Lag with new client - Page 3

superb · #31 01-22-2005, 11:01 PM

Here's my question Stefan...

Why should Graal make people's computers a friggin' oven? It seems to me you just need to work out the kinks in the new system. A game of Graal's calibur should NOT need to use so many CPU cycles. If this were Doom3, maybe I'd understand, but this is GRAAL, not exactly up there on the graphic scale. I can only imagine how many people get 1st degree burns on their legs when playing graal for long periods of time on their laptops... :x

pacMASTA · #32 01-22-2005, 11:08 PM

you have to think though Graal3D is attached to it so maybe even though its no on its using the CPU it would but i dunno

Polo · #33 01-22-2005, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superb

Here's my question Stefan...

Why should Graal make people's computers a friggin' oven? It seems to me you just need to work out the kinks in the new system. A game of Graal's calibur should NOT need to use so many CPU cycles. If this were Doom3, maybe I'd understand, but this is GRAAL, not exactly up there on the graphic scale. I can only imagine how many people get 1st degree burns on their legs when playing graal for long periods of time on their laptops... :x

Well for a start, the GFX are not the CPU intensive thing as thats all handled by the GFX card. Secondly, Doom 3 uses baddies with predefined logic in a compiled environment, Graal does not. Graal interprets/processes script in real time (although the B-Tree is changing that?). Thirdly... Im using stock cooling and a single added case fan, and i get at most a 1 celcius rise in CPU temperature, which I call insignificant.

Ibonic · #34 01-22-2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacMASTA

you have to think though Graal3D is attached to it so maybe even though its no on its using the CPU it would but i dunno

Graal3D isn't "attached" to Graal 2. Graal 2 is just opening the Graal3.exe when you try to log into a 3D server; If you don't have Graal3.exe, it tells you that you have to download it first.

And that just reminded me that Graal3.exe even while on the Graal3D servers takes less CPU than Graal 2 does for me.

superb · #35 01-22-2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacMASTA

you have to think though Graal3D is attached to it so maybe even though its no on its using the CPU it would but i dunno

Graal3d is less cpu intensive than graal2d...lolz

Ibonic · #36 01-22-2005, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polo

Im using stock cooling and a single added case fan, and i get at most a 1 celcius rise in CPU temperature, which I call insignificant.

My desktop computer doesn't rise in temperature either, but the auto-sensing fans (controlled by temperature) which normally run slow start going a lot faster to keep the heat down/stable when Graal is running. With fans that run at the same speed all of the time, it's not very noticable. But the temperature increase with laptops is extremely noticable, I actually went out of the way to buy a 'cooling pad' just so I could use Graal 2 for longer periods of time without damaging the hardware.

Polo · #37 01-22-2005, 11:52 PM

My fans dont adjust speed, and on Classic, Graal is only using like 2 or 3% cpu time on my AthlonXP 2600+.... I dont know, I dont exactly think its grossly innefficient.

Ibonic · #38 01-23-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polo

the GFX are not the CPU intensive thing as thats all handled by the GFX card.

I believe Graal 2 does (or did) use DelphiX; If you look at the samples/tutorials for that, DirectX or OpenGL, most of them take as much CPU as possible before you have anything more than some simple text or a single graphic displayed on the screen -- but those are generally bad coding practices where people continuously redraw the entire scene when it's not needed, or they have no kind of 'sleeping' taking place in the timer. I assume Stefan didn't do something like that, but it's ridiculous when you see how many people do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polo

Graal is only using like 2 or 3% cpu time on my AthlonXP 2600+

First time I've ever seen that reported

The new level editor only uses 2-3% of the CPU for me too, but I have even better processors than that with good video cards in my desktops and Graal 2.2.2 still uses 99% or as much is available.

Darlene159 · #39 01-23-2005, 12:17 AM

Hmm, I find the new updated version great. Everything is alot smoother, and alot less lag for me.
I can even play on UN with little lag, where before it froze my Graal because I lagged so bad.

Polo · #40 01-23-2005, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibonic

Graal 2.2.2 still uses 99% or as much is available.

Graal 2.2.2 is not the current verion though. Since 2.3 it has been optimised to not take full CPU time.

superb · #41 01-23-2005, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polo

Graal 2.2.2 is not the current verion though. Since 2.3 it has been optimised to not take full CPU time.

And Stefan said he was going to put THAT BACK IN. That was what my post was about in the first place... x.x

Ibonic · #42 01-23-2005, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polo

Graal 2.2.2 is not the current verion

I typed it out for that reason, in hope that people will know I was referring to the old version. And I mentioned what I did about heat and so on because I also thought we were talking about Stefan readding the CPU hammering / personal oven feature from pre-2.3 versions.

Admins · #43 01-23-2005, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superb

And Stefan said he was going to put THAT BACK IN. That was what my post was about in the first place... x.x

The question is if Graal should go back into the old mode when it's running slow, e.g. if people ignore to install good gfx drivers. v2.3 and v3.1 should only take 3-5% CPU time on a normal PC, but if you have a bad gfx driver or programs running which take a lot of cpu time then the new version might be slower because it is not trying to steall all the cpu time.

Skyld · #44 01-23-2005, 02:43 AM

2.2 and forward have always baen laggier than 3.0 and forward for me, despite my graphics drivers. So I just use 3.1 now.

Ibonic · #45 01-23-2005, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

The question is if Graal should go back into the old mode when it's running slow ...

That might be the easiest solution, but probably not the best.

If you decide to make it automatically detect if it's running slow, can you add some kind of override so that it doesn't force you to use the old timing? Maybe even ask in a dialog, e.g. "Graal has detected a very low frame rate, would you like to try the pre-2.3 timing method?" and then save the preference which can also be toggled in the options window.