Frame rate Question

#1 Is the framerate loss gradual (it decreases a little at every extra object you add), or it goes down in a huge spike (as in: "framerate is smooth until X objects are on the screen, then it goes down a lot")?

#2 I would think you might be seeing an issue of video ram. If you can, next time you restart the computer, check the BIOS and see what the on board video ram is set at.

The way to test if you have a POLYGON overload, is try setting the display resolutions lower and higher. If the FPS is about the same (give or take a fewFPS), it is an issue with FEEDING the video card, rather then the video card rendering the polygons.

Last would be have your mesh artist make a box or a ball shape with a HIGH amount of poly 20k or something., put a texture on it with a simple name, make a test map, place a bunch of the shapes in it( count them so you know about how many total poly you have in a view)- save the test map. Now make a few different size textures (of the same simple name) stating at 128x128 up to 1024x1024. Now you can test run each texture to see if there is an issue with rendering different texture sizes, and at what point the poly load versus texture use seem to equal out.

#3 It's definitely the video hardware. It's crappy.

Not enough dedicated memory, basically.

#4 @ Manoel Neto,Well the frame rate goes considerably down only when there are many polys to be rendered.
@Caylo Gypsyblood, I also found that some of my textures are 1024x1024. Maybe I should scale them to 512. I had used large textures cause they are recycled on many objects.
@ Lee Latham, that PC is not having a specialized Graphics card , its using an inbuild card which has memory from default Ram. So its rendering is slower compared to a pc with graphic card

#5 If the built in video card is sharing RAM from the system, yet have normal OGL and D3D capability, then the problem arrives from the fact it do not have a dedicated bus to transfer the graphics information. In this case, smaller textures would greatly improve your performance. Its a perfect example of what is called TEXTURE THRASHING, even if the built in video card had 512 megs to use, it would still be slow.

#6 I would go out of my way to have a machine with inbuilt video if I was making a casual game, for testing purposes. If I was making a serious game, I wouldn't even mess with it, because it will never, ever, run a big FPS type game.

#7 Hey Lee, a good 80% of 'budget' systems out there use built on video cards, most of them now days are capable of rendering hardware 3D, sure they are slow- often around the speed of a crippled GF2-MX.
It would be arrogant to overlook this sector of the market. Budget systems make up the greater percent of computer systems out there.

Of course it depends on what type of game you are making, if its a FPS or nitch game where you have a very defined target, there is no reason to spread yourself out over many grades of computer system hardware. An RPG on the other hand, people with all types of computers would be more likely to play it, should work on as many systems as possible.

Myself with the RPG project im working on am aiming for a low end spec of 1Ghz CPU 256RAM, 32megVideo (GF2 class), with no less then 20FPS in most all parts of the game. But im still using high res textures, and mid poly mesh. I just have a "FAST&DIRTY" occlusion system that dont care how it looks tossing details out to maintain a minimal FPS standard. (It is alot like THIS, but more complexity and not only for Static Objects, but most anything that shows up on screen.)

#8 Caylo: no arrogance here, never you fear--I've been beaten up by too many customers over the years for that!

That alpha LOD thing is a good idea for a lot of games, I reckon, and might just make some "heavier" games playable on a shared video machine.

I was just saying it depends on what you're doing, and one must know one's market. "Hardcore" gamers know better than to expect to use integrated video, and casual gamers certainly do not. As I was saying, if I were developing casual games, I might want to use one of these low end machines for development!

Of course, it probably bears pointing out that "integrated video" does not have to be poor performance...it's more about shared RAM, and the current generation of these boards.

After all, I would not be shocked if AMD were to come out with a setup that offers rather quite good integrated ATI video, with no shared memory, and perhaps even soon.

#9 Yes indeed...

Oh and also just because one may be using all types of clever CPU tricks to cut video card fill rate will not always speed a game up- there comes a point where one is bottlenecking on the CPU. Torque is quite clever without any help.
Alpha LOD will allow one to use some great INCLOSE detail loads that normally would be too much poly load, but if the game is playing FAST with players moving around allot, your CPU will spend more time with calculation LOD then the LOD will be useful. Same is true for Torques built in LOD system, many more then 3 LOD and you will see diminishing results in some cases.

Oh and i never meant to imply any arrogances on your part, but that it is arrogant in general to expect most people to have cutting edge hardware, very few people are using video cards that cost more then $150 or that are newer then 1 year as far as technology age go, DX9 class hardware is just starting to hit the 'common' market.

#10 Casual Gaming = Casual Computing

To clarify, if you do not look for 3D specs as your first priority in a computer would most likely indicate you are using for email, word processing, and lastly games. No real need for fast stuff.