what's the best performance improvement from 2.2.3 to 2.3?

[esteel]

The big performance difference is the reduced slowdowns

If you mean the min/max output from the timedemos.. the measurement has changed.. the old 2.2.3 output was 'absolute' min/max values.. like look at a wall for a split second and get 800fps or if some shader has to compile in the beginning and you get 30fps because of that. The new are 1-second averages for min/max like other games do.. those are higher for min and lower for max but kinda more useful..

[Ed]

If you mean the min/max output from the timedemos.. the measurement has changed.. the old 2.2.3 output was 'absolute' min/max values.. like look at a wall for a split second and get 800fps or if some shader has to compile in the beginning and you get 30fps because of that. The new are 1-second averages for min/max like other games do.. those are higher for min and lower for max but kinda more useful..

The old measurements were very inaccurate, I did come up with a way of calculating uncertainties, this is now out of date:
http://www.forums.alientrap.local/viewtopic.php?t=952

[003]

Have the notoriously high-polygon models been fixed? Is that off the list of things I should gripe about.

No, its hard to find moddelers.. its still 'planned' though

I think you should try to get at least one model fully optimized, then make it the default model, and add a client option to force all models to show up as the optimized one. Not the best fix but it would work great until more/all models can be fixed.

[zenwalker]

The big performance difference is the reduced slowdowns

If you mean the min/max output from the timedemos.. the measurement has changed.. the old 2.2.3 output was 'absolute' min/max values.. like look at a wall for a split second and get 800fps or if some shader has to compile in the beginning and you get 30fps because of that. The new are 1-second averages for min/max like other games do.. those are higher for min and lower for max but kinda more useful..

That's not exactly what I meant, though I did think it backed up my experience. Things used to get really bogged down on a few maps & fps could drop to single figures when things got hectic. I've not come across this so far with 2.3 & that's with a higher level of effects

[esteel]

That part of your experience comes from the general engine improvements, it handles maps much better now. What i wrote is really just about timedemos.

[Phyrexicaid]

The general look and framerate in 2.3 does seem better, but I'm experiencing a *long* load time compared to 2.2.3.

Any ideas as to why this would be the case?

[esteel]

Do you mean the first startup? Or from map to map?
For the first startup its the menu that should be reworked to be less of a burden at startup

[zenwalker]

After more play I've found that a couple of maps still kill performance. I took screenshots so you know which ones & their frame rate. That's playing at ultra -bloom which produces a timedemo result of:

Code: Select all

result 1910 frames 15.7278011 seconds 121.4410069 fps, one-second min/avg/max: 73 122 153

Turning off realtime shadows has little/no impact on these two & when the action hots up frame rates drops further, forcing me to reduce quality. While playing, XP users often say performance is fine, I've only heard fellow Linux users mention this hit. Some people on the ubuntu forums have compared the performance between linux & windows, showing Linux to be faster, this doesn't make sense.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p= ... stcount=55

[Phyrexicaid]

Do you mean the first startup? Or from map to map?
For the first startup its the menu that should be reworked to be less of a burden at startup

Not from map to map, it's from when I click, say, "Instant Action" after starting nexuiz. I then sit, and wait, and sit, and make a cup of coffee, and then I get my "instant" action

After that, map to map is fine.

[esteel]

Seems like its the bots that create their waypoint system.. What kind of sytem do you have? Its basicly less then 2 seconds for me..