Zooming (delay and shutter)

[Omnax]

Hello, Here is my dxdiag, hopefully I have uploaded it properly .

Its regarding zooming delay and slowdowns when I have nebulas on. And also when I have closest zoom at the sun. As I have wrote in general section.

To better explain what is happening, If I am using mouse wheel to zoom in or out, and I do have nebulas on, there is delay after every single step. So zooming in and out using mouse takes much longer.

I have tried out biggest and smallest galaxy size and it makes no difference, as long as I have nebulas on, it does slow down. Nebula detail also affects it. With highest detail being slowest.

Edit: Just checked in game, It also slows down if I zoom into gas clouds.

[Omnax]

Did some testing and here are the results:

NEBULA:
Slightly lower FPS if I am not zooming. However, if I do have them on, every single time i zoom in or out, my FPS drops to about half and then goes up. This does not happen when I turn them off completely. So this is the reason why its causing slowdown when zooming. Happens on all zoom levels as long as I can see it.

SUN:
One sun can lower my FPS to half, if I zoom in very close...From 110 to 50. If I a, zooming very close, there are also FPS spikes just after zooming in or out to about half of my FPS. So if I zoom as close as I can I do get for a while 30 instead of 50 and small lag.

GAS CLOUDS:
Same like a sun. However FPS drop starting to happen when I have got zoomed much further. But not all the time like with nebulas. Same FPS spikes as with Nebula or sun.


Another thing, Framerate Limiter is not working.


Now, 50fps should be smooth. However I have got a feeling like game, engine or whatever stops for a while. Thats why my FPS goes down and then back to normal levels and that is what causing all the delays and lags. Also during lag nothing is moving (ships, planets etc)

ANOTHER UPDATE:

Same lag happens if turn on or off different filters for star map:
Show empire influence and Show Long Range scanners being worst. Rest are normal, or with minimal effect.

Same goes for opening different screens:

SLOW:
Colonies
Expansion Planer
Game Editor
Build order
Construction Yard
Ship and bases screen
Fleet and troop screen

FAST:
Galactopedia
Characters
Diplomacy
Empire Summary
Research
Design Screen

I have checked all this with a new quick start, and Fully developed - Large settings.

[Emx77]

At Erik's request here is also my DxDiag.

[Stormy Fairweather]

I read your other thread, and just thought I would share that I have the same problem. Win 7 64, 4 gB ram, 500 mB radeon 5450, 2.4 gHz quadcore. I been watching resource usage, and my processor rarely goes above 50%, and use less than half my ram, yet saving can take minutes, zooming and scrolling is very sluggish, and it takes forever to load. My last game I just quit, 700 stars, took almost ten minutes to load, nearly as long to save, and even with system nebula off and other nebulae to min the game was very, very laggy.

Just started a new game with minimum stars, so far it is playable.


Dxdiag attached.

[nickwwest]

My DxDiag is attached. Same problems as everyone else Can play any other modern game with nearly fully graphical candy at max res.

[Raap]

I've the same problem too, though it's not unplayable.

Looking at the Dxdiag attachments, it looks like we all have 64bit Win7. Do XP people have the same problem or is it running smoothly there? If the game's using some directdraw features, that might explain the issue since it's no longer supported(except by emulation, which is slow) in Vista and 7. Space Empires 5 had a similar problem.

[Farr]

I have the same issue and the same system win7, 64 bit, 3gig ram. I didn't seem to have this issue when I used xp (with pretty much the same hardware). It stutters when I zoom between the galaxy map and the system map. It also takes a second or two for the galaxy map to be populated with area of control.

Edit: added dxdiag.txt

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Raap

I've the same problem too, though it's not unplayable.

Looking at the Dxdiag attachments, it looks like we all have 64bit Win7. Do XP people have the same problem or is it running smoothly there? If the game's using some directdraw features, that might explain the issue since it's no longer supported(except by emulation, which is slow) in Vista and 7. Space Empires 5 had a similar problem.

I'm using Win7/64 with absolutely no issues. Game runs smoothly thru all functions.

[BTJ]

Hi all,

I've been lurking for a long time here and now finally have some time to play Legends... Great game, great community! [:)]

I also have the feeling that zooming and scrolling is a bit slow. I am also running 7/64 bit edition. Also, I have 8 GB RAM, at GTX470 OC and an i870, so hardware should be no problem.

Maybe "smoothly" is perceived different individually? [:)]

Also, if I have nebula on highest, it takes up to one second before it loads into the background, if I zoom into a system. Kills immersion a bit...

I noted that my graphics card stays in the power down mode while playing the game. Clock speed are 50 MHz (GPU) and 135 MHz (Memory) only. Is this WAD?

[BTJ]

Okay, I tried some more testing on this, since this perfomance issue bothers me! [;)]

As posted above, my system should handle DW easily, but still it feels "laggy". Especially the 1-2 seconds "load time" of the system nebula is a
big immersion killer for me.

Many people experiencing this seem to be on Windows 7/64 bit, as Raap stated above.

As stated above with the screenshot, I noticed that with DW my graphic adapter always stays in performance level 0 (P12), i.e. GPU clock 51 MHz,
shader clock 101 MHz and memory clock 135 MHz.

So, I tried Armada2526 Supernova as comparison. the Universe map view is also in 2D there and it is a TBS. To my surprise, the card switched to
2D performance leve immediately (P8), i.e. GPU clock 405 MHz, shader clock 810 MHz and memory clock 324 MHz. It stays there on the static map all the time. See the screenshot below.
Is this WAD?

I do not know if this helps, but maybe we finally figure out why performance is perceived so differently... [&:]

[Raap]

Not sure the clocks matter, as my card is reporting zero usage throughout Distant World sessions. It's simply not utilizing the video card. Armada is, I assume, using an entirely different graphics/game engine and thus isn't comparable.

As mentioned though, it could be a DirectDraw thing. It would explain why there are no apparent XP users reporting such problems but plenty of Win7 users. But yeah, I don't really know what the game uses to draw graphics. Unfortunately don't have WinXP to dual-boot and check if it's working better there. But if it is using DirectDraw, then there's to my knowledge no other solution to the Win7 performance problems other than rewriting the game engine.

I've also noticed that I can't actually get the game to display fps, as FRAPS isn't showing the counter.

[Raap]

Scratch that, it looks as if I actually do have some sort of partial hardware acceleration. The GPU usage varies between 1-15%, it's very intermittent and only active when zoomed in rather close. When not zoomed in on a system there's no GPU usage at all. Maybe it only works for some of the bitmaps, like the ships and bases.

[BTJ]

Raap, your input is highly appreciated! I was planning to do some further testing on what influences performance, but could not do so this WE.

As you can see in the screenshot above, my GPU usage was around 40% at close zoom level, with maximum nebulae settings. It is quite a decent card, as stated above. But as it stays at 50 MHz clock speed, I guess that GPU usage might be "relative".

I installed on my 3 year old laptop, running XP and I did not notice differences in performance. Then again, it has weaker hardware... But THEN again I can play 3D games like Medieval II on it at medium settings... Performance of DW remains a small mystery... [:)]

[Raap]

Yeah, it's odd to say the least. I tried lowering my resolution to 1024*768( from 1920*1200) and my GPU usage went up to 40% in the same areas where it was previously 15'ish%( possibly as a result of the objects that are hardware accelerated occupying more of the screen?). But still no GPU usage when zoomed out of system view and even some places in the system view, so it seems to only apply on some specific objects and even then it's not very efficient.

As for the laptop, if it's three years old( and a laptop ^__^) then it might be that any performance benefit gained from WinXP would be eliminated by the hardware differences in your Win7 system. Ideally, your laptop should obviously run the game significantly slower since it's bound to be a much weaker system.

Unfortunately we can't really compare the performance to games such as Medieval 2 though. That one uses proper Direct3D, Distant Worlds appears to be using Windows GDI.

Still, since there's definitely some hardware acceleration going on, maybe it would be possible for Elliot & Co to tweak it so it'll take a bit more advantage of it. Most annoying for me is the zooming problem and the stutter when dragging the zoomed-out camera around late-game.

[Kayoz]

Raap and BTJ -

This is an old gripe from the fan base - that DW does not make use of hardware acceleration, which could vastly speed up the display by letting the GPU do more of the work.

However, suggestions and requests for changes in the shader implementation were ignored by Elliott.

Best of luck for your presenting your case for change.

edit:
Note - it sucks less than it did before. iirc, there was NO hardware acceleration going on when RotS was released. Elliot seems to have made some minor improvements since then.

Note 2 - egads - it was Raap who was in that thread.
tm.asp?m=2705590

[BTJ]

Hi Kayoz,

yes, I know about the repeatingly upcoming discussion on performance. I read a lot in these forums as I've been lurking for nearly 9 months. I fully agree that this topic seems to be a bit "uncommented" from the developer, but I would not go as far and say it is ignored.

Maybe I understand you wrong - if so please apologize - but I read quite some frustration from your post. I'm sure you have your reasons for that, but my opinion is, that there is hardly any developer or publisher who is in such close contact with the fanbase. Heck, Elliot is going to the threads in the tech forum, answering directly an giving feedback. I do not see this happening elsewhere. DW in my opinion is a very unique project, especially when recognizing that it is basically a one man show. While I fully understand that there are some problems which might frustrate some customers, I have to say that my perception of Matrix and Codeforce is a very positive one.
Of course I also see that if Elliot and Erik have their well deserved two or three week break from the forums, there are some things that get overlooked in the tech forums. Some problems are posted in the general forums and maybe never get the attention they deserve. We need to repeatedly draw the attention to them! [:)] A good example - in my opinion - is the problem with the faulty distribution of AI starting locations, when choosing anything but random distances. It has been posted several times, but I simply believe it was overlooked as I have the feeling that this is easy to fix. Looking at the reaction you typically get from Erik or Elliot, I can hardly believe that there are some issues which they deliberately ignore. Again, this is my personal perception...

Coming back to the performance issue, I believe that if Raap's and your observations are correct, there is not much more space for improvement, except for a significant effort on the game engine, which is quite unlikely to happen.

Best regards,

BTJ

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: BTJ
Coming back to the performance issue, I believe that if Raap's and your observations are correct, there is not much more space for improvement, except for a significant effort on the game engine, which is quite unlikely to happen.

I can only guess at Elliot's code. If he planned for the possibility of a graphics engine change, then dropping in a new engine would be fairly trivial. On the other hand, if he did not anticipate the possibility, then the generation of graphical objects would be scattered throughout the code and he'd have to rework all those scattered sections. My guess, from what I've experienced playing the game, is that such a change was not anticipated, so I don't expect a major graphical overhaul till the next version.

It would be nice to see a comment from him, but I won't hold my breath.

[BTJ]

Hmm,

I reactivated my older rig with XP SP3, to have a more meaningful comparison. It has a C2D E6850 (3 GHz) and a GF8800GT and 4 GB RAM. So, definitely faster than my laptop.
I could not make out differences to my Win7 machine. The nebulae also take 1-2 seconds to load. Scrolling in and out gives the same feeling of "lagginess". If there is something accelerated in XP that is not under Win 7, I do not recognize it...

Guess I have to live with it. Problem is, I like the game so much, I would love to have it running a bit smoother... [:D]

[Raap]

Yeah, would be great to have some more graphical performance, not to mention a bit smoother menus and the likes.

Found a couple of nice Tom's Hardware articles on the subject though:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d- ... 547-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d- ... ,2547.html

I'm pretty sure that's the same graphics API they use in DW. At any rate, it's ironically the GeForce 7050, a weak on-board GPU, that appears to average the highest. It's also apparent that XP does some of the functions better, while Win7(Aero) does other things better. From the looks of it, it might not be Windows that is the problem, but rather the driver makers neglecting 2D. ATI's 5870( which happens to be the card I have) certainly received a huge boost in performance from the first article to the second with a very quick driver update.