Frame Per Second

(blushing_bride) #1

Hello, hope this question is not too silly. As i have a powerful PC im worried that the frame rates in my map may not be good when played with people on low spec machines so im trying to figure out a way of guessing what the performance might be based on the official maps. At the moment im getting similar performance on my map that i get in Goldrush and i get much better FPS in my map than in any other SD maps. Does this mean people with lower spec machines will get decent performance from my map or am i assuming too much. Sorry im not much of a PC boffin

(ConchMan) #2

I was wondering exactly the same thing and was about to post a similar question myself.

I’ve been testing FPS for my map as well and no matter what i do the FPS seems frozen at 90. Is there some config setting i can alter to make my performance similar to the average user’s PC?

(Ifurita) #3

I look at a couple of things:

  1. General FPS. Most people try to cap com_maxfps at 43 or 76, so I try to hit at least that. As you mentioned, people’s screen res and PC power vary, so this is really just a test for myself. I want to be sure that I can maintain a steady 76 FPS everywhere I go.

  2. r_speeds. I believe this is either the number of vertices or the number of triangles (tris) that are being drawn. This is a metric that should be absolute to all machines. I aim for <10K but am OK with 10-20K, If r_speeds exceed 20K, then I start looking for areas where I can reduce and invest a significant amount of time looking/tinkering in areas where r_speeds >25K

(SCDS_reyalP) #4

Maybe. Different systems will behave differently, depending on how your map is put together.

Look at the radiant manual section on debugging maps
http://www.qeradiant.com/manual/Q3Rad_Manual/ch12/pg12_1.htm#tools9

Some important factors in performance are:
r_speeds (the number of triangles visible)
number of unique textures used (/imagelist)
amount of overdraw
complexity of shaders used
complexity of BSP (for colision purposes etc)

As you can see, the effects of some of these things will be dependant on the CPU, while others will depend on the video card or memory bandwidth. Which one of these limits framerate first will depend on the system.

Having performance similar to the official maps (assuming you use your uncapped framerate) is a good starting point, but you should also pay attention to the other stuff.

edit:
ConchMan, use /com_maxfps 0 to uncap your FPS. Or set it to something isanely high, like 300.

(chavo_one) #5

r_speeds can be misleading however. I’ve been in situations where the r_speeds were around 8k, but I was getting 20fps. (I have a 9700pro.)

Lots of shaders can cause fps to drop as well. If the game has to redraw the screen several times for each frame, then multiply the r_speeds a few times to get a more realistic picture.

As for Ifurita’s warning of r_speeds no greater than 20k, I say try running around the official maps and notice that the r_speeds rarely drop below 20k.

EDIT: For a better understanding of such topics, I think everyone should read this: http://www.leveldesigner.com/index.php?action=docPrint&ID=120#12

It was written for Q3, but I think all of it is still relevant.

(hummer) #6

Yeah, r_speeds used to be a big consideration (they still are), but where as mapping for wolf, you’d want to stay under 10k-12k, or at least, that was quoted all the time, in ET, you’ll see 30k and sometimes 40k tris being drawn.

For efficiencies sake, I try to keep them lower than 20k, but if it pops up to 30k I don’t get terribly concerned. Maybe I’ll fix it, maybe I wont, but preliminary testers have said the indy map has good frame rates, and I have some places where I get 30k for tris being drawn…

On the other end, that train siege map I made for RTCW had pretty bad frame rates… I got the tris down to around 12-15k, but the moving effect of the train was done with scrolling shaders, plus all the wheels had animated shaders, which really affected frame rates.

(NOP) #7

In my opinion the best standard to use are the official maps. If you don’t drop below what you get in the SD maps(in terms of FPS) than you’re fine. A lot of people worry too much about people with low end machines and you really shouldn’t. These days you can put together a very decent system( i.e. P4 2.5GHz with a GEforce4) for about 350 bucks. That’s why i really don’t understand a lot of people when they come and talk about how they play the game on 500Mhz machines. I mean it’s not my fault that you’re a cheap ass and still hanging on to your 3yrs old PC, and I’m not gonna make my map look like shit just so you can play it. Just because the game can run on old machines, doesn’t mean that you have to design your maps for old machines.
Anyways… like I said use the official maps as your guide.

(SCDS_reyalP) #8

FPS alone, on one system, is NOT a good indicator. Even if on your particular system, you get the same FPS as on the official maps, that does not mean that someone else on a different system will get similar FPS to what they get on the official maps.

(Machine for to kill) #9

NOP has a good point there. It’s only a $150 for a 2.5 gig Pentium (I don’t deal in Athlons). People really should start upgrading their systems. I think a good indicator for map requirements would be to look at hardware requirements for recent shooters like UT2003, Tron, Max Payne 2…so you know what today’s standard is for low end. But seriously though, just because it’s the same engine that was used 4 years ago doesn’t mean it should work on the same hardware. If your computer means anything to you, you will go and upgrade it. Otherwise I think you should give up on shooters and get going on those wargames whose only graphics is one big map with a bunch of hexes and some numbers where your units are supposed to be.

(Ifurita) #10

Then again, you have mappers working on high end machines who are perfectly happy with 43 FPS on THEIR machine, running solo in their test environment.

I think the point is, there isn’t a single metric that you can use to say definitively, “yep, this map will run great” or “nope, this is going to chug like hell”. There are a lot of metrics that will give you an indication one way or another, but you’ll really never know until you try out your map on a couple of different machines with a couple of people throwing airstrikes.

After that, you can look at the sample set of machines, their performance, and decide whether or not your map will appeal to your target audience, whether it be solely high end players, the average person, or the lowest common demoninator.

Cheers

(SCDS_reyalP) #11

BLEH.

First of all, $150 for a new 2.5ghz Pentium doesn’t account for the fact that you most likely have to get a new mobo, RAM and maybe video card too. Now you are talking at least $300, probably more like $500.

Secondly, many maps perform poorly not because they are astoundingly detailed, but because the mapper didn’t care to learn how to make decent performing maps. Others do in fact have loads of gorgeous eyecandy that adds nothing to gameplay.

Most of the maps I see that have poor performance are due to poor design or lack of understanding on the mappers part, not because they are inherently complicated. Telling your users to upgrade is not an acceptable substitute for knowing your trade, IMO.

Gameplay is king. After 10 hours of playing any map, hardly anyone cares about the eyecandy.

How much you cater to low end systems is entirely up to you, but if you want to actually make something a large number of people enjoy playing, you should make the map perform reasonably well on the majority of players systems. To me, that means equivalent or better performance than the stock maps (which, I as I mentioned above, you cannot accurately judge from just looking at the framerate on your own system)

Minimum system requirements for ET, FWIW:

  • Intel® Pentium® III 600Mhz processor or AMD equivalent
  • 128 MB RAM
  • 32 MB 100% fully OpenGL® compliant 3-D video card
    Now TBH, I can’t imagine wanting to play the stock maps with those specs, but I would say that if you double them, stock ET maps should play decently.
(NOP) #12

$500? I seriously doubt that. I just finished building a complete system for a friend of mine about 3 weeks ago with new P4 2.4GHz(with motherboard), new 512RAM, new GeForce FX, new 80Gb hard drive for around $380. If you don’t believe me just go to pricewatch.com and check the prices for yourself.
Anyway I agree that gameplay is the most important thing but I also think that attention to detail is important and I think that you should try to make your map look good. I think that’s what separates good maps from great ones. Have you noticed how you can imediately tell a custom made map from an official one no matter how good the gameplay is?(not talking just about for ET) That’s because custom maps usually don’t have the amount of work in them(for obvious reasons) that official maps do. And that shows, and people do notice it(at least I do). People that think that looks are not important are in serious denial. The hard part is to find that perfect balance between gameplay and looks without neglecting neither of them.
In any event I have yet to see a map that I can’t play due to performance, but than again I have a good PC. (and please don’t start sending me links to sucky maps that look good. I’m sure you know of a bunch of them and l believe you)

(G0-Gerbil) #13

Can people stop using the excuse that ‘upgrading is cheap’ to account for crap mapping?

Look at it this way, however cheap it is to upgrade, if someone can’t afford to (and that’s PLENTY of people - remember ET is FREE so a lot of players probably have it because of this - especially younger kids), or don’t want to (buggered if I’m upgrading just to play ‘your’ map), then the bottom line is:

Your map will not get played.

The person with a rubbish computer has not lost out - you have, it’s your map suffering.

If a map runs badly for whatever reason (no matter how much the mapper thinks it’s the other person’s fault), it’s the mapper who loses out.

So bear that in mind - and if you want your map to be widely played (which I assume is why you all release your maps right? :wink: ), then make sure it runs reasonably on as many systems as possible. Simple as that.

When mapping - other people’s financial situation is simply not a concern, and I’m tired of people using it as an excuse for lazy mapping.

(Computertech) #14

Let’s break this down shall we?
Asus P4c800 (875P Chipset) 800fsb $169
Intel P4 2.4ghz 800fsb $174
Geforce FX 5600 128mb $128
PC3200 (DDR400) 512mb $70
Serial ATA 80gb hd $75
Total:$626US (All prices from Pricewatch)
Now that’s a computer that can upgrade to a 3.4Ghz cpu. Able to use/support the newest components. NOT a throw away in a few months.

AMD side (same speed/performance):
Asus A7N8X-X (Nforce2 Chipset) 400fsb $74
AMD Athlon 2500+ $88
With the rest of the parts, total:$435US

Now that’s a computer that can upgrade to a 3200+ (possible 3400+)

(G0-Gerbil) #15

No let’s not.

I have a suggestion - if it’s so cheap, how about you send out the money to upgrade to everyone who complains your map runs too slow because you designed it so it gets crap framerates on many computers?

Look - mappers here need to be honest - we design primarily for the public servers usually. Why? Because designing for clan play is currently almost certainly doomed to failure. Besides, there’s a damn sight more people playing on the pubs than in clan matches.

Now Joe Public will most likely neither have nor want the latest computer setup. This game is FREE remember - there’s probably a whole lot of people playing on close to minimum specs because, quite frankly, it’s either this, Counterstrike or AA.

If you rule out the public, your map is going nowhere.

(chavo_one) #16

$626 dollars is only a small amount if you have it.

(hummer) #17

Just a guess, but I imagine most gamers are either high school age, or college age. Which means, they don’t have tons of money to spend on upgrades.

It’s crap to tell anyone to upgrade their machine for your map. Leave that to the game designers. They’re the ones who built the game. We’ve all seen it’s possible to build awesome (SD, Nerve, etc) maps that perform relatively well on lower end machines, so who are you to tell everyone to upgrade to play your map?

I’m fine with “This map is meant to be played on high end machines,” etc. but it’s extremely pompus to tell players to upgrade to play your map, or complain that enough people aren’t upgrading.

Not that I see that here necessarily, but I’ve seen it happen before.

(Machine for to kill) #18

We’re not saying that everyone needs to upgrade to a 3GB, geforce FX system. Mid end PCs (which is what I have) are the standard for maps. But you have some people here with a 600MHz P3 and a TNT2 video card that don’t want to upgrade. Now I realize that building an entire computer right now even if it’s as low as $500 is still too much. Most people who build their own computer upgrade it one part at a time. New MB today, new processor after 2 months…then video card and so on. This way you preserve a very decent computer without paying to much money at one time.

I think the main problem with low end users comes with open area maps like fueldump. Many maps currently in development (mine including) are outdoors and with huge spaces. With these maps it is easy to hit r_speeds of 30000 nomatter how efficient your design is. I know I’ll require 24bit Z-buffer for my map.

(blushing_bride) #19

i agree, i want my map playable even for low spec machines. Im at the stage now where im getting decent FPS without having added any hintbrushes at all. Im doing a city map and i suspect that the entire map is being drawn as i have yet to put any hint brushes in the sky to seal off the streets so i hope to get good FPS for low end users once hint brushes are put in. However i know that airstrikes have a big effect on FPS but im also wondering about having lots of players on screen at once. I honestly don’t see any difference in FPS when i play Goldrush with 20 people or with no people i was wondering if this is the same for people with lower end machines than mine

(Computertech) #20

Use the hint brushes to break down the map into tunnels. It is the obvious tool to make a map run better. As I stated in the “real” pricing, it’s not that cheap to upgrade, at least for a system you can use for a few years.
One nice cheap upgrade for alot of ppl is a simple Radeon 9100 (8500 renamed) video card. 128mb for about $80US. But really you shouldn’t have to upgrade the system for just one map. Now if you’re having alot of problems with many maps…the video would be the easiest/cheapest.
And Please, stay away from MX named cards.