256fps off. 65 on
On my Dell Inspiron 9100 Laptop (with ATI Mobility 9800 graphics)
Please test my first shader test app!
122
November 13, 2004 10:17 AM
'lo,
I got this error message : Fulscreen Display Mode of 1024x768x32 is not supported.
1024x768x32 is my current resolution. Other OGL application work fine. (even mine ;p)
graphic card : Geforce3ti200
I got this error message : Fulscreen Display Mode of 1024x768x32 is not supported.
1024x768x32 is my current resolution. Other OGL application work fine. (even mine ;p)
graphic card : Geforce3ti200
514
November 13, 2004 11:51 AM
Quote: Original post by Corrail
There is no difference between gloom and no-gloom mode here.
ForceWare 70.41 / GeForce 6800
Disable V-Sync !
November 13, 2004 04:23 PM
Not working on my GeForce 2MX 32mb
Athlon XP 2500+
XP Pro SP2
512mb DDR RAM
Athlon XP 2500+
XP Pro SP2
512mb DDR RAM
November 13, 2004 04:54 PM
256 without glow / 113 with glow.
Athlon XP 3200+ / 1.5G RAM / GeForce 6800 Ultra
i find it weird that it's only 256fps without glow when the other person with a 6800U got 340... (text shows up okay without the glow. when using the glow, it's not readable at all)
Athlon XP 3200+ / 1.5G RAM / GeForce 6800 Ultra
i find it weird that it's only 256fps without glow when the other person with a 6800U got 340... (text shows up okay without the glow. when using the glow, it's not readable at all)
436
November 13, 2004 06:41 PM
Odd, but i think it has more to do with what else is running on the computer and how your driver is set up(i have 66.93).
I rebooted and ran it again, now it tops just under 400 without glow but only around 80 with.
(i got 340 and 100 last time)
So i started to fiddle with the settings, i turned on maximum FSAA(8xs) and maximum ansiotriopic(16) filtering and got 150 glow off, glow 55 on.
A more resonable setting of FSAA 2x and a ansiotropic filtering of 4 yealds 310 glow off and 70 glow on.
turning on preformance mode instead of quality mode(i even made shure you didn't use trilinear filtering or something like that) gives me the figures of 420 and 75.
I rebooted and ran it again, now it tops just under 400 without glow but only around 80 with.
(i got 340 and 100 last time)
So i started to fiddle with the settings, i turned on maximum FSAA(8xs) and maximum ansiotriopic(16) filtering and got 150 glow off, glow 55 on.
A more resonable setting of FSAA 2x and a ansiotropic filtering of 4 yealds 310 glow off and 70 glow on.
turning on preformance mode instead of quality mode(i even made shure you didn't use trilinear filtering or something like that) gives me the figures of 420 and 75.
www.flashbang.se | www.thegeekstate.com | nehe.gamedev.net | glAux fix for lesson 6 | [twitter]thegeekstate[/twitter]
514
November 13, 2004 07:53 PM
Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
256 without glow / 113 with glow.
Athlon XP 3200+ / 1.5G RAM / GeForce 6800 Ultra
i find it weird that it's only 256fps without glow when the other person with a 6800U got 340... (text shows up okay without the glow. when using the glow, it's not readable at all)
Maybe it's the driver version or driver settings. Since the 6800 series is still young, every driver version is important actually.
248
November 14, 2004 12:51 AM
Not to hijack this thread...
I was looking at how the effect was done. I was trying to think of a way to combine the blur step into 1 draw, instead of looping it many times with alot of glCopyTexImage2D's. The end result in speading this up a great amount. Instead I would image one pass where the frament shader has ALOT of lookups. Somthing where it's weighted on its surrounding pixel's as follows:
This would do 49 texture look ups and only one CopyTexImage2D, vs 64 lookups + 16 CopyTexImage2D.
Are there any flaws in doing it this way that I'm not thinking of?
I was looking at how the effect was done. I was trying to think of a way to combine the blur step into 1 draw, instead of looping it many times with alot of glCopyTexImage2D's. The end result in speading this up a great amount. Instead I would image one pass where the frament shader has ALOT of lookups. Somthing where it's weighted on its surrounding pixel's as follows:
0.000458271 0.002011732 0.004886957 0.006569435 0.004886957 0.002011732 0.0004582710.002011732 0.008831155 0.021452898 0.028838685 0.021452898 0.008831155 0.0020117320.004886957 0.021452898 0.052114004 0.070055774 0.052114004 0.021452898 0.0048869570.006569435 0.028838685 0.070055774 0.094174523 0.070055774 0.028838685 0.0065694350.004886957 0.021452898 0.052114004 0.070055774 0.052114004 0.021452898 0.0048869570.002011732 0.008831155 0.021452898 0.028838685 0.021452898 0.008831155 0.0020117320.000458271 0.002011732 0.004886957 0.006569435 0.004886957 0.002011732 0.000458271This would do 49 texture look ups and only one CopyTexImage2D, vs 64 lookups + 16 CopyTexImage2D.
Are there any flaws in doing it this way that I'm not thinking of?
361
November 14, 2004 01:09 AM
beautiful, quite impressive,
radeon 9700 128 mb
p4 2.4 ghz
768 mb ram
45.something fps with bloom, and that was with windows media player and several other apps running in the background... bravo
-Dan
radeon 9700 128 mb
p4 2.4 ghz
768 mb ram
45.something fps with bloom, and that was with windows media player and several other apps running in the background... bravo
-Dan
When General Patton died after World War 2 he went to the gates of Heaven to talk to St. Peter. The first thing he asked is if there were any Marines in heaven. St. Peter told him no, Marines are too rowdy for heaven. He then asked why Patton wanted to know. Patton told him he was sick of the Marines overshadowing the Army because they did more with less and were all hard-core sons of bitches. St. Peter reassured him there were no Marines so Patton went into Heaven. As he was checking out his new home he rounded a corner and saw someone in Marine Dress Blues. He ran back to St. Peter and yelled "You lied to me! There are Marines in heaven!" St. Peter said "Who him? That's just God. He wishes he were a Marine."
634
November 14, 2004 05:56 AM
Quote: Original post by skow
Not to hijack this thread...
I was looking at how the effect was done. I was trying to think of a way to combine the blur step into 1 draw, instead of looping it many times with alot of glCopyTexImage2D's. The end result in speading this up a great amount. Instead I would image one pass where the frament shader has ALOT of lookups. Somthing where it's weighted on its surrounding pixel's as follows:
********* stuff removed *************
This would do 49 texture look ups and only one CopyTexImage2D, vs 64 lookups + 16 CopyTexImage2D.
Are there any flaws in doing it this way that I'm not thinking of?
that sounds like _alot_ of overkill, i use a 2pass seperable blur, 8 samples per pass, so 16 blur samples per pixel, and i render to a P-Buffer bound as a texture so there is no readback of the framebuffer (a main killer)
all in all, i only ever render the scene 2 times, 4 times if i want excesive visual quality, i never readback the framebuffer and everything is done on the GPU.
read the article on Gamasutra, excelent as it provides some PS/VS code to help you along.
"I am a donut! Ask not how many tris/batch, but rather how many batches/frame!" -- Matthias Wloka & Richard Huddy, (GDC, DirectX 9 Performance)
http://www.silvermace.com/ -- My personal website
http://www.silvermace.com/ -- My personal website
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
