Page 1 of 2

The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 01:43
by Zombie471
My 915GM runs the game at 40fps and my R9 280 runs at 50fps. There should be a drastic increase in performance, not 10fps. This is also a FX-8350 with 8 cores @ 4GHz vs a Pentium M with 1 core @ 1Ghz, and 1GB RAM vs 8GB RAM. Game needs more optimization. Just saying.

(to give you an idea of what it might look like, Halo Custom Edition runs at 20fps on the 915gm while my r9 280 runs it at 1,000fps.)

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 01:51
by Sokomine
People with good gaming hardware pretty often complain about less than optimal fps and graphics. On the other hand, the very same game runs quite well on a descent smartphone and similar weak hardware. It's odd that it does less well on good hardware.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 04:42
by Calinou
Minetest is mostly CPU bound and single-threaded, which means it doesn't like AMD CPUs very much.

Optimization is very tricky, it's more than just flipping compiler switches around.

I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 04:31
by Zeno
Calinou wrote:I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120


Calinou has beaten me to it. In the main game loop, details such as how many frames per second are being rendered are collected. If, for example, you have a desired FPS of 60 and the main loop is idle for most of that time then viewing range is increased until the loop is not idle. The end effect of this that minetest will *seem* to be running slower (or not as much faster as you'd expect) because it's displaying more.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 08:15
by CWz
We need to start having the graphics being handled by GPU

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 08:43
by rubenwardy
We do need to utilise the GPU more, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't drop support for older computers.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:47
by jp
Zeno wrote:
Calinou wrote:I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120

Calinou has beaten me to it. [...]


I've opened an issue earlier about it : https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2644

Now consequently waiting for the right measure of a core-dev since many people are in agreement... :3

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 14:34
by Krock
I think it's the task of Irrlicht's developers to use the GPU more, not just Minetest.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 14:49
by rubenwardy
Minetest is the one that edits the texture of a node - in CPU - to do lighting. Don't assign the blame to other people. Minetest contains a lot of broken code.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 07:33
by hmmmm
rubenwardy wrote:Minetest is the one that edits the texture of a node - in CPU - to do lighting. Don't assign the blame to other people. Minetest contains a lot of broken code.

Oh wow, fuck off. Minetest's contains less "broken code" than most other open source projects because it's actively developed and people care. I am also deeply offended by the insinuation that our lighting code is "broken". I challenge you to come up with something better. Hint: you can't.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 07:34
by hmmmm
.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 08:02
by rubenwardy
hmmmm wrote:
rubenwardy wrote:Minetest is the one that edits the texture of a node - in CPU - to do lighting. Don't assign the blame to other people. Minetest contains a lot of broken code.

Oh wow, fuck off. Minetest's contains less "broken code" than most other open source projects because it's actively developed and people care. I am also deeply offended by the insinuation that our lighting code is "broken". I challenge you to come up with something better. Hint: you can't.


I didn't mean to imply that the lighting code is broken, I was talking about assigning the blame to other people. (as in, don't blame Irrlicht for bad rendering, it's mostly how Minetest uses it). Broken code is a property which inheritent of most FOSS projects, unfortunately, and yes Minetest is better than most. Editing the texture works, and is the only solution that works on old computers, but it is hacky. You could use shaders and per pixel lighting to utilise the GPU more.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 15:16
by Zeno
Quite honestly there are really only a few places that are bottlenecks. The lighting, textures and (for singleplayer) the socket communication (although because of software lighting calculations this isn't a bottleneck atm tbh).

I spent a LOT of time optimising what I could this year and late last year and I am 100% positive that the code is much, much, much more optimised than it was when I first looked at it. It's a time consuming process and some things cannot be optimised any further without fairly significant structural changes.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 13:54
by GFX_Garage
This helped my frame rates a lot. It's still not smooth though.

I'm using AMD hardware. 3.3ghz FX quad core. 8gb 1333 RAM and a 7770 GHZ. 1gb.

I love this game though, and I'll put up with it so those with P4s and Semprons can play too. :)

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 17:21
by MajorLunaC
Would a model of a more optimized open-source minecraft clone help? I hope it can because it's not very appealing to still have giant gaps in the map, and end up warping and jittering around. It's a clone called "Craft" (which is why no one's ever heard of it, and ended up mostly un-updated -_-' ), and has a slightly updated branch too:

Main: http://www.michaelfogleman.com/craft/
Branch: https://github.com/DanielOaks/Craft
Methods & Links: http://0fps.net/2013/07/03/ambient-occl ... ke-worlds/ (even the comments are very informative!)

If the code itself might not help, at least some of the methods used might help? It's pretty efficient online, and renders smoothly, but it might be because of no moving parts (no liquids even). I haven't tested it with more people online because there's no one around.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 04:20
by Zombie471
Calinou wrote:Minetest is mostly CPU bound and single-threaded, which means it doesn't like AMD CPUs very much.

Optimization is very tricky, it's more than just flipping compiler switches around.

I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120



I forgot to tell you if it worked or not, but it only brought it up to 60fps. It's an improvement, but a small one. Still makes no sense to me, this PC gets 600fps while that other one I mentioned gets 10. and then Minetest comes around and gets 50fps on this and 40 on the other, which makes no sense. Oh well, at least I have 60.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 04:21
by Zombie471
MajorLunaC wrote:Would a model of a more optimized open-source minecraft clone help? I hope it can because it's not very appealing to still have giant gaps in the map, and end up warping and jittering around. It's a clone called "Craft" (which is why no one's ever heard of it, and ended up mostly un-updated -_-' ), and has a slightly updated branch too:

Main: http://www.michaelfogleman.com/craft/
Branch: https://github.com/DanielOaks/Craft
Methods & Links: http://0fps.net/2013/07/03/ambient-occl ... ke-worlds/ (even the comments are very informative!)

If the code itself might not help, at least some of the methods used might help? It's pretty efficient online, and renders smoothly, but it might be because of no moving parts (no liquids even). I haven't tested it with more people online because there's no one around.



Dang, that game got me 1,000 fps. The game isn't very good though. and the FOV sucks.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 06:26
by rubenwardy
Zombie471 wrote:
Calinou wrote:Minetest is mostly CPU bound and single-threaded, which means it doesn't like AMD CPUs very much.

Optimization is very tricky, it's more than just flipping compiler switches around.

I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120



I forgot to tell you if it worked or not, but it only brought it up to 60fps. It's an improvement, but a small one. Still makes no sense to me, this PC gets 600fps while that other one I mentioned gets 10. and then Minetest comes around and gets 50fps on this and 40 on the other, which makes no sense. Oh well, at least I have 60.


The game is capped at 60fps. To remove the cap, change fps_Max to zero in your minetest.conf

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 22:10
by Fixerol
MajorLunaC wrote:Main: http://www.michaelfogleman.com/craft/
Branch: https://github.com/DanielOaks/Craft
Methods & Links: http://0fps.net/2013/07/03/ambient-occl ... ke-worlds/ (even the comments are very informative!)


I do have issues with MT performance myself on pretty good PC, something need to be done. But right now I just want to point out that this Craft game is very basic... but damn it looks so nice even with simple mapgen, and performance is just flawless with far view available. Sunset/sunrise is awesome here. Wish we have that in MT.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 02:42
by benrob0329
I have found that setting the expected FPS and max FPS yields MUCH better FPS than without setting it.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 18:15
by Fixerol
Default setting is 65fps limit and rendering policy toward larger range of view with fps down to 35-45 iirc.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 09:36
by Gael de Sailly
The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:39
by Dragonop
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?

This is wrong. It's a mith.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:48
by Krock
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?

If it's wrongly adjusted, the screen refresh rate could "eat" some frames. However, this is acceptable and still fine. The game starts being unplayable when the frame rate starts to fall and rise (wiggle).

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:43
by rubenwardy
Dragonop wrote:
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?

This is wrong. It's a mith.


However most screens can only refresh at 60 fps.

I can't find any citations about the speed of the eye, one would be good.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:47
by Minetestforfun
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?


Im tired with this ONLY commercial sentence which is said by everyone isn't informed and just said something they heard without any research to confirm what they said...

Your eyes can see over 1000+ frames per second. But the only important thing is "the impression of reality" you eye can discern. The more fps you have, the less your eyes can discern "what you see isn't reality".

Please, before saying lies from "commercial console-brainwashing" or from any other games/movies industries, think about inform you :)

This isn't the first time i do a speech like this... If you want sources, see my latest posts about it.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 15:00
by Fixerol
My monitor has 75Hz refresh rate anyway...

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 16:14
by kaadmy
I play Xonotic at 40 fps on this computer, and it feels OK-ish, but if I play at 200+ fps, it's completely different. The mouse/input feels much smoother and more responsive, and aim is far better.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 17:25
by Calinou
kaadmy wrote:I play Xonotic at 40 fps on this computer, and it feels OK-ish, but if I play at 200+ fps, it's completely different. The mouse/input feels much smoother and more responsive, and aim is far better.


Having more than 60 FPS on a 60 Hz screen does help with regards to input latency, but not much else. It also kind of wastes power and creates unnecessary heat/noise.

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:41
by tbillion
academic courses on cognitive neuroscience at the university of Utrecht (Netherlands). It all depends on the training a person has had. Fighter pilots have been recorded spotting 1/255th of a frame. That's right: 255 frames per second And they could give a rough estimate as to what they've seen.

Edit: seanalltogether took the time to post a source (220 fps and they could identify the aircraft). Edit2: Seeing that my post is the 2nd hit on google when looking for 'max frames per second eye can see', little add-on: This research went looking for the temporal gaps that people could perceive, I'm linking to the result diagram.. The figure about vision is a box-plot. The average population would perceive about 45 frames per second (nice going HFR movies). But on the other hand, you have 25% of the population who will percieve more than 60 frames per second, with extremes going to seeing temporal gaps of up to 2 ms. Which is insane. When I wrote my replies and the first post, I did not know about this research. New conclusion: By far most of the human population (test in USA) will see more than 24 fps, only the extremes will see just the 24 fps or less (we're going towards visualle impaired elderly). More
than 50% of the population will benefit greatly from FPS of 45+. Trained fighter pilots can see even more, so training of the brain might just be possible in perceiving a lower threshold of temporal gap


https://www.google.com/search?q=medically+what+is+the+most+frames+per+second+the+human+eye+can+see&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

myth about "60 FPS" came from in the first place? Most LCD monitors today, let alone 10 years ago, have refresh rate of 60 Hz. On such monitor, no matter how much FPS your application, such as video game, has, you will see only 60 Hz, and additional frames will be ignored. On such monitor, even if your game has 1000 FPS, you will still essentially see 60 FPS.

Now take an old good CRT monitor. CRT monitors are good for this because their image is fully dynamic, that is every frame is drawn from scratch, while LCD monitors do not effectively draw frames that are not very different from each other, they only draw the difference. In dynamic scenes CRT and LCD monitors are similar in this regard.
Most good CRT monitors used to show 85-120 Hz. When you set your refrest rate on such monitor to 60 Hz, you can clearly see extreme flickering. When you set 85 Hz, flickering becomes bearable, but still noticeable. 120 Hz - flickering is almost gone. The difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz is still noticeable if you place two monitors close to each other and stare at them attentively, but it is very slim.

Let's return to LCD monitors since that's what most people use today. I want to make a very important statement here that people arguing about FPS often do not fully understand:

How much FPS you can see depends on the scene you watch.

Imagine if the scene is just Windows desktop, without any activity on it. How much FPS do you need? Right, 0.
Now, imagine if a dot moves on your screen at speed of 1 pixel per second. Since the monitor cannot show "half pixels", you don't need more than 1 FPS to see this as perfectly smooth as your display resolution allows.

Imagine now an object that moves from the left edge of your screen to the right. It goes at speed of 200,000 pixels per second, while you have a resolution of 1920x1080. How much FPS do you need to notice this object? Since it shows on your screen for 1080/200,000 = 5.4 ms, you need 1000/5.4=186 FPS to consistently see it on your screen.
What does it all mean? If you use your usual 60 FPS, in about 66% cases you won't even pick a glance at this object. If you use 240 FPS, however, you will see it cross your screen every single time. And, since your eye is theoretically able to see much more FPS than that, you WILL actually see this object.

---

So, here is the thing. When you say that you cannot see any difference beyond 60 FPS, first of all make sure that you are actually looking at more than 60 FPS. You cannot see more than 60 FPS on a 60Hz monitor no matter what, since the monitor itself will always show exactly 60 FPS. Then, make sure that you are actually looking at highly dynamical scenes, not just looking at your desktop moving icons around (although between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, I bet, you will see the difference even there). Finally, account for the habit: if you've been using 60 FPS for 10 years and then suddenly receive a 120 Hz monitor, you might not see the difference clearly right away since your eye is used to staring at the old screen. Give it some time, maybe, a day - then revert to the old refresh rate, and you will IMMEDIATELY see a HUGE difference by just moving mouse cursor around. You will see so many frames skipped, you will be shocked that you've never seen them before.

So, how many FPS do we need? Depends on the applications you use, of course. If you are interested only in web browsing and office work, you are unlikely to really need anything beyond even 30 FPS. If you play some slow-paced games like Hearthstone, 60 FPS is fine. If you play all kinds of games, including RPG, FPS, RTS, etc., 120 FPS will benefit you a lot. And if you are a hardcore FPS gamer, the more FPS you have, the better, 240 FPS and beyond will be just perfect.


http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1572225-Mythbusting-quot-Human-eye-cannot-see-beyond-60-FPS-quot

couple of good perspectives for reference... really though i doubt anything but maybe my tbm moves anywhere close to this fast.. im off to tweak my fps.. oh and micro cube cars move pretty fast too... :)