| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
kurg
   |
Posted - 2004.08.05 08:28:00 -
[211]
Mmmm I searched the web and it looks like DirectX will not support instancing until DX9 c !!!
Thats just utterly stupid, I mean M$ creates this 3d Api supposedly for games... but they leave out one of the most fundamental features.?!?!!?
I just have to quote my ex-CEO: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG...
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 08:28:00 -
[212]
Mmmm I searched the web and it looks like DirectX will not support instancing until DX9 c !!!
Thats just utterly stupid, I mean M$ creates this 3d Api supposedly for games... but they leave out one of the most fundamental features.?!?!!?
I just have to quote my ex-CEO: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG...
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 08:28:00 -
[213]
Mmmm I searched the web and it looks like DirectX will not support instancing until DX9 c !!!
Thats just utterly stupid, I mean M$ creates this 3d Api supposedly for games... but they leave out one of the most fundamental features.?!?!!?
I just have to quote my ex-CEO: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG...
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
Gun Kata
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 13:10:00 -
[214]
Some more info on Geometry Instancing:
Linky
"I have seen everything now."
"Yeah? Have you ever seen a man eat his own head?" |
Gun Kata
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 13:10:00 -
[215]
Some more info on Geometry Instancing:
Linky
"I have seen everything now."
"Yeah? Have you seen a man eat his own head?" |
Gun Kata
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 13:10:00 -
[216]
Some more info on Geometry Instancing:
Linky
"I have seen everything now."
"Yeah? Have you seen a man eat his own head?" |
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 14:02:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Redundancy on 05/08/2004 15:54:10
 Originally by: Oveur
1) It's not the models
2) It's not the models
Like I said earlier, it's under the hood, not the paintjob :)
PS. There should be some pretty decent improvements in 1721 on chaos now.
|
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 14:02:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Redundancy on 05/08/2004 15:54:10
Originally by: Oveur
1) It's not the models
2) It's not the models
Like I said earlier, it's under the hood, not the paintjob :)
PS. There should be some pretty decent improvements in 1721 on chaos now.
|
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 14:02:00 -
[219]
Edited by: Redundancy on 05/08/2004 15:54:10
Originally by: Oveur
1) It's not the models
2) It's not the models
Like I said earlier, it's under the hood, not the paintjob :)
PS. There should be some pretty decent improvements in 1721 on chaos now.
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 08:11:00 -
[220]
btw dx9c is now available for download at m$
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
|
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 08:11:00 -
[221]
btw dx9c is now available for download at m$
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 08:11:00 -
[222]
btw dx9c is now available for download at m$
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 21:08:00 -
[223]
is this funneling down to an M$ API problem? Why am i not shocked? 
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 21:08:00 -
[224]
is this funneling down to an M$ API problem? Why am i not shocked?
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 21:08:00 -
[225]
is this funneling down to an M$ API problem? Why am i not shocked?
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 21:32:00 -
[226]
;) experience?
anyway one thing I think everyone has noted about the eve client is this: no matter how friggin cutting edge your machine is, eve insists on eatin 99-100% of cpu cycles, even when everything is set to low qual, and your doing nothing at all. That is really puzzeling, unless some programmer created a busy wait cycle..?
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 21:32:00 -
[227]
;) experience?
anyway one thing I think everyone has noted about the eve client is this: no matter how friggin cutting edge your machine is, eve insists on eatin 99-100% of cpu cycles, even when everything is set to low qual, and your doing nothing at all. That is really puzzeling, unless some programmer created a busy wait cycle..?
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
kurg
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 21:32:00 -
[228]
;) experience?
anyway one thing I think everyone has noted about the eve client is this: no matter how friggin cutting edge your machine is, eve insists on eatin 99-100% of cpu cycles, even when everything is set to low qual, and your doing nothing at all. That is really puzzeling, unless some programmer created a busy wait cycle..?
even the paranoid has real enemies...
|
Talorn Rhoa
|
Posted - 2004.08.07 00:27:00 -
[229]
Originally by: kurg
;) experience?
anyway one thing I think everyone has noted about the eve client is this: no matter how friggin cutting edge your machine is, eve insists on eatin 99-100% of cpu cycles, even when everything is set to low qual, and your doing nothing at all. That is really puzzeling, unless some programmer created a busy wait cycle..?
Very good point. My guess it has something to do with the client having to deal with all the objects in the grid you "cant" see. Basically if you implement a LoD that removes objects from being rendered at great distances, the client wouldn't have to deal with their motion (i.e. objects such as ships and such that you can't see shouldn't be even rendered or tracked other than on the radar). Also I wonder if the client is actually rending the ships/objects that aren't visible to the screen (i.e. in memory but not visible). I do understand that in order to get blazing speed, you need to pre-buffer what's around you in order to get a good response time, but maybe there's some optimizing that can be done there too.
One very interesting thing however is that I see my CPU usage cranked up to 85% when I'm docked... there should be no reason for that when all i have in-memory is 1 model in a non-changing environment. Basically I'm just rendering the UI. This has me a bit perplexed.
---------------
Quote:
Who's the greater fool, the Fool? Or the Fool who followed him? - Obi-Wan Kenobi
|
Talorn Rhoa
|
Posted - 2004.08.07 00:27:00 -
[230]
Originally by: kurg
;) experience?
anyway one thing I think everyone has noted about the eve client is this: no matter how friggin cutting edge your machine is, eve insists on eatin 99-100% of cpu cycles, even when everything is set to low qual, and your doing nothing at all. That is really puzzeling, unless some programmer created a busy wait cycle..?
Very good point. My guess it has something to do with the client having to deal with all the objects in the grid you "cant" see. Basically if you implement a LoD that removes objects from being rendered at great distances, the client wouldn't have to deal with their motion (i.e. objects such as ships and such that you can't see shouldn't be even rendered or tracked other than on the radar). Also I wonder if the client is actually rending the ships/objects that aren't visible to the screen (i.e. in memory but not visible). I do understand that in order to get blazing speed, you need to pre-buffer what's around you in order to get a good response time, but maybe there's some optimizing that can be done there too.
One very interesting thing however is that I see my CPU usage cranked up to 85% when I'm docked... there should be no reason for that when all i have in-memory is 1 model in a non-changing environment. Basically I'm just rendering the UI. This has me a bit perplexed.
---------------
Quote:
Who's the greater fool, the Fool? Or the Fool who followed him? - Obi-Wan Kenobi
|
|
|
Talorn Rhoa
|
Posted - 2004.08.07 00:27:00 -
[231]
Originally by: kurg
;) experience?
anyway one thing I think everyone has noted about the eve client is this: no matter how friggin cutting edge your machine is, eve insists on eatin 99-100% of cpu cycles, even when everything is set to low qual, and your doing nothing at all. That is really puzzeling, unless some programmer created a busy wait cycle..?
Very good point. My guess it has something to do with the client having to deal with all the objects in the grid you "cant" see. Basically if you implement a LoD that removes objects from being rendered at great distances, the client wouldn't have to deal with their motion (i.e. objects such as ships and such that you can't see shouldn't be even rendered or tracked other than on the radar). Also I wonder if the client is actually rending the ships/objects that aren't visible to the screen (i.e. in memory but not visible). I do understand that in order to get blazing speed, you need to pre-buffer what's around you in order to get a good response time, but maybe there's some optimizing that can be done there too.
One very interesting thing however is that I see my CPU usage cranked up to 85% when I'm docked... there should be no reason for that when all i have in-memory is 1 model in a non-changing environment. Basically I'm just rendering the UI. This has me a bit perplexed.
---------------
Quote:
Who's the greater fool, the Fool? Or the Fool who followed him? - Obi-Wan Kenobi
|
DrAtomic
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 12:20:00 -
[232]
Quote:
- Player ships
- NPC ships
- Cargo Containers/Secure Containers
- Drones/droneattack animations
- Missiles/turret firing animations/explosion animations
- Asteroids/Derelict objects
Daoc had a similar problem with RvR (PvP), they added a pre-caching option (which loads all models when starting up the game) which completly resolved it.
Just my 2cent might be helpfull...
Cheers,
Doc
|
DrAtomic
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 12:20:00 -
[233]
Quote:
- Player ships
- NPC ships
- Cargo Containers/Secure Containers
- Drones/droneattack animations
- Missiles/turret firing animations/explosion animations
- Asteroids/Derelict objects
Daoc had a similar problem with RvR (PvP), they added a pre-caching option (which loads all models when starting up the game) which completly resolved it.
Just my 2cent might be helpfull...
Cheers,
Doc
|
DrAtomic
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 12:20:00 -
[234]
Quote:
- Player ships
- NPC ships
- Cargo Containers/Secure Containers
- Drones/droneattack animations
- Missiles/turret firing animations/explosion animations
- Asteroids/Derelict objects
Daoc had a similar problem with RvR (PvP), they added a pre-caching option (which loads all models when starting up the game) which completly resolved it.
Just my 2cent might be helpfull...
Cheers,
Doc
|
0CISCOKID0
|
Posted - 2005.08.07 23:44:00 -
[235]
I think that some very incisive observations have been made about the lag issue. I'm not a "code-cruncher" or network type. My only qualification is that I've played on-line games for the past 10 years, starting with Mechwarrior 1 and running through the venerable RTS game "Total Annihilation", Half-life, Counter-strike, Homeworld, etc.
There was one constant through all these games - more ppl equals more lag. I noticed that some ppl posting here are on 56k modems. This may be an oversimplification, but if you put 30 ppl on a grid and 2 or 3 of them are on dial-ups, those 2 or 3 folks are going KILL the game with their lack of bandwidth, Multiply that times the average 5500-6500 players on line at any given time and you're going to have serious network syncing problems, the novice code-writing notwithstanding. That doesn't even begin to address the fact that we're talking about ppl playing an RTS game with one another in North and South America, Europe, Africa, etc.
There's gonna be problems even if the code is perfectly optimized.
IMO the only way to address the issue is what several game servers did - large groups of players caused the server to kick any player whose ping hit the server at over 230ms.
|
Baldigan Joackim
|
Posted - 2005.08.08 09:30:00 -
[236]
stay old thread dead plz ...
|
BIRDofPREY
|
Posted - 2005.08.09 05:14:00 -
[237]
THis is a perfect example of CCP knowing what is wrong and making a point of not doing a thing about it...
Your 650mm Artillery Cannon I perfectly strikes Serpentis Guard, wrecking for 340.0 damage |
Sherkaner
|
Posted - 2005.08.09 10:08:00 -
[238]
This thread was interesting a year ago 
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |