Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[profit]

Posting from my phone, otherwise i'd link you to the images... if you search recent embark posts you'l find it.

In a few benchmarks I tested several 2x2 forts that ranged in 1500 fps to 4800 fps (depending on location features) without optimizing init on an overclocked i7.

Another poster got 2400 fps on a core2quad with no tweaks.

Technology is advancing. i7 and phenomIIs offer greater performance even if clockspeeds aren't faster. It's completely different architecture than pentiums.

So DF is definitely playable, and if it's really bad an upgrade may be in order.

Whoopity flipping do.. with 7 dwarfs and nothing built I can get 6000FPS too...  I can even get 4500 FPS with 7 dwarfs and animals DOING NOTHING here see ->

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And I can get 65,000 FPS while paused...

Oh fucking skippy... Paused... Lots is happening there... Now... try PLAYING the game....  Building a fort... Doing real stuff...

Hence why the posters are saying UNPLAYABLE!

if you dont play.. you can get insane FPS numbers... Start doing anything and they collapse.

I dont need new hardware.. mine is apparently fine even though its an old AMD X2 it can get nearly yours even with more going on...

What we need is playability, not some poster who ignores the rest of the people's complaints by posting their numbers before they do anything.

Doing that reminds kind of asinine thing reminds me of the southpark episode where they had ten million internet dollars...  Which they find out are completely worthless in the real world.

[KaelGotDwarves]

No need to flip out. Heck, 4000 fps at embark translates to several hundred with many dwarves and doing anything that is within common sense. I run halltraded, which is a large inefficient fort with hundreds of dwarves and animals and mamga and water at 130+ fps.

Your screenshot shows a really large fort with rather large amounts of water, all of which is unnecessary, and you're complaining about fps issues.

So it's pretty ironic you're calling various posts asinine.

[profit]

I don't think there's anything any of us or toady could do to get that working at decent FPS on any present day CPUs.

4x speed boosts don't matter if your FPS is measured as FPM(Frames per minute)

Yeah, probably not. But still with nothing happening in my fort I get 10FPS tops... hoping that can be brought up to something realistic.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Just throwing out here that if you choose a realistic embark for your computer specs, your fps will be more 'realistic'.

That's just a suggestion.

4000 fps doesn't go to 0 fps even with 200 dwarves, so try playing that embark.

[profit]

No need to flip out. Heck, 4000 fps at embark translates to several hundred with many dwarves and doing anything that is within common sense. I run halltraded, which is a large inefficient fort with hundreds of dwarves and animals and mamga and water at 130+ fps.

Your screenshot shows a really large fort with rather large amounts of water, all of which is unnecessary, and you're complaining about fps issues.

So it's pretty ironic you're calling various posts asinine.

I agree it is an excessive amount of water, but even with out the water, the fort still runs slow as heck... But you call my treefarm unnecessary, I can assure you it is!  It is required for my steel operations, and other fun things I do with my fort.
And its not water now... it's just empty space with tree's growing in it, and it still dropped my FPS from 30 to about 15 when it was completed.

The other things my fort does..  When my dwarves are hauling stuff... Anything.. 10FPS.... When my water wheels are turning... Down to 7FPS... When there is a siege then.... FPS:0

I don't know what halltraded is doing but it must have pathetic amounts of area dig out or something because every one of my forts hit subzero FPS eventually no matter if there is liquid simulations in them or not.

Just because my fort is "big" does not mean I shouldn't be getting decent speeds, If I cant have a fort in an area using 1/4 of the space that it recommends at embark *3x3 instead of 6x6 I believe is 1/4 of the space* Then something is broken and needs to be fixed

Maybe fluid simulation needs to be moved to a physics engine as well if we cant have large area's covered in water otherwise... But that is a debate for another day.

[profit]

Just throwing out here that if you choose a realistic embark for your computer specs, your fps will be more 'realistic'.

That's just a suggestion.

4000 fps doesn't go to 0 fps even with 200 dwarves, so try playing that embark.

I could... and eventually it would hit 0 FPS as well even without water.. as I actually played the game.  Even without touching the water.

My embark that you saw there that you were calling "unrealistic" was only a 3x3 embark and it started out fast as well.

I can play a 10x10 embark and have it START fast....

The real difference happens when you start PLAYING.

Read what has been said and understand it is when a fort is PLAYED as it has only been said close to 20 times in this thread.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Well, you should stick to the wiki for tips to optimize fps and stay in 3x3 sites. You must be doing something wrong because you fps issues are similar to pathfinding issues (by walling up necessary paths like HFS causes massive fps drop) or massive fluid movement. I have never seen my desktop's processor drop below 30 fps even when rerouting a river. 4000 fps does not drop to 10 for nothing.

Because even on my amd sempron I never hit 0 fps besides the time I collapsed a fort on itself. I always stuck to small maps, large ones with water rendered constant 5fps.

Edit: size of maps makes the single biggest difference in fps, as it affects pathfinding and sheer volume exponentially, it's easily the biggest reason why your fps is bad.

I hate to bring up metaphors but you have a decent speedboat of a computer but you're trying to transverse the pacific ocean with it in that embark... instead of sticking to lakes. The poor thing is going to explode.

[profit]

Well, you should stick to the wiki for tips to optimize fps and stay in 3x3 sites. You must be doing something wrong because you fps issues are similar to pathfinding issues (by walling up necessary paths like HFS causes massive fps drop) or massive fluid movement. I have never seen my desktop's processor drop below 30 fps even when rerouting a river. 4000 fps does not drop to 10 for nothing.

Because even on my amd sempron I never hit 0 fps besides the time I collapsed a fort on itself. I always stuck to small maps, large ones with water rendered constant 5fps.

Ohh... I am sure there are pathfinding issues.. half the times sieges just stand on the edge of my map even though the gates to my fort never close anymore... (10 legendary archers and traps provide enough defense)  But just because you brush them off as "Pathfinding issues" does not mean they are not broken!

There is an issue with large dug out area....

There is an issue with pathfinding if a route is not avilible...

There is an issue with ramp designation...

There is an issue with smoothing jobs....

There is an issue with stone in the stocks menu....

There is an issue with fluids movement....

There is an issue with heat tracking...

There is an issue with dwarves in the same tile as another...

There is an issue with animals and dwarves colliding...

There is an issue with animals on restraints....

There is an issue with stockpiles when you designate it and remove part of it, and replace that area with a separate stockpile.

There is an issue with Large area's of tree's designated for harvest....

There is an issue with large area's of plants set to be gathered...

There is an issue with restricted tiles being used very often....

You know what all those issues have in common?
They all slow the game down!

Just because they have been identified does not mean the game should have them...

I am NOT doing anything wrong... I am playing the game how it was meant to be played.... IE in any manner I want to.

And quit whining that my embark is too big.. 3x3 IS NOT too big... at least it shouldn't be when the recommended size is 6x6! If it is really too big the game should make finer grained embark tiles so we can cover more biomes in less area.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Well quite simply put, if you play "any way you want" on your very large embark, avoiding tips in the wiki to conserve fps, and done most of the things gauranteed to give you bad fps, get bad fps, and then come onto the forums proclaiming that the game is "unplayable" and that Toady NEEDS to multi-thread or optimize the game to fit your playing needs, I'm going to laugh in your face.

And that's my last post in this thread.

[profit]

Well quite simply put, if you play "any way you want" on your very large embark, avoiding tips in the wiki to conserve fps, and done most of the things gauranteed to give you bad fps, get bad fps, and then come onto the forums proclaiming that the game is "unplayable" and that Toady NEEDS to multi-thread or optimize the game to fit your playing needs, I'm going to laugh in your face.

And that's my last post in this thread.

And since I am not even close to the only one (Others in this very thread are frustrated with the speed, and the fact multithreading comes up over and over again should give you a clue).. I am sure you will be laughing with a very small group or in a corner alone while the rest of us who actually play the game remain quite grumpy at the lack of speed.

and there you go on the "Excessive size" kick once again... I want one more post from you before you leave... how is a 3x3 embark, which is 1/4 the size recommended by the game Excessive??

You have ignored answering why it is excessive now 4 posts.. but yet you keep saying it is excessive.. HOW!?  Now if the game recommended 1x1... I could maybe see that... but no.. it recommends 6x6...  So... Why are you saying it is excessive?

[sproingie]

I don't think he's going to answer you, because you're pretty well determined to keep griping and pouting no matter what anyone says.  Sorry the game doesn't work for you.  Must be Festivus time again, because we're sure getting the airing of grievances.   Let's see about those feats of strength now.

[profit]

I don't think he's going to answer you, because you're pretty well determined to keep griping and pouting no matter what anyone says.  Sorry the game doesn't work for you.  Must be Festivus time again, because we're sure getting the airing of grievances.   Let's see about those feats of strength now.

I knocked a treeent 200 squares.... Should be enough of a feat of strength...

But while you are correct, I will probably gripe about slowness until slowness is gone.. I found his particular thing about the size of my embark being too big significantly galling... Especially when he kept recommending I use the same size embark he was calling too big... Made me either annoyed or confused.. Maybe both...

Reminded me of being on tech support with one of those random foreign country's representatives that have an English sounding name but nothing else resembles English...  And you try to explain the problem over and over again and they keep reading from the script they have been handed by their overlords.

[Rorax]

I would also like to know why 3x3 is excessive.
the game is by no means complete, BUT 6x6 is the default. And therefore the game has been built around toadies default of 6x6.
(unless for some reason he is testing it on a different smaller default size and then putting it back to 6x6 thinking it will be the same when he releases an iteration(which is silly))
excessive = going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree.

the "usual" in this case is 6x6.

3x3 = one quarter of the "Usual" therefore, if anything, he is playing a moderate size.

Your idea of excessive Kael is not what is put forth by default by the game, or by that assumption, the creator.

The fact that the game can start to crawl late game on the default is a known issue to many players, that is why there is always so much discussion about the speed of the game in these forums and why there is a /massive/ multithread topic which is always being posted in.

Not only that, the speed issue is also why the optimization OpenGL project exists to my knowledge.

[Shades]

and there you go on the "Excessive size" kick once again... I want one more post from you before you leave... how is a 3x3 embark, which is 1/4 the size recommended by the game Excessive??

Seems wrong if your running at 3x3 and having issues, what specs/model/os/etc computer do you have? have you changed any of the init options? (pathfinding weights for example).

[Googolplexed]

@Shades

Again I have to point out this picture.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I know that the FPS is bad without this project, but if profit is even attempting that, then I would hate to see the scale of his other projects.