviously related to the skybox code, as Blue Shadow already pointed out.

Problem was introduced in the 1.8 branch sometime between "gzdoom-1.8.10-1294-ga1798c9" and "gzdoom-1.8.10-1315-gae25aa1" and seems to have ported over to the 2.x branch in that time. (Sorry I don't have a build environment to compile this myself; such things take too much disk space)
Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Blue Shadow »

Eruanna wrote:Problem was introduced in the 1.8 branch sometime between "gzdoom-1.8.10-1294-ga1798c9" and "gzdoom-1.8.10-1315-gae25aa1" and seems to have since ported over to the 2.x branch.
Indeed. I've just tested the latest 1.8 build as you suggested; it's suffering from it, too.
User avatar
Kappes Buur
Persecution Complex
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:30
Location: British Columbia

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Kappes Buur »

Same for me:
  • vid_fps 1
    vid_vsync 1
    cl_capfps 1
tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1-8-10-1128 = 34 FPS
tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1.8.10-1356 = 3 FPS

tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1523 = 33 FPS
tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1942 = 3 FPS

  • vid_fps 1
    vid_vsync 0
    cl_capfps 0
tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1-8-10-1128 = 460 FPS
tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1.8.10-1356 = 3 FPS

tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1523 = 460 FPS
tutnt-v108.pk3 played with 1942 = 3 FPS
User avatar
Graf Zahl
GZDoom Developer
GZDoom Developer
Posts: 7148
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:48
Location: Germany

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Graf Zahl »

Can you narrow it down a bit more?
More importantly, I need the hashes of the affected versions, the commit counts are not helpful.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
GZDoom Developer
GZDoom Developer
Posts: 7148
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:48
Location: Germany

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Graf Zahl »

Also, please run a 'bench', so that I can see where all the time is lost (do the bench with vid_vsync 0.)
User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Rachael »

Graf Zahl wrote:Can you narrow it down a bit more?
More importantly, I need the hashes of the affected versions, the commit counts are not helpful.
Not possible - as I said,
Eruanna wrote:(Sorry I don't have a build environment to compile this myself; such things take too much disk space)
However, I do have the hashes you asked for, for a "between then and then" -
Eruanna wrote:Problem was introduced in the 1.8 branch sometime between "gzdoom-1.8.10-1294-ga1798c9" and "gzdoom-1.8.10-1315-gae25aa1" and seems to have ported over to the 2.x branch in that time.
Graf Zahl wrote:Also, please run a 'bench', so that I can see where all the time is lost (do the bench with vid_vsync 0.)
Done, and done. (On the NVidia 860M)

[spoiler]Map TNT01: "The Opening Abyss",
x = -512.0000, y = 1120.0000, z = 41.0000, angle = 45.0000, pitch = 0.0000
Walls: 432 (0 splits, 1 t-splits, 1497 vertices)
Flats: 217 (642 primitives, 3391 vertices)
Sprites: 39, Decals=0, Portals: 3
W: Render=84.009, Setup=166.538, Clip=0.132
F: Render=0.118, Setup=0.033
S: Render=0.022, Setup=1.410
All=269.317, Render=332.573, Setup=168.200, BSP = 0.083, Portal=0.085, Drawcalls=0.054, Finish=16.485
DLight - Walls: 1 processed, 27 rendered - Flats: 26 processed, 0 rendered
Missing textures: 0 upper, 0 lower, 0.000 ms
3 fps[/spoiler]

If needed, I can load up the ATI HD4850 and benchmark that as well, or an Intel HD4600, but I think one should be sufficient.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
GZDoom Developer
GZDoom Developer
Posts: 7148
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:48
Location: Germany

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Graf Zahl »

No need for further info. This is clearly not a hardware issue.
Edward-san
Developer
Developer
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 16:36

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Edward-san »

I can reproduce with my machine, I can compile and reduce, if it can help.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
GZDoom Developer
GZDoom Developer
Posts: 7148
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:48
Location: Germany

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Graf Zahl »

fixed.

When I found a problem with translucency detection in textures I applied the wrong fix which caused the engine to constantly re-check the same textures over and over again - and this mod just happened to have some that weren't trivially detectable so it ended up wasting a lot of time on this.
User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: Very poor performance (with TUTNT)

Post by Rachael »

Thank you. :)

Return to “Closed Bugs”