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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 Fixer
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 Fixer
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.