Tracks Sveg, Sweden

[formulaHEINE]

Somewhere between 30K and 40K IIRC?

 

[LeonS]

If you are using multiple .kn5 files and the models.ini, you could try adding the files one by one to see which is causing your frame rate problems.

That's exactly what I've been doing ;-)

I will test if my method of placing tree walls hurts the performance, but the biggest drop in framerate is caused by the stand-alone trees.

One question about those: In an earlier post I explained why I'm extending the single trees like 10-20m into the ground. Does the sheer size of an object influence anything? It's the same amount of polygons as for a tree that stops at ground level, and the same size texture, only the geometry extends further down and the texture is repeated below ground level. I wouldn't expect this to hurt performance -- can you guys confirm?

 

[LeonS]

Somewhere between 30K and 40K IIRC?

that was my estimation for the whole track. so far I've only done the piece between T3 and T6 and I'm at around 9k IIRC. In total that would get me to 20-25k I believe.

 

[mantasisg]

I don't understand too well how rendering works. But maybe some view blocking objects at some places would help to reduce objects appearing in frames thus hurting fps. Perhaps some more view blocking treewalls deeper in the forest.... Maybe a tiny hill, few terrain vertices up a few meters at some spot without too much other objects or something. just to keep less objects in a frame.

Though 70fps maybe is not too bad. IDK, how much less it is when trees cast shadows ?

 

[Stereo]

Just doublechecking the tree materials are all set for blend mode AlphaTest, right? As far as I know that's the high-performance one.

 

[LeonS]

Just doublechecking the tree materials are all set for blend mode AlphaTest, right? As far as I know that's the high-performance one.

yes, blend mode is "eAlphaTest".

I don't understand too well how rendering works. But maybe some view blocking objects at some places would help to reduce objects appearing in frames thus hurting fps. Perhaps some more view blocking treewalls deeper in the forest.... Maybe a tiny hill, few terrain vertices up a few meters at some spot without too much other objects or something. just to keep less objects in a frame.

Though 70fps maybe is not too bad. IDK, how much less it is when trees cast shadows ?

70fps on a 1070 at minimum details is pretty low (at 1080p). I can't really chop up the trees into single objects, that's what the shader takes care of.

With the shadows it was somewhere in the 40s I think.

 

[LeonS]

whats wrong with this guy?

 

[ltcars]

He is laying on the side, that is what's wrong with him.
Weird question

 

[LeonS]

He is laying on the side, that is what's wrong with him.
Weird question

right, how could I miss that.

(I think I have an idea though)

 

[aphidgod]

And that's why you should always have a hearty meal before you go out drinking.

 

[Hotdogxx60]

Sack him, laying down on the job.

 

[LeonS]

I talked to him. He's back on his feet now.

So I'm currently optimizing performance. These are my fps results so far at the worst place in terms of fps once the trees are in, which is on the straight between T4 and T5, so a bit before the "Volvo bridge":

track: 140 (partial dds)
track + landscape: 131 (partial dds)
track + landscape + grass: 116 (LOD done, dds)
track + landscape + grass + tree walls: 106 (no shadows, dds)
track + landscape + grass + tree walls + trees: 62 (no shadows, dds)

I have so far left out the 3d grass for the environment and the skidmarks (the latter shouldn't really make a difference though).

For a frame of reference: Spa on maximum details has 95-110fps in most places with a minimum of 86 after Eau Rouge. I'm trying to keep it above a minimum of ~80fps at maximum details.

So my goal is to get what is now 62 to around 80-90. There are a couple frames to be gained by some more LOD and png to dds conversion of the track, but the tall grass in the environment is still missing. And I may have to get rid of the forest ground I'm afraid. But mostly I'm gonna have to reduce the number of trees by at least half. For that I will have to compensate with better tree walls. Wish me luck.

 

[ltcars]

I talked to him. He's back on his feet now.

So I'm currently optimizing performance. These are my fps results so far at the worst place in terms of fps once the trees are in, which is on the straight between T4 and T5, so a bit before the "Volvo bridge":

track: 140 (partial dds)
track + landscape: 131 (partial dds)
track + landscape + grass: 116 (LOD done, dds)
track + landscape + grass + tree walls: 106 (no shadows, dds)
track + landscape + grass + tree walls + trees: 62 (no shadows, dds)

I have so far left out the 3d grass for the environment and the skidmarks (the latter shouldn't really make a difference though).

For a frame of reference: Spa on maximum details has 95-110fps in most places with a minimum of 86 after Eau Rouge. I'm trying to keep it above a minimum of ~80fps at maximum details.

So my goal is to get what is now 62 to around 80-90. There are a couple frames to be gained by some more LOD and png to dds conversion of the track, but the tall grass in the environment is still missing. And I may have to get rid of the forest ground I'm afraid. But mostly I'm gonna have to reduce the number of trees by at least half. For that I will have to compensate with better tree walls. Wish me luck.

PNG to DDS brings a lot of FPS

 

[Willy Wale]

So my goal is to get what is now 62 to around 80-90.

This sounds sensible. My PC is capable of more but my monitor (chosen for it's colour reproduction for photo editing rather than gaming) maxes out at 60. I've also got a rift which I think is 90. So anything over that will be wasted on me and I suspect a not insignificant proportion of your audience.

 

[LeonS]

This sounds sensible. My PC is capable of more but my monitor (chosen for it's colour reproduction for photo editing rather than gaming) maxes out at 60. I've also got a rift which I think is 90. So anything over that will be wasted on me and I suspect a not insignificant proportion of your audience.

So I'm on a 1070, so depending on your GPU you might have to scale those numbers up or down. I'm also not worried that I personally won't be able to play it at decent framerates, but I'd like this track to be playable by as many as players possible.

 

[LeonS]

PNG to DDS brings a lot of FPS

Yea, most of the stuff in that area of the track is already dds though.

 

[LeonS]

converted more pngs to dds, nothing else changed:

track: 145 (partial dds+)
track + landscape: 134 (partial dds)
track + landscape + grass: 120 (LOD done, dds)
track + landscape + grass + tree walls: 107 (no shadows, dds)
track + landscape + grass + tree walls + trees: 66 (no shadows, dds)

So I gained about 4fps with this. I believe I can squeeze another 2-3 fps out of this with the remaining dds conversions and a bit of LOD, but that comes later...

 

[LeonS]

I may have found a decent solution to the forest fps issue. Screenshots and fps figures later today.

In other news I did some car testing and posted laptimes in the first post.

 

[LeonS]

One of the two sides uses a third of the amount of Y-trees:

Sadly, shadows for individual trees need to be disabled for performance reasons.

 

[Fat-Alfie]

I hope you can add some baked shadows to the ground underneath the trees, because the ones on the left appear to be floating right now