Is this solely an OpenGL engine with DX translations?
by Bob Johnson · in General Game Discussion · 01/05/2003 (11:28 am) · 12 replies
I have a feeling this game was made with OpenGL in mind, for I am getting horrid framerates in DirectX mode (I have DirectX 9) but better FPS in OpenGL. This should not be the case. With the specs I have, I should expect between 35-50 FPS, but I am only getting around 15-20. My specs:
P4 1.7 GhZ
256 megs RDRAM
Geforce4 MX440 64 meg
By no means is my computer slow. I am not whining, I am simply asking for a suggestion as to why my FPS is so bad. My assumption that the core engine is OpenGL is due to the fact that I saw files named "OpenGL2D3D.dll" and "glu2d3d.dll", which I'm only guessing is a translation matrix. As my card and its drivers are optimized for DX/D3D, my only guess to my FPS issues is because of an OpenGL core. Then again, I could totally not know what I'm talking about ;)
By the way, I love the game. Its a blast to play. Great Work!
P4 1.7 GhZ
256 megs RDRAM
Geforce4 MX440 64 meg
By no means is my computer slow. I am not whining, I am simply asking for a suggestion as to why my FPS is so bad. My assumption that the core engine is OpenGL is due to the fact that I saw files named "OpenGL2D3D.dll" and "glu2d3d.dll", which I'm only guessing is a translation matrix. As my card and its drivers are optimized for DX/D3D, my only guess to my FPS issues is because of an OpenGL core. Then again, I could totally not know what I'm talking about ;)
By the way, I love the game. Its a blast to play. Great Work!
#2
So don't worry about using OpenGL :)
Btw, in case you don't know, the GF4 MX is not even close to the level performance offered by other cards in the GF4 line-up. It can be misleading for people who are not aware of the differences between the MX brand and other nvidia based products : MX is a relatively low end, cheaper version, aimed at lower priced PCs.
Mind you, it's still a good card, just not representative of what a GeForce 4 can do.
01/05/2003 (12:14 pm)
and no, your card just run just as well under OpenGL : nividia supports both APIs. So don't worry about using OpenGL :)
Btw, in case you don't know, the GF4 MX is not even close to the level performance offered by other cards in the GF4 line-up. It can be misleading for people who are not aware of the differences between the MX brand and other nvidia based products : MX is a relatively low end, cheaper version, aimed at lower priced PCs.
Mind you, it's still a good card, just not representative of what a GeForce 4 can do.
#3
Unfortunately OpenGL, being an open standard decided upon by "the people", is having growing pains -- because open source can be customized by everyone, people use OpenGL in a lot of different ways, and standards are hard to agree upon; however, 3D card manufacturers have to SUPPORT these standards before they become useful. Whereas something autonomous like Microsoft can more easily say "Guys. Bump mapping? We were thinking of doing it this way", and nVidia would say "Yes, but change this" and ATI would say "oh and add this, too", whereas OpenGL isn't nearly as organized -- people are doing tons of really creative individual things with it, but I guess they are just having trouble finalizing the OpenGL 2.0 specs.
However, aside from ease-of-use issues for things like programmable vertex/pixel shaders (which Cg partially adresses for OpenGL, at least on nVidia chipsets), OpenGL is just plain better than DirectX in a lot of ways. And Open Source.
01/05/2003 (12:29 pm)
It's also largely agreed (I believe) that OpenGL is actually faster than DirectX? It seems as though I can gain 10 fps in ANY game, even games with excellent support for both API's such as Serious Sam 2 (patched). For instance, in GTA3 for the PC it was possible to force OpenGL rendering, which always ran faster. However, it would crash if you moved around because the dynamic loading code used DirectX specific stuff. However, the numbers were dramatically better with OpenGL, even with trails on.Unfortunately OpenGL, being an open standard decided upon by "the people", is having growing pains -- because open source can be customized by everyone, people use OpenGL in a lot of different ways, and standards are hard to agree upon; however, 3D card manufacturers have to SUPPORT these standards before they become useful. Whereas something autonomous like Microsoft can more easily say "Guys. Bump mapping? We were thinking of doing it this way", and nVidia would say "Yes, but change this" and ATI would say "oh and add this, too", whereas OpenGL isn't nearly as organized -- people are doing tons of really creative individual things with it, but I guess they are just having trouble finalizing the OpenGL 2.0 specs.
However, aside from ease-of-use issues for things like programmable vertex/pixel shaders (which Cg partially adresses for OpenGL, at least on nVidia chipsets), OpenGL is just plain better than DirectX in a lot of ways. And Open Source.
#4
01/05/2003 (5:48 pm)
Wow, I never knew I had such a low-end card. No wonder I'm getting horrible framerates on the Doom_III alpha leak.. :( . Anyways thanks for the help and advice. I guess I need a new card...
#5
01/05/2003 (6:00 pm)
Bob I dont know of any system that can run Doom 3 with great FPS. I have a programmer friend who got it also and he has a very high end system and it runs very slow. It's an alpha mind you, and probably not even half way optimized. 
#6
That framerate seems low. DX performance is lower than OpenGL, but the system you have here should still perform at a high rate.
During this next year, we do plan on increasing the performance of DX.
Jeff Tunnell GG
01/05/2003 (8:10 pm)
Bob,That framerate seems low. DX performance is lower than OpenGL, but the system you have here should still perform at a high rate.
During this next year, we do plan on increasing the performance of DX.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#7
Look at the VGA comparison benchmarks on Toms Hardware Guide. All the "GeForce4 MX" cards score crap in everything compared to a real GeForce4 Ti 4xxx and some of the Radeon cards.
I really think what nVidia has done with the naming verges on false advertising. Makes me not want to buy ANYTHING nVidia out of spite!
I am looking to replace my KyroII and leaning towards the ATI cards, but waiting to see what the GeForceFX does in real world tests.
01/06/2003 (8:43 am)
Yeah, unfortunately the MX line of GeForce4 cards actually use a CRIPPLED version of the GeForce2 core.Look at the VGA comparison benchmarks on Toms Hardware Guide. All the "GeForce4 MX" cards score crap in everything compared to a real GeForce4 Ti 4xxx and some of the Radeon cards.
I really think what nVidia has done with the naming verges on false advertising. Makes me not want to buy ANYTHING nVidia out of spite!
I am looking to replace my KyroII and leaning towards the ATI cards, but waiting to see what the GeForceFX does in real world tests.
#8
01/06/2003 (12:23 pm)
Thanks for taking the time to consider making a more DX-oriented version Jeff. Keep up the great support and great games!
#9
A 440MX isn't that bad a card, and you definitely should be seeing better framerates than that. Some possibilities:
- you have FSAA enabled?
- you have force-vsync enabled?
- you have older drivers?
- you have lots of background apps running?
...
-d
01/06/2003 (10:13 pm)
NV cards generally run faster with GL over DX, assuming the two interfaces are coded to equivalently. In Torque's case, GL is much faster...A 440MX isn't that bad a card, and you definitely should be seeing better framerates than that. Some possibilities:
- you have FSAA enabled?
- you have force-vsync enabled?
- you have older drivers?
- you have lots of background apps running?
...
-d
#10
Dont get me wrong I would love to see Torque updated to DirectX 9.0 and get all the latest and greatest DX features but its one thing Im not holding my breath on or wasteing the resources to code in when I have a blazeing fast and nice looking GL mode that works accross all platforms with equal speed.
Thats just my two cents worth.
01/06/2003 (11:36 pm)
Well not true. I have a P4 3.6Ghz HT with 512ram and a GeForce 4 4600TI running WinXP (Service Pack 1 and DirectX 9.0) and I never get more then 25 FPS in DirectX mode and it generaly allways looks like crap compared to GL Mode. There is alot of stuff wrong with the DirectX side of torque not the most being it feels like it was rushed. And possibly when Tribes side of it was ripped out it broke alot of stuff that was never fully fixed. Dont get me wrong I would love to see Torque updated to DirectX 9.0 and get all the latest and greatest DX features but its one thing Im not holding my breath on or wasteing the resources to code in when I have a blazeing fast and nice looking GL mode that works accross all platforms with equal speed.
Thats just my two cents worth.
#11
Running P4 2.5, 512meg RIMM, ATI 9700, Direct X 9
In openGL I get 0.5 - 1 second freezes & music jitters. Under DX it's silky smooth 125 fps with no music problems.
Lucky there is the option to choose whats best for each of our setups then !
Top game BTW - just downloaded the demo.
01/22/2003 (4:57 am)
To add further to the confusion - I get quite the opposite!Running P4 2.5, 512meg RIMM, ATI 9700, Direct X 9
In openGL I get 0.5 - 1 second freezes & music jitters. Under DX it's silky smooth 125 fps with no music problems.
Lucky there is the option to choose whats best for each of our setups then !
Top game BTW - just downloaded the demo.
#12
01/22/2003 (12:37 pm)
I am on a 800 mhz athlon with 768mb ram and a Geforce 4 MX 440. I get around 45 fps in torque. I havent checked in orbz but Im sure its around that. Sounds like something is wrong with your system. (this is in opengl.. if your getting low fps in directx just use opengl since the game was written for opengl)
Torque Owner Ben Swanson