Irrlicht speed

Somebody · Post by **Somebody** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:11 pm

Banner in the left corner of this page says Lighting Fast RealTime 3D Engine, well where is it? I tested engines newest demos on GF4 MX440. Results:

-> only 5000 polygons and FPS was 50-150, just FYI, nowadays fast engines runs 100k (could be even more) polygons nice and smooth on GF4 MX440.
-> Demos was made with Fixed-T&L (I tried the DX part), so shaders weren't dropping anything, am I right?

Hey and when you said engine support *.3ds, get real, just loading vertices and materials doesn't support *.3ds only 1/100 of it and it wasn't even optimized.

Just that nobody doesn't think it's lighting fast, but anyway nice engine.

vermeer · Post by **vermeer** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:02 pm

I'm an artist, so can't say a word about speed, but btw, *.3ds (you can also use OBJ, *.x, md3, ms3d, with irrlicht) is a bad oldie format, it does not support well shared UVs, neither more than 8 letter material names, wrecks the smoothing to easily, and have a 65k tris limit (for your 100k tris sceneries, in case you wish to make it all single surface to improve the performance, instead of many surfaces for the terrain...)

BTW...I allways wonder....heh, why is needed more than 24 FPS if human eye can't catch it...anyway, I think 50 is usually quite a good number...dunno...

Anyway, I don't think people come here to use a lighting fast *comercial* engine of thousands of bucks, but a way easy to learn a free open source engine, some even just to learn a bit of c++ having some fun.

....way a lot to be given for free, don't you agree?

Electron · Post by **Electron** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:32 pm

For discussions about speed improvement with irrlicht you might want to see the the following threads

1) http://www.irrlichtnx.mmdevel.de/phpBB2 ... ?p=844#844
portal renderer made by me. Quite untested and still lacking a few features. It doesn't improve the speed of rendering triangles but should be able to cull occluded triangles if portal and sectors are placed correctly

2) http://www.irrlichtnx.mmdevel.de/phpBB2 ... 62d6800edb Discussion on rendering OpenGL with display lists and/or vertex buffers. There was actually a working mod to 0.6 to render static objects withdispla lists (double fps on static scenes for me) though I don't think anyone's ported it to 0.7.

saigumi · Post by **saigumi** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:34 pm

Somebody wrote: -> only 5000 polygons and FPS was 50-150, just FYI, nowadays fast engines runs 100k (could be even more) polygons nice and smooth on GF4 MX440.

Did you test it with more polygons? Did you try it with 100k polygons? An interesting test to try though. =D

Somebody wrote: Just that nobody doesn't think it's lighting fast, but anyway nice engine.

ventilator · Post by **ventilator** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:35 pm

here is an interesting article which explains why 24 fps isn't enough: http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

...
i can't comment about speed either because i am quite new to irrlicht. so far it always has been fast enough for me. i don't like the tone of the first post.

AssiDragon · Post by **AssiDragon** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:44 pm

I don't really like criticism from people who don't dare to give their names to it.

vermeer · Post by **vermeer** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:13 pm

Thanks, ventilator, I'll dig that article

Somebody · Post by **Somebody** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:34 am

Well my name ins't so important, just wanted to say what I think, nothing else.

24 fps is enoguh as far as I have tested it. For example if you play Dungeon Siege whit slower computer it runs smooth and nice with 20-> FPS

I didn't say that the FPS wasn't enough, I just wanted you to know that this really isn't lighting fast engine (yet). And hey GF4 MX440 is OLD card so that really doesn't matter, but some people still use it.

Don't take it too personally.

Electron · Post by **Electron** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:16 pm

Somebody wrote: I didn't say that the FPS wasn't enough, I just wanted you to know that this really isn't lighting fast engine (yet).

No hard feelings, but a newbie to the engine telling us it isn't lightning fast? We all already know that it isn't commercial quality. It is, IMHO, the best open-source engine except for Ogre, and it is easier to use than Ogre. As the two threads I pointed you to show, work is going on to make it even faster.

vermeer · Post by **vermeer** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:49 pm

indeed... Revieweing the data you posted...

well, there's a bunch of developers that make small , or medium size games. these, tend to use :

-an open source engine that gives no rights for comercial distrbution, and have some other legal issues. This is when the guys are only wanting to make something free and only for the fun of it.

-a cheap engine. Here both devrs wanting t omake money, or just for the fun of it. But u need to pay 100$ as minimum. And those have often plenty of problems in the art path. Are way much more static in development, if any progress at all, and ppl don't have access to it to improve.

-a cheap or expensive RAD environment ...well, way easier, but with a load of problems that are not told with the marketting...Many end up knowing so much nitty gritty that makes no difference in learning curve compared to something like irrlicht. Also, the funny thing. Even the best ones, get like 20-60 fps with like 30 or 20k tris.... in a card similar to yours....
Which indeed, use to be good enough, unless your wanting to do a very quick FPS game... I don't have proof of it, but I suspect irrlicht 0.6 was quicker than most of those, and would bet 0.7 indeed is. But cannot confirm it.

-A comercial lighting fast engine....humm...can think then in stuff like Unreal engine...quite pricey...but heh...who can buy it..only big companies...not me, I tell you

And probably will be way harder to learn than irrlicht.

i have worked in a game company. We had 100k tris levels. Specifically , one. The other was like 65k...and you don't know the load of detail allowed with 65k tris(ended in some more...)... I guess we did not have high fps, anyway, but that was really well optimized...those coders where kickas, though company, small. They had done and closed many games, they really knew their job.

BTW, there's also something to consider...often there are lots of other stuff that produces bottle necks, not only just the polygons...a gf 4 mx can throw a lot of polygons already; indeed many devrs that want the wider audience code for lower cards, even...

I don't know, I have seen stuff done with irrlicht, is by all means enough for my projects, and I'm serious. If I weren't already into other project using a home made engine, I would recommend my friend coders choose Irrlicht...

Also there's a lot that can be done in graphics, via optimizing and not causing bottle necks...collisions, fx, many stuff can drive it to an stall, in many engines...

BTW, I shouldn't speak about this, I'm only an artist.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:03 pm

True.

I have heard about that OGRE, some of my friends recommended it. Haven't ever used/tested it.

Irrlicht is the best open source engine that I'v ever seen.

To make this big and good open source engine is really amazing, because usualy when it gets big / good enough people tend to get creedy. This kind open source engine is good for anybody who wants to make a game with ready engine and doesn't want to pay for it or learn.

btw. 100k tris for level is good. With GF4 MX440 I was able to render about 750k tris with Fixed T&L (textured speheres, with lighting), FPS was ~20, but it can't be compared to real game situation, because there weren't any effects and only one type of objects. And there were 1 mil. speheres.

etcaptor · Post by **etcaptor** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:19 pm

Well, I 've exported a level from the commercial Carsten's 3D Engine Ca3DE http://www.ca3d-engine.de/ /23.06.2000 is development start date/ to Irrlicht and can say that got similarity speed results. Some level I was tested with aztica 3d portal rending engine
http://www.aztica.com , but there I got slow FPS /this level was not organized with portals/.

I have not any experience with OGRE, because, when I found it, license still was GPL.

But on my slow PC /800 MhZ/, ATI rage pro 32 MB SDR, got more than 30 fps

with 5000 poly level, of course if not use dynamic shadows. With shadows I got 5-7 FPS only

.

I've not tested Electron's portal system yet, but this will a very good advantage when we will create mixed levels.

I think that Irrlicht will be enough fast for my plans.

Duglas A. · Post by **Duglas A.** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:40 pm

Anonymous wrote: I have heard about that OGRE, some of my friends recommended it. Haven't ever used/tested it.

Irrlicht is the best open source engine that I'v ever seen.

Please, stop making this kind of statements.

If You never looked at OGRE (which is open source too!) how can You tell that irr is the best?

FYI Irrlicht lacks features everywhere.

The only good thing about Irrlicht is that even a noob can do decent apps with it

. But, by the time the missing features are integrated it'll surely be as complicated as OGRE.

I still remember the time when irrlicht didn't have shaders. This was a big problem for everyone. Now that shaders are available, well, where are all the wonderfull demos that show them off?

So, please, don't say it's the best, say it's the easiest.
(Then again I'm not so sure about this, take a look at blitz3d etc.)

Yours sincerely

D. A.

Somebody · Post by **Somebody** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:02 pm

I think I said "This is the best I'v seen", not "This is the best".

I know it lacks features, it isn't ready. And I don't know about OGRE, because I haven't tested it, like I said. I think irrlicht is using shaders only for some effects, like water (only shader demo that I saw).

Blitz 3d ... I'v heard about that too, but haven't tested.

vermeer · Post by **vermeer** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:04 am

I heard Ogre does not have collisions, neither other game engine features...

Irrlicht Engine

Irrlicht speed

Irrlicht speed

Re: Irrlicht speed