verlet max reaches new speeds.. 8,500 at 60 fps
Community Forums/Showcase/verlet max reaches new speeds.. 8,500 at 60 fps
| ||
| Ok so I had never thought to test how my physics engine would preform when faced with the challenge of simulating 8500 objects in a game like situation. This test shows a simulation in which the many objects are not all touching but they are touching here and there and bouncing off of eachother as well as you might have in a game with a gigantic map. Many thanks to Oddball for giving me the idea to test my engine in this way. http://naillproductions.synthasite.com/resources/verlet%20max%20stress%20test.zip a title image with a bullet going through it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgWCU1Uiol4 I have a 2.6 ghz dual core (but its still not multithreaded so whether you have 1 or 2 or 4 cores should not make much difference. by the way, its 100% blitz max! no external c libs |
| ||
| Cool man, I got around 8000 also on a 2.4GHz Intel Quad Core. How are you achieving a comparison of every object potentially colliding with every other object? Do you use an acceleration structure to avoid having to compare everything to everything? Like a grid or something? |
| ||
| How are you achieving a comparison of every object potentially colliding with every other object? Do you use an acceleration structure to avoid having to compare everything to everything? Like a grid or something? thanks I use a grid and arrays to store the points for much faster access. But one thing I forgot to take out before I built it and uploaded it is an extra cosine and sine and atan2 function call for ever collision... I dont even use the values those return anymore... |
| ||
| While your fixing that.. can you have the text print in front of the vertlets.. I can't see the data ;) |
| ||
| While your fixing that.. can you have the text print in front of the vertlets.. I can't see the data ;) lol oops... idk why I always do that... I looked at my many other experiments and it always happens!!! |
| ||
| ok fixed all the little bugs lol |
| ||
| I get a total use (render + update) of 16ms = 60fps at 829 vertlets on my laptop |
| ||
| 829 as the top number? not possible lol it must be a multiple of 4 the top number is the number of verlets the second number is the number of boxes, each of which contains 4 verlets thats 3316 verlets |
| ||
| Oh.. I cant see the top number then because the window opens above the top of my screen (and stretches below the bottom).... I thought that was the number of vertlets :) 3316 is much better! |
| ||
| whoops... I may have overdone the dimensions on that window... it loods fine on my screen |
| ||
| I got 4000 verlets at about 30FPS pretty good! the total update time was 35 so 1000/35 is about 30 |
| ||
| I got 4000 verlets at about 30FPS pretty good could you post your specs please... I am now confused because I can get 13,000 at 30 fps and I just have a 2.6 ghz dual core |
| ||
| Why not at an fps display to the test to make it easy to see what fps people are getting? |
| ||
| oh I can add that too... lol I just use fraps but I guess an fps meter would help |
| ||
| I just held the spacebar down until it hit 30ms + 4ms render time (30fps). That was around 10000 verlets. Athlon64 X2 5000+ |
| ||
| thanks for testing gfk just curious. when did it slow down from 60 fps? |
| ||
| 4804 1201 fps 30 What does that tell me? I'm confoosed... |
| ||
| 4804 means 4804 verlets in the simulation 1201 means 1201 boxes in the simulation (each containing 4 verlets) |
| ||
| i got 13056/3264 average of 26 update render 3 fps 32-37 |
| ||
| dropped below 60fps just after 8100-8200 |
| ||
| Oi!..must be nice ;) |
| ||
| I got 4000 verlets with an old 2.5ghz CELERON so it is probably twice as slow as one of your cores |
| ||
| I got 4000 verlets with an old 2.5ghz CELERON so it is probably twice as slow as one of your cores I have dual core 2.6 ghz but its a pentium 4 not a celeron... is there a big difference? edit: just read up on this http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question268.htm When you sort all this out and compare the two chips side by side, it turns out that a Celeron and a Pentium 4 chip running at the same speed are different beasts. The smaller L2 cache size and slower bus speeds can mean serious performance differences depending on what you want to do with your computer. |
| ||
| Nice! 6000 @ 60 FPS 10000 @ 30 FPS (I think my specs are in my sig... ) It might be worth bearing in mind that crappy laptop graphics chipsets might struggle with rendering 5000-10000 individual objects, so it may not just come down to CPU. (Perhaps a no-draw toggle would be useful?) |
| ||
| It might be worth bearing in mind that crappy laptop graphics chipsets might struggle with rendering 5000-10000 individual objects, so it may not just come down to CPU. (Perhaps a no-draw toggle would be useful?) but then you wouldnt get to see that its actually doing anything lol.. and in a game you would never have to draw that much on the screen at one time... with the exception of my game flood ;) |
| ||
| 6500 @ 60 FPS 12300 @ 30 FPS i7 920 @ 2.67GHz 6GB DDR3 Windows 7 RC 64bit Jason |
| ||
| 7000 part.s | 50 - 60 FPS | total ~19 ms |
| ||
| 5000 at around 60fps. Athalon 64 X2 4600+ |
| ||
| ~9200 (60fps) MacPro (Xeon 3ghz/8core) Nvidia 7300GT Man, I wanted to write a nice sorting tree, too... reminds me! But the last thing I was writing was/is a racer with the player in center, which doesn't need it, haha... just testing against box around 0! (lol) |
| ||
| 4500 ~60fps Geforce 7300GS athlon X2 2GHz |
| ||
| ~9200 (60fps) MacPro (Xeon 3ghz/8core) Nvidia 7300GT you ran it from the source code? and to everyone, thanks for trying it out, now I know about how many particles I can have in my next beta version of flood without dissapointing people with slowdowns.. :) |
| ||
| Hi Nate the Great... I've looked over the vertlet code and with a very small modification I should be able to integrate it with TileMax... the tiles will double as the grid and the way movement is done in tilemax the vertlets will always be sorted into grids (TileMax attaches everything to the tiles)... will be interesting to see the effect of the tile collision code on the overall performance. I wont be using it for anything near as intense as what you have going on so it should work out for me at least... |
| ||
| Hi Nate the Great... I've looked over the vertlet code and with a very small modification I should be able to integrate it with TileMax... the tiles will double as the grid and the way movement is done in tilemax the vertlets will always be sorted into grids (TileMax attaches everything to the tiles)... will be interesting to see the effect of the tile collision code on the overall performance. I wont be using it for anything near as intense as what you have going on so it should work out for me at least... feel free to use it for whatever you want... Credit to verlet max would be nice (in any way shape or form) if you make something out of it but is not a requirement.. I will include a license with future releases. |
| ||
| OMG I finally got a verlet to show up under my foreground layer LOL Integrating this was easier than I thought it was going to be... so far lol I'm actually making this part of actor control as well since it comes with a bunch of cool physics stuff :) |
| ||
| cool skully. I just added a physics body type so maybe that would help you. Its not up for release yet but I can email it to you if you want. Just shoot me an email and ill be happy to attach it. edit: new video up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgWCU1Uiol4 |
| ||
| Emailz.. away ;) |
   |