3.10 Release Candidate

52 posts Page 1 of 6
JeffR
Steering Committee
Steering Committee
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:49 pm
 
by JeffR » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:22 am
Hey Guys!

Was hoping to get this out the first week of December, but when ya find bugs, you wanna fix bugs.

So here it is, the RC for 3.10 (Updated to point to RC2)! The prime emphasis on this release was fixing bugs and shoring up some stuff like some of the lighting maths, but we also squeaked in a few new additions as well. This like updating the Recast lib to latest, as well as the initial implementation of Ipv6 support and swapping the main audio device to OpenAL-soft, which is much better than the old OpenAL, OpenVR support for the Vive and freaking MacOS support!

Tons of fixes went in, including getting collada exporting fixed up as well as some utlitiy functions to bake a bunch of static geometry like convex shapes or meshes, into a single mesh, which can help a lot on performance with complex scenes, lots of fixes and tweaks to lighting stuff, as some of it didn't play well with the new linearized math under certain conditions - especially dark maps.

As the last time, RC testing will probably run until the end of the month-ish unless some crazy stuff pops up, and then we'll push onto 4.0. I'll have the Linux build uploaded tomorrow.

I've been working on a 'master thesis' post about what's the target for 4.0 and what'll be going into it, what's already done and what's yet to do. Hopefully you guys'll like where things are headed, but untill then, test the crap out of 3.10 so we can make sure we've got a good, solid foundation for fording the rivers on the way to 4.0!
RasterRon
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:36 am
 
by RasterRon » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:06 am
swapping the main audio device to OpenAL-soft, which is much better than the old OpenAL, OpenVR support for the Vive and freaking MacOS support!


Great update! Is there also a way or CMake switch to disable openal-soft build? I tried unchecking all openal related settings but I'm still getting errors. I'm trying to build only DirectSound/XAudio on Windows.
andi_s
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:12 pm
by andi_s » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:03 pm
Great! One question....is the old DirectX SDK still required, or does this compile using the Windows SDK only? I have setup a new machine and want rather not to install the old SDK.
Timmy
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:20 am
by Timmy » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:31 pm
Still requires the old dx sdk unfortunately.
andi_s
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:12 pm
by andi_s » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:53 pm
I just tried the RC binaries. I hoped performace would be better, I am running on a I7 6700HQ 6th gen, 16 GB DDR4 RAM and a Nvidia 960M 4 GB videoram notebook. In the outpost Level I get only around 35fps, in the desert around 85fps., running in 1080p fullscreen. Are the fps supposed to be that low on such a system? I also tried an old demo of beamng, which uses torque3d as well, and there I get better frames (a little).
What kind of fps do you get?
JeffR
Steering Committee
Steering Committee
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:49 pm
 
by JeffR » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:58 am
andi_s wrote:I just tried the RC binaries. I hoped performace would be better, I am running on a I7 6700HQ 6th gen, 16 GB DDR4 RAM and a Nvidia 960M 4 GB videoram notebook. In the outpost Level I get only around 35fps, in the desert around 85fps., running in 1080p fullscreen. Are the fps supposed to be that low on such a system? I also tried an old demo of beamng, which uses torque3d as well, and there I get better frames (a little).
What kind of fps do you get?


Are the settings maxed out? Also, what graphics API are you using? D3D9?
Duion
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:56 am
I noticed maybe a slight performance loss from 75 FPS to 65 FPS in 3.10 or 3.9.
It really depends on situation and settings, it would need a more accurate testing setup to determine the performance, but my game never went lower than 60 FPS on max settings and I have more stuff in the scene like parallax on terrain which is very expensive ,all postFX and pimped up max settings.
The performance loss makes me wonder, because first I thought it is a great advantage since with the engine update polygon and drawcall count went down by a lot maybe 50-80% less polycount and drawcalls depending on scene.
Since Jeff asked about the graphics API I tested again with D3D11 since I was using D3D9 and with D3D11 the FPS were similar to that before ranging on average 75 FPS again like in the old Version.
OpenGL is also fine at 70 FPS, which I think has improved.
So overall I don't see much of an issue there for now, they only thing I worry about is the missing app icon in the upper left corner of the window which got broken after switchting to the new SDL stuff.
Timmy
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:20 am
by Timmy » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:17 am
In T3D 3.9 it went from deferred lighting to deferred shading, i won't explain the details of this again because there is a lot of information on the topic floating about. In short, you will find a lot of smaller, simpler levels will indeed be faster using the older deferred lighting technique even though it is drawing a lot of scene geometry twice.The results will vary a lot however from system to system depending on cpu/gpu combo. The current gbuffer used in deferred shading is very large actually and far from ideal, it will be further optimised in future releases.

For example on my system:

Outpost: Deferred Lighting quicker
Empty Terrain: Deferred Lighting quicker
Pacific: Deferred Shading quicker
andi_s
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:12 pm
by andi_s » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:07 am
i use dx9 and 11. performance is almost the same. the settings are maxed out.
Duion
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:44 pm
I added more quality setting levels and now I can reach almost any performance I want, up to 700 FPS, which is kind of a physical max.
Especially basic lighting gives you an extreme performance boost and if you bake the lighting, you have the good performance and it looks good, only downside is, the lighting is static.
So you cannot say the performance in Torque in general is bad, you can reach almost any performance you want, by wisely choosing which techniques you use. The demo levels are just stuff put in an done, without much optimization.
52 posts Page 1 of 6

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest