@Jim Brown
I'm curious on the performance on the other demos if those two were so low. Are they all sluggish also? Thanks for that info, will be looking to see if I can improve that a lot. As I want this to run on as many machines as reliably as possible.
@M2PLAY and @Ziggy
Thanks! Glad you liked it!
@Yahfree
Thanks for the info!
@Gfk
Thanks for the info. I'm going to be doing some extensive testing on lower end machines in the coming weeks. I wonder if it's the fill rate, my fixed-time step logic, or the actual physics engine not being efficient enough. I imagine it's a combination of those three that's causing some people to get bad frames during the more intensive demos.
The FPS was set to 100 in the graphics call (the hertz rate). While 100 isn't realistic for most games, it helps me benchmark actual performance tweaks I implement on the engine so I can see visible improvements.
Going to be doing another build with more extensive diagnostic tools in the coming weeks along with more engine features.
I'm curious on the performance on the other demos if those two were so low. Are they all sluggish also? Thanks for that info, will be looking to see if I can improve that a lot. As I want this to run on as many machines as reliably as possible.
@M2PLAY and @Ziggy
Thanks! Glad you liked it!
@Yahfree
Thanks for the info!
@Gfk
Thanks for the info. I'm going to be doing some extensive testing on lower end machines in the coming weeks. I wonder if it's the fill rate, my fixed-time step logic, or the actual physics engine not being efficient enough. I imagine it's a combination of those three that's causing some people to get bad frames during the more intensive demos.
The FPS was set to 100 in the graphics call (the hertz rate). While 100 isn't realistic for most games, it helps me benchmark actual performance tweaks I implement on the engine so I can see visible improvements.
Going to be doing another build with more extensive diagnostic tools in the coming weeks along with more engine features.