|
Athiril
Squire
16 Posts |
 Posted - Apr 15 2006 : 12:58:48 PM
|
Ath's compy
Sprite - about 95ms
Texture, 1 to 2 ms
Animated Sprite Speed - 15ms for 1000 sprites, 86 ms for 5000 sprites
Celeron D 336 2.8GHz @ 3.5GHz, 1GB of PC3200 DDR, XP Pro x64 (64 bit).
Could you do a 64-bit build so I could see if there's much of a difference in 64-bit? :)
edit: 82ms and 86ms when running both VB and C# animated sprite tests at the same time @ 5000 sprites with the "run both" option, running two instances of the program and running the VB test with one and C# test with the other is about twice as slow, or is that four times as slow...? (each window was runnig at 160 ms to 180 ms when running two instances of the program, doing one test each)... logically it sounds like it should be 4 times as slow, one program doing both sets at ~80ms, as to two programs doing one set each. each at ~160 ms... but they are running simultaneously, so that does halve it back to two times..
|
Edited by - Athiril on Apr 15 2006 1:08:28 PM |
 |
|
|
cbx
Swordmaster
Canada
296 Posts |
|
|
cbx
Swordmaster
Canada
296 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2006 : 6:13:41 PM
|
I just ran the ani sprite test on my brothers computer and these are the results i got ...
5000 sprites (32x32) - 231 ms - Athlon 750Mhz, 640Mb SDR, XP Home (32 Bit)
|
Created by: X
http://www.createdbyx.com/ |
Edited by - cbx on Apr 15 2006 6:16:06 PM |
|
|
|
dxgame
Knave
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2006 : 6:48:10 PM
|
16 ms is the target for 60fps, so it's important to post test results that give you 60fps and as a minimum I wouldn't post results less than 30fps. (33ms)
"Animated Sprite Speed - 15ms for 1000 sprites, 86 ms for 5000 sprites Celeron D 336 2.8GHz @ 3.5GHz, 1GB of PC3200 DDR, XP Pro x64 (64 bit)."
That's good information there. Hardware wise it's a tad above typical end user spec, but still very interesting. But the bigger question would be if this system was used for games, what about sound, game controllers, etc? If we end up using system API's for that (DirectX, etc.) why not use the API for everything? |
|
|
|
Athiril
Squire
16 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2006 : 10:28:02 PM
|
I actally do use this system and the 64-bit OS for games, AvP2 runs sweet, so does Battlefield Vietnam, oh I have a 6600GT PCI-E, but I haven't put it in yet, i need a cooler for it, so i'm using on board Radeon X200 Xpress, I'm very pleased and surprised that this onboard vid will run Battlefield Vietnam in high settings at 800x600 ot 1024x768.
dxgame: hard ware wise I -was- running a Duron 1.1GHz, with 1GB PC3200 @ PC2100, spent $200 AUD (US $150) for the mobo and CPU to upgrade it to this system =)
64-bit Results:
Still getting 15ms for 1000 Animated Sprites, but improvement with 5000 Sprites, 81 to 84 ms, C# version runs 5000 sprites at about 90ms.
Getting 16ms and 18 - 20ms (suspect the slower is the C# version), when running "run both" in 1000 ms @ 1000 sprites, 5000 sprites is 82ms and ~91ms.
Most VB programmers envision making a 2D game with nice effects that would benefit from using 3D acceleration, like alpha blending/translucency with flat particle effects that use blending etc, should incorporate that into the test one day =) |
|
|
|
cbx
Swordmaster
Canada
296 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2006 : 10:32:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Athiril
Most VB programmers envision making a 2D game with nice effects that would benefit from using 3D acceleration, like alpha blending/translucency with flat particle effects that use blending etc, should incorporate that into the test one day =)
It's on my list of things to do...
|
Created by: X
http://www.createdbyx.com/ |
|
|
|
Athiril
Squire
16 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2006 : 11:04:05 PM
|
Sweet.
You know if you write it out and stick it to your door in your bed room (if you "work" in your bed room :P), they end up more likely being done and you slowly cross them off the list =) |
|
|
|
Athiril
Squire
16 Posts |
Posted - Apr 16 2006 : 12:25:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dxgame
<br>Sounds interesting. "I will know more when I write the test app that test all of warps3d feature set." That would great and all, but is there any way that you could simply write a small sprite test like the one I requested? That would go a long way in showing some basic performance for typical 2D games. If/when you have time that would be great, the demo with all the features would be cool too, but hopefully the sprite test would be something you could whip out much quicker? ;) Thanks.
I've got it compiling successfully and running successfully from VS2005, so I'm going to try and partially learn Warp3D usage via the source >.<. cant find any tutorials, I'll post the binary when I've gotten something that does some useful testing etc.
edit: Ath's first build of Warp3D Test.
Includes X86 (32-bit) and X64 (64-bit) builds.
800x600 window size
FPS counter based on millisecond count.
Some compile optimisations.
Attachment or DD: http://www.drakkan.net/Warp3D_Test_AthBuild_001.zip
Download Attachment:  Warp3D_Test_AthBuild_001.zip<br>89.54 KB |
Edited by - Athiril on Apr 16 2006 01:25:20 AM |
|
|
|
dxgame
Knave
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - Apr 16 2006 : 01:47:21 AM
|
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My bad. I was wondering, this Warp library sounds VERY interesting to say the least, but what about coding sound, music, game controllers, etc? I take it we would end up using an OS API of some sort like DirectX, so that kind of defeats the whole idea of using a non OS based api for rendering. So I guess I'm just wondering if we more than likely would use DirectX for sound, music, game controllers, what advantage would we get by not using DirectX for the graphics rendering? And keep in mind, MS is going to a hardware 3D accelerated desktop anyway right?
Also, I've been Googling Warp3D and can't find anything PC game design related other than alot of references to the Amiga and Warp3D. Where is the home page for the PC Warp3D project? |
|
|
|
cbx
Swordmaster
Canada
296 Posts |
Posted - Apr 16 2006 : 02:19:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dxgame
...And keep in mind, MS is going to a hardware 3D accelerated desktop anyway right?
Also, I've been Googling Warp3D and can't find anything PC game design related other than alot of references to the Amiga and Warp3D. Where is the home page for the PC Warp3D project?
As for hardware accelerated desktop, it's true you will not see a performence increase using vista because it's just a software rasterizer. I think Warp3D is suited more for areas where you do not want to worry about hardware graphics capabilities or the complications/limitations of using an API that sits as a layer on top of graphics hardware like DirectX or OpenGL. Another area Warp3D could be used is pocketpc os etc. I don't think handheld computers have very good 3D capabilities and something like warp3d could act as a stand in for a lack of 3d graphics hardware. I have spend 15+ years searching for the perfect graphics api, and I like the idea that with warp3d I can mold and shape it into an api that works for me not against me. I will not be limited to an api that I cannot change or add to, or modify like with Directx or opengl.
There is only a download page for Warp3D at http://alansimes.blogdns.net/cs/files/default.aspx
I discoverd the Warp3D library from the ZMan's indiegameguy blog at http://www.indiegameguy.com/blogs/zman/archive/2005/08/02/29.aspx |
Created by: X
http://www.createdbyx.com/ |
|
|
|
dxgame
Knave
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - Apr 16 2006 : 10:53:15 AM
|
This appears to be the closest thing to an official forum for the project:
http://alansimes.blogdns.net/cs/forums/10/ShowForum.aspx
It appears the project is still in it's infancy, at least on the PC? Cbx, I would add a category on your forum at your site for the project, and try to make a better "home" for Warp3D compared to the above. I will defintely keep an eye on this project. Truly fascintating. A 100% software engine. Reminds me of my Atari ST days. ;) |
|
|
|
Athiril
Squire
16 Posts |
Posted - Apr 16 2006 : 11:05:48 AM
|
Yes, I couldn't figure out much how to use the engine, like how to make it do other things, or a colour-key/mask etc, shared member blah blah stuff, and since it's software based, you could remove the limitation of textures having to be to the power of 2 in size, and square ;)
Reminds me when i was using QuickBASIC 4.5 and 7.1 PDS, I came across a 3D software engine for QB, Screen 13 mode erc, looked alright, came with a "demo" game built into the code of the engine where you were this flying dude that looked like he was swimming, and you could move around, I then converted the entire thing to use the Future.Library and ran it in 1024x768x32bpp, man it ran pretty decent for software 3D and in QB, and on an AMD K6-2 300! It looked pretty damn good too, would have been awesome with high-resolution textures.
on a side note: going great with getting DX9 in VS2005 base-code up and running (coding out 2D engine for 2D graphics in Direct3D 9, and network, input and sound etc, then planning my game(s) more, to the extent of having the game logic on paper, so i can pretty much code the logic straight into the DX9 code base). |
|
|
|
Struan
Squire
21 Posts |
Posted - Apr 18 2006 : 9:36:32 PM
|
Why is there a separate dll for VB? in .NET a single dll should work for both C# and VB.
I hate to be negative, but I suspect this is not entirely software based. I am betting there is hardware acceleration in GDI+ you aren't aware of, because those numbers are way too fast for software only. They are about what you would get with a poorly written 2d with 3d acceleration implementation.
Besides, using a slow renderer is going to waste a lot of CPU time that you could be using for game logic and related code. You will probably even see this engine get slower with Vista when 3d cards stop supporting 2d acceleration entirely. |
|
|
|
cbx
Swordmaster
Canada
296 Posts |
|
|
|
Warp3D has been converted to vb.net!
