viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120
Calinou wrote:I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
- Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120
Zeno wrote:Calinou wrote:I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
- Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120
Calinou has beaten me to it. [...]
rubenwardy wrote:Minetest is the one that edits the texture of a node - in CPU - to do lighting. Don't assign the blame to other people. Minetest contains a lot of broken code.
hmmmm wrote:rubenwardy wrote:Minetest is the one that edits the texture of a node - in CPU - to do lighting. Don't assign the blame to other people. Minetest contains a lot of broken code.
Oh wow, fuck off. Minetest's contains less "broken code" than most other open source projects because it's actively developed and people care. I am also deeply offended by the insinuation that our lighting code is "broken". I challenge you to come up with something better. Hint: you can't.
Calinou wrote:Minetest is mostly CPU bound and single-threaded, which means it doesn't like AMD CPUs very much.
Optimization is very tricky, it's more than just flipping compiler switches around.
I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
- Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120
MajorLunaC wrote:Would a model of a more optimized open-source minecraft clone help? I hope it can because it's not very appealing to still have giant gaps in the map, and end up warping and jittering around. It's a clone called "Craft" (which is why no one's ever heard of it, and ended up mostly un-updated -_-' ), and has a slightly updated branch too:
Main: http://www.michaelfogleman.com/craft/
Branch: https://github.com/DanielOaks/Craft
Methods & Links: http://0fps.net/2013/07/03/ambient-occl ... ke-worlds/ (even the comments are very informative!)
If the code itself might not help, at least some of the methods used might help? It's pretty efficient online, and renders smoothly, but it might be because of no moving parts (no liquids even). I haven't tested it with more people online because there's no one around.
Zombie471 wrote:Calinou wrote:Minetest is mostly CPU bound and single-threaded, which means it doesn't like AMD CPUs very much.
Optimization is very tricky, it's more than just flipping compiler switches around.
I suggest you tweak your minetest.conf settings, most notably, use a fixed viewing range:Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.
- Code: Select all
viewing_range_nodes_min = 120
viewing_range_nodes_max = 120
I forgot to tell you if it worked or not, but it only brought it up to 60fps. It's an improvement, but a small one. Still makes no sense to me, this PC gets 600fps while that other one I mentioned gets 10. and then Minetest comes around and gets 50fps on this and 40 on the other, which makes no sense. Oh well, at least I have 60.
MajorLunaC wrote:Main: http://www.michaelfogleman.com/craft/
Branch: https://github.com/DanielOaks/Craft
Methods & Links: http://0fps.net/2013/07/03/ambient-occl ... ke-worlds/ (even the comments are very informative!)
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?
Dragonop wrote:Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?
This is wrong. It's a mith.
Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?
kaadmy wrote:I play Xonotic at 40 fps on this computer, and it feels OK-ish, but if I play at 200+ fps, it's completely different. The mouse/input feels much smoother and more responsive, and aim is far better.
myth about "60 FPS" came from in the first place? Most LCD monitors today, let alone 10 years ago, have refresh rate of 60 Hz. On such monitor, no matter how much FPS your application, such as video game, has, you will see only 60 Hz, and additional frames will be ignored. On such monitor, even if your game has 1000 FPS, you will still essentially see 60 FPS.
Now take an old good CRT monitor. CRT monitors are good for this because their image is fully dynamic, that is every frame is drawn from scratch, while LCD monitors do not effectively draw frames that are not very different from each other, they only draw the difference. In dynamic scenes CRT and LCD monitors are similar in this regard.
Most good CRT monitors used to show 85-120 Hz. When you set your refrest rate on such monitor to 60 Hz, you can clearly see extreme flickering. When you set 85 Hz, flickering becomes bearable, but still noticeable. 120 Hz - flickering is almost gone. The difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz is still noticeable if you place two monitors close to each other and stare at them attentively, but it is very slim.
Let's return to LCD monitors since that's what most people use today. I want to make a very important statement here that people arguing about FPS often do not fully understand:
How much FPS you can see depends on the scene you watch.
Imagine if the scene is just Windows desktop, without any activity on it. How much FPS do you need? Right, 0.
Now, imagine if a dot moves on your screen at speed of 1 pixel per second. Since the monitor cannot show "half pixels", you don't need more than 1 FPS to see this as perfectly smooth as your display resolution allows.
Imagine now an object that moves from the left edge of your screen to the right. It goes at speed of 200,000 pixels per second, while you have a resolution of 1920x1080. How much FPS do you need to notice this object? Since it shows on your screen for 1080/200,000 = 5.4 ms, you need 1000/5.4=186 FPS to consistently see it on your screen.
What does it all mean? If you use your usual 60 FPS, in about 66% cases you won't even pick a glance at this object. If you use 240 FPS, however, you will see it cross your screen every single time. And, since your eye is theoretically able to see much more FPS than that, you WILL actually see this object.
---
So, here is the thing. When you say that you cannot see any difference beyond 60 FPS, first of all make sure that you are actually looking at more than 60 FPS. You cannot see more than 60 FPS on a 60Hz monitor no matter what, since the monitor itself will always show exactly 60 FPS. Then, make sure that you are actually looking at highly dynamical scenes, not just looking at your desktop moving icons around (although between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, I bet, you will see the difference even there). Finally, account for the habit: if you've been using 60 FPS for 10 years and then suddenly receive a 120 Hz monitor, you might not see the difference clearly right away since your eye is used to staring at the old screen. Give it some time, maybe, a day - then revert to the old refresh rate, and you will IMMEDIATELY see a HUGE difference by just moving mouse cursor around. You will see so many frames skipped, you will be shocked that you've never seen them before.
So, how many FPS do we need? Depends on the applications you use, of course. If you are interested only in web browsing and office work, you are unlikely to really need anything beyond even 30 FPS. If you play some slow-paced games like Hearthstone, 60 FPS is fine. If you play all kinds of games, including RPG, FPS, RTS, etc., 120 FPS will benefit you a lot. And if you are a hardcore FPS gamer, the more FPS you have, the better, 240 FPS and beyond will be just perfect.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests