Wait, so people actually read these things? » TM2

Location: Home Blogs Wait, so people actually read these things?

More Posts by FT»Osaka

Title

Time passes. For everything and everyone. It is up to us to adapt to the changes.

Wait, so people actually read these things?

Featured Tracks

Wait, so people actually read these things?

Wait, so people actually read these things?	16 Apr, 2013
FT»Osaka	(34 comments, 3855 views)
Wow. People actually read the user blogs. Whatever we say. I guess being featured in the showcase helps. Ok, since I started one I might as well finish it. And I am going to write one about DEM TREEZ THO. Seriously. I hate them. And don't come around saying that I used them on Bobbin' n' Weavin'. I didn't like them then, but it was a quick way to close a track I didn't want to take much time working on. Also, since my track didn't blow itself up, I thought "hey, maybe nadeo made proper trees this time". Oh how wrong I was. So this morning at about 11 am, while I should have been paying more attention to my lecture on logic, eyebo mentioned something about a map he had built basically overnight. The track is called SpeedMapping and is linked on the showcased tracks. While it might be an amazing map, what I decided to do was download it and play it at some point later in the day. After my schedule for the morning was over I decided to use my 3 free hours until my late afternoon lectures to play said track. The first thing I noticed was the amount of trees. Something I kind of expected since it was an 8 minute map made in 5 hours. But what I couldn't imagine was the amount of trees. I can honestly say my laptop can't handle the track - something that shouldn't be so strange if I didn't have a replay uploaded in District 25. That's right. An overcrowded, completely filled and crammed 74k copper map works better than a 24k map. And what's the reason for that? M*********G TREE BLOCKS B!TCH. SERIOUSLY. Trees are STILL way too resource consuming for the rest of the game. Which isn't good, because for some reason people seem to love popping trees on the desert. And DaKKoN said my scenery was chaotic. I know that laptops aren't primetime gaming rigs. That's out of the question. But I don't have a desktop to match its performance. And that doesn't negate the point that something so basic shouldn't have the polycount of the entire environment itself. And if it doesn't, then the texture is so ridiculously HD that nobody would actually see the detail. There is something about these trees that utterly fail, and nobody seems to care because SHINY NU BL0X. I don't see the point of these blocks apart from hogging the entirety of your graphic resources and make the track ever so slightly more decorated. But roads, canyons, mountains and old deco blocks also help do that. Not hating tho, just don't overuse them. I've already toasted too many gfx cards due to trees. Also, if I ever come back to these user blogs thing, expect blogs and track reviews for tracks I may have not awarded because of some weird reason. Love the game, hate DEM TREEZ FT»Osaka**

Comments

34 comment(s).

FT»Osaka writes ...	09, May, 2013
It's my style dread. That's what happens when you decided not to filter your thought processes long ago.
dreadofmondays writes ...	09, May, 2013
Looks like you've posted a potentially interesting point but then had a huge argument with people about it
FT»Osaka writes ...	05, May, 2013
v6sarally says: And noone mentioned the possibility that the trees are not so graphics card heavy but instead processor heavy You.
v6sarally writes ...	04, May, 2013
Who said anything about graphics processing being made in CPU? (#duh) I said that those settings affected the preformance most in real-life testing with PC I talked about, whatewer the reason is (be it the same bottlenecking you talked about or whatever). Smaller maps (around 10k or less) runned just fine in that PC with given settings at "high" and all the beauty. Even from the old "TM Nations" days I remember that (again specially for large maps) a good CPU was more important than a good GPU, not talking about reasons it is just how it was. Yayy I have 8 cores and I can run maps with trees just fine - peace man!
FT»Osaka writes ...	02, May, 2013
Note: I study IT. Logical cores are physical processing units, complete with all the necessary logical units (Registers, Arithmetic Logic unit, Jump logic, control logic), that just happen to share chip location and L1 cache memory. (As a side note, AMD and nVidia have presented processing units with 4 logical cores for each physical one) About shaders, water reflection... They ARE computed at the GPU because that's the initials for Graphics Processing Unit (#duh), but they need data to be computed. The data is taken from memory units, access to which (via bus) has to be granted by CPUs. If your computer has a CPU that is underpowered against the GPU, your problem is bottlenecking, in which the GPU floods the CPU with bus requests (because of the sheer computing power) and the CPU is flooded with bus grants, but can't grant fast enough for the GPU to unleash all its power (and the CPU is held down by the amount of incoming bus requests). I don't care what you have read, I know for a fact that TM2 uses at least 2 cores (I have a core-by-core GPU meter). That leaves 2 free. I shouldn't have much problem with that, even if I run Opera and irc at the time (which take a whooping 5% combined load). And ofc, since I'm not a $luser, I have already done the tried-and-true method of rebooting (or similar). I don't blame you for not knowing that I study IT. But you should have informed yourself better before you came here speaking like you had absolute truth in your hands. If I hadn't known for a fact that it was trees that were holding my shit down and that my computer should be powerful enough to run a 25k map in low (I did play D25 afterwards just to see if the update was more resource heavy and it kept working), I wouldn't have ranted. I'm not that kind of guy. I have read the former options and they appeared more logical to me, so if you have a better idea, that doesn't sound absolutely bonkers like graphics processing being made in the CPU, I'd like to hear it. If you don't, then pardon me as I say SHUT UP.
v6sarally writes ...	02, May, 2013
Seemed strange to me too but it is the reality - those settings affect preformance the most in a PC with older/weaker CPU and a powerful GPU. I have read somewhere that TM2 only can use the power of one core so it could be that the number of cores does not affect the preformance much but the power of single core (someway I have a feeling that the game likes lot of CPU cache memory). Can you test how those settings affect you? If you turn down shader to "fast", background to "medium" and water reflections to "none" can you play the maps with trees then? Do you have a i5-2410M? This one has two cores and each one is virtually splitted in two so in for example task manager you see 4 of them indeed
FT»Osaka writes ...	02, May, 2013
There is NO game that needs more than 4 cores nowadays. I have a 2.3GHz i5. I. CAN. PLAY. QUITE. ABOUT. EVERYTHING. Plus, if there was such a thing as CPU intensive graphics, I want to see it. Note: Shaders are GPU generated. BG is GPU generated. Water reflections might be initially computed in CPU (different transforms might be easier to compute with a more dedicated PU), but they're GPU generated (They handle larger data). Hell, if what you said was true, there wouldn't be a point in getting graphics cards for games. Cars are also GPU generated as well.
v6sarally writes ...	01, May, 2013
And noone mentioned the possibility that the trees are not so graphics card heavy but instead processor heavy The whole game seems to be (specially for "heavy" maps) more dependent of good CPU than a good GPU, not that you can play it with some integrated thingy but you get the point I hope . For example a PC with "AMD 62 X2 5000+" for processing and a "Radeon HD5850 1GB" for graphics. Still on that pc, maps with 20k+ size will even get to as low as 10FPS and the only solution is to reduse shader to "fast" and background to at least "medium" - seems that those settings are most CPU intensive. Reducing water reflections helped too a litle I think (strangely even for maps without water as I remember) and cars+related stuff is allways "low" so can't say for that. And btw. I love the new trees . Not that every map should contain a ton of those Sorry for my english.
Tuta writes ...	25, Apr, 2013
but the trees are almost 2 years newer than the rest of the game ^^ but fine
FT»Osaka writes ...	23, Apr, 2013
I have an nVida 540 Tuta, it's almost newer than the game itself.
Tuta writes ...	22, Apr, 2013
Maybe the problem is that your graphic cards are quite outdated/trees are not optimised for older graphics cards. strange phenomenom
Racho writes ...	21, Apr, 2013
Almost... nVidia 220 series over here.
FT»Osaka writes ...	20, Apr, 2013
If yours is an nVidia 500 series, it could be, and we have a serious problem
Racho writes ...	20, Apr, 2013
Nope, I do have the same problem on my desktop. Maybe it's related to the graphic card?
FT»Osaka writes ...	20, Apr, 2013
Tuta says: Speed mapping: 70-100 fps D25: 20-25 fps or so (dont remember exactly, was on the edge of playability) This is on max settings. Don't understand Maybe it's just with laptops.

« Back 1 2 3 Next »