1  2  |   Order by index

Jul 23, 2002, 9:09pm

Not particularly, since the loading process is different in AW than in games, for the most part. Games tend to load all or parts of a level completely into memory, while AW loads cells and sectors. Granted, Morrowind also loads "cells" but they're much bigger and have relatively long load times all at once vs. AW's incremental smaller cell loading.

[View Quote] > so comparing FPS wouldn't be a reliable way of testing the rendering speeds?
>
[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2002, 9:13pm

Hmm, so nested clumps cause more pausing than a single clump? I've never noticed a difference, but I guess I haven't paid close enough attention to it. If this is true, I'll definitely want to mention it on my RW site. :/

Although, since AW3, nested clumps aren't really necessary for creating non-solid parts anyway since there's the "collision" RWX command. Regardless, for full backwards compatibility with 2.2 (since it's still allowed), nested clumps should also be used.

[View Quote] > ... but don't forget to optimize the RWX (consolidate clumps) before
> you start. A tree with one clump for each tiny branch will freeze
> AW quite "reliable" when it's added to the scene. It isn't fault
> of the RWX format if the design is unnecessarily complex.
>
[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 3:15am

sample sent ...

[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 3:21am

Maybe a "second level cache" would be the solution, preloading
one row of cells more than needed. This could happen with low
priority, but the stuff would already be in memory when it's
needed.

I doubt that this is a program change that can be done quick
though :-/


[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 4:38am

But there would still be a pause while AW loaded the objects from the disk into memory. AW needs to load more cells (perhaps at least 400m³) into memory initially (when it first starts and when entering a world) to reduce the jerkiness when moving through a world--perhaps even acting like Morrowind (optionally, of course) by loading chunks of the world at a time, with a pause and "Loading..." progress indicator to consolidate all the pausing at once instead of incrementally as AW currently does.

[View Quote] > Maybe a "second level cache" would be the solution, preloading
> one row of cells more than needed. This could happen with low
> priority, but the stuff would already be in memory when it's
> needed.
>
> I doubt that this is a program change that can be done quick
> though :-/
>
[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 5:02am

Thanks. After a test, it seems you're right: nested clumps cause AW to pause slightly while rendering. :/ That would explain the jerkiness in Hole since all my shadows are in nested clumps. Guess I'll have to remove them and screw AW 2.2ers (which are most likely getting scarcer and scarcer anyway).

I'll be adding that nested clump note to my RW site, Ananas, giving you full credit for discovering it, of course. ;) Thanks again!

Anyone else have optimization tips not already covered on my site: http://tnlc.com/rw/ ?

[View Quote] > sample sent ...
>
[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 5:58am

Seems I was too quick to agree. I've noticed pausing on both tree models Ananas sent me, ShanKahtus' original nested-clump gm_turtree13 and Ananas' consolidated-clump version, and it doesn't seem to matter. What DOES seem to matter is which tree is rendered first. I tested at 30m visibility (the lowest AW will go), with only flat modular 20m² ground pieces and a cloud plane being rendered, and pausing only occurred on whichever tree was closest to the camera; the tree farther away NEVER paused.

I mentioned this to Ananas and he thinks it might be the collision detection for each separate clump, with more clumps equaling more pause, but I don't think so since even the nested clump version didn't pause when it was rendered into the scene after the single-clump version. However, it could be the collision detection calculation radius, which was increased in AW3, but then why wouldn't the farther tree pause when it enters the scene at the same radius as that of the first tree? It's quite odd and more testing clearly needs to be done.

Perhaps Shamus and/or Grimm can offer some insight, assuming they ever read this...

[View Quote] > Thanks. After a test, it seems you're right: nested clumps cause AW to pause slightly while rendering. :/ That would explain the jerkiness in Hole since all my shadows are in nested clumps. Guess I'll have to remove them and screw AW 2.2ers (which are most likely getting scarcer and scarcer anyway).
>
> I'll be adding that nested clump note to my RW site, Ananas, giving you full credit for discovering it, of course. ;) Thanks again!
>
> Anyone else have optimization tips not already covered on my site: http://tnlc.com/rw/ ?
>
[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 11:21am

"To write a converter yourself to take the files from RWX to DFF you would
be looking at the basic RenderWare Graphics price of $40,000."

That's what I got from an RWX person when I e-mailed them asking for a
program that would convert RWX to DFF. LOL, who would pay $40k for that?

[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 12:23pm

Or you could just parse the text in an RWX file by yourself. Didn't Criterion drop support for RWX?

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 1:24pm

2.2 doesn't work anymore, it's a forced upgrade. They took it away since aw
3.2 supported software mode.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 8:25pm

Yea, they sure did, stupidly. For them to not at LEAST provide an RWX-to-DFF converter is quite silly. They shot themselves in the foot with that blunder. It's bad enough they didn't provide an RWX importer for RW3...they basically dumped all their RW 2.x users and told them to go screw themselves. Not very smart...

[View Quote] > Or you could just parse the text in an RWX file by yourself. Didn't Criterion drop support for RWX?
>
[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2002, 3:06am

In order to write a converter, you don't need to have any special
developement environment or rendering software, you "just" need
to know the file specifications. RWX is well documented.

[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2002, 3:24am

Exactly, and who in their right mind would pay $40,000 for that?

[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2002, 3:58am

Er, you don't have to pay anything for it considering the RW 2.x API documentation is freely available (http://tnlc.com/rw/links.html )...but it's not even needed for parsing RWX files since it's RenderWare-specific, not specific to whatever 3D viewer will be rendering the RWXes (and then converting them).

[View Quote] > Exactly, and who in their right mind would pay $40,000 for that?
>
[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2002, 4:00am

then what in the blazes does renderware want $40k for?

[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2002, 9:38am

Er, the API (not just the documentation) to create games/apps using the RenderWare engine. Most game companies license an existing 3D engine (Quake, Unreal, LithTech, RenderWare, etc) because it means less development time (in theory) because they don't have to reinvent the wheel.

[View Quote] > then what in the blazes does renderware want $40k for?
>
[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index