srb2win really slow?

[tn44]

So with the death of srb2dd, I was testing settings for srb2win and everything seemed ok at first. I've picked up on a few things that really seem to grind the game to a halt though, at least for me.

Getting hit, for one. All the rings going everywhere seems rather badly optimized right now or something? The frames drop from 35 to about 10.

Likewise, deep sea zone is a constant 9-10 fps. Seems to be the water animations?

Even dropping my resolution to ridiculously small numbers, these frames issues persist. Not sure what the cause is but I shouldn't be having this much trouble running srb2. It's not like I'm on a dinosaur computer, although it does have an integrated gpu.

Any idea if this is a bug or if there's something I should be changing in my settings?

 

[Sapheros]

To be fair, due to the SDL2's negligence back during it's initial split release with SRB2dd for the past couple of releases/patches, there are tons of bugs that haven't' been reported, and since 2.1.15 is requiring more people to use SDL2, well, the shitty computer people (like myself) have to complain to the devs about the fps problems with their awful outdated graphics and RAM, either way, just tell the devs the possible problems you might be faced with for SDL2 and they'll see if they can fix it or not. Also, I doubt the optimizations will protect you from Deep Sea Zone and Castle Eggman Act 2, which are both huge and unplayable. ;-; (Why'd you have to remind us how broke we are devs, why?)

 

[tn44]

So it's a known issue already? Alright. The optimization patch helped with the rings but dsz was still pretty laggy.

I'll just wait for now, thanks.

 

[pipeX]

for some reason in my desktop with phenom ii x4 and 8gig of ram the game sometimes drops to 10 fps, and when I run the linux binary with my laptop with core 2 duo and 4gig of ram it always runs at 35 fps

 

[Mystic]

As a general check, are you guys running at high resolutions? SRB2, and especially software mode, does not scale efficiently into high resolutions. If you're having framerate problems, try running at 640x400 or even 320x200.

 

[Lat']

As a general check, are you guys running at high resolutions? SRB2, and especially software mode, does not scale efficiently into high resolutions. If you're having framerate problems, try running at 640x400 or even 320x200.

But the game looks absolutely awful using such resolutions.
And I mean, it IS kind of a problem that SRB2, which should NOT have such fps drops issues since it's not anything running on Unreal or whatever, actually HAS them, and that it is a common issue.

I mean, hell, even with an i7, I can't keep a constant 35 / 35 fps in software from times to times just because I run a high resolution and that the game never bothers using the other cores the processor has since the engine is super old.

Oh and although OpenGL seems to get rid of framerate drops, the renderer itself has a lot of problems on its own, like sprites being treated like 3d models thus making them look like paper and having half of the shoes inside the ground, so it's really some kind of shit dilema, if I can say it like that :/

 

[Yacker]

I mean, hell, even with an i7, I can't keep a constant 35 / 35 fps in software from times to times just because I run a high resolution and that the game never bothers using the other cores the processor has since the engine is super old.

Worth noting, my i3 gets consistent 35 fps at 1920x1200 on the most complex levels with lots of Lua. I get the feeling it's probably a case-by-case thing, as most SDL2 issues seem to be...

 

[Mystic]

But the game looks absolutely awful using such resolutions.

I have been running this game at 320x200 or 640x400 for most of the last 15 years. In fact, I actually PREFER 640x400, my computer can quite easily handle higher. This game does not look "awful" at that resolution, and even if it did I think a consistently high framerate looks better than any other feature you can possibly have. If you want to run the game at 1920x1200 and 5-25 fps, that's your choice, but don't act like the game can't run well when you aren't willing to choose the options that will allow it to.

 

[Lat']

If you want to run the game at 1920x1200 and 5-25 fps, that's your choice, but don't act like the game can't run well when you aren't willing to choose the options that will allow it to.

I don't really know how to put it; but it feels like you're saying that software only supports super low potato settings if you didn't get your processor from the nasa or something.

 

[Ors]

I don't personally see any problem in 640x400 (except in DSZ3 pinch). You can see everything that happens pretty well. Of course the outlook isn't as good as in 1920x1200, but 640x400 is usable for all the playing from SP and record attack to multiplayer gametypes in my opinion.

 

[FuriousFox]

Lat, are you using the vanilla 2.1.15 EXE or the optimized one that was linked in this thread? The vanilla EXE was built without optimizations, so it runs pretty bad in some spots.

 

[gregory_house]

I have been running this game at 320x200 or 640x400 for most of the last 15 years. In fact, I actually PREFER 640x400, my computer can quite easily handle higher. This game does not look "awful" at that resolution, and even if it did I think a consistently high framerate looks better than any other feature you can possibly have. If you want to run the game at 1920x1200 and 5-25 fps, that's your choice, but don't act like the game can't run well when you aren't willing to choose the options that will allow it to.

The problem here isn't with trying to run the latest AAA game where such performance drops at maximum settings might be acceptable even on fairly new hardware.
The problem here isn't that the game "can't run well" either, because as you said it can, at shit resolution (and yes, while not 5, I'd much rather have a constant 25fps than having to look at 640x480 SRB2, because it is goddamn awful, let's be honest here for a moment eh?).

The problem is fairly obvious, a game that should run well at any setting on any PC bought in the last decade (and I've already mentioned how it does run perfectly on a pretty old desktop with integrated, at 1920x1080, so it can), isn't doing that.
I'm not part of the development team, nor do I know what specific part of the software is causing this or what you might already be trying to do to mitigate this, so I'm not saying there's no excuse to how it runs, but posts like these are more irritating than useful or anything else, especially after you already suggested to lower the resolution previously, which is enough to help in case that's the problem.

Blaming people for wanting to play a game at a resolution that's basically the standard nowadays (1920x1080, mind you) isn't really going to do anything but make you look like you don't want to acknowledge the problem in the first place, and rather just force them to ignore it (Yes, I'm aware you pointed it out yourself in the post before, but I'm replying to this post in particular because I feel the other post would've been more than enough by itself).

Okay, you prefer your resolution, fine. I prefer mine. The game should run well at all of them regardless, if the PC can make it. That's something that should be fixed, end of story.

EDIT:With all of that said, I've been using this fixed exe and not having any problems at all, on OGL SDL2, just wanted to make a point.

 

[toaster]

There's actually a technical reason why SRB2 runs at terrible framerates at high screen resolutions in Software mode (even with the fixed EXE) which I'm susprised nobody brought up here yet.

Software mode is called Software mode because it draws to the screen by drawing individual pixels. For each of those pixels, it has to do a calculation about what's seen there, it has to overlay midtextures and sprites over the level, it has to draw each visible texture and flat seperately... and it does all this on the CPU. All those calculations are being done on the same thread as the game physics, and both of those things are super intensive to the point where there's basically an upper limit on how many pixels you can push before you drop frames.

Meanwhile, what's informally known as OpenGL is actually internally called Hardware mode internally. That's because it offloads quite a bit onto whatever available GPU or other graphics hardware your computer has. Unfortunately, this doesn't result in any major performance increases because 1) SRB2's frame-locked thanks to its physics running at 35 fps, 2) a lot of the job that should be handed off to a graphics card in OpenGL is still currently handled by the CPU because our implementation of OpenGL is by far the worst, and 3) OpenGL lacks the visual panache for people to give a shit about it and is objectively inferior in every way right now.

So don't complain at Mystic with your walls of text, it's an inherent limitation in Software mode and nobody's really up for fixing OpenGL to not shit itself whenever confronted with a scene more complicated than the start of GFZ1.

 

[Mystic]

Even ignoring the technical reality of our renderer making fixing resolution scaling impossible, there's nothing inherently WRONG with standard definition visuals, especially when our game art uses sprites and low resolution textures. It really hasn't been that long that games progressed to the point where HD graphics were feasible. When I found this project around 2001, 320x200 was all that was practical on computers of the time. Hell, the game still had the "viewsize" option from Doom, which would allow you to make the game view even smaller by letterboxing the game on machines that weren't capable of getting the full 320x200. Going beyond SRB2, there is a gigantic back catalog of old games on old systems that run at resolutions significantly below 320x200. I've spent my entire life playing games at a resolution you consider "goddamn awful", and as far as I'm concerned your opinion of said resolutions is moderately insulting.

This is a game engine from 1994. It isn't going to match up to modern standards because the entirety of the rendering code was written for machines less than a tenth as powerful as your phone. There is a reason we default to 640x400 (which I'll note is higher resolution than we defaulted to for the majority of this project's lifespan). If you want to choose to increase the resolution to something higher, that's fine, but understand that the game may not handle it well. I am providing the advice of lowering the resolution to improve your framerate because I know that it is even more of a framerate benefit than it normally would be on a modern engine. If you prefer dropping frames for those extra pixels, go for it.

 

[Rob]

640x480 SRB2, because it is goddamn awful, let's be honest here for a moment eh?).

While I happen to agree with your opinion, it is just that: an opinion. Asserting that he's being dishonest here is a very poor move on your part.

The problem is fairly obvious, a game that should run well at any setting on any PC bought in the last decade (and I've already mentioned how it does run perfectly on a pretty old desktop with integrated, at 1920x1080, so it can), isn't doing that.

You just contradicted yourself. Either it functions at 1920 x 1080 or it doesn't. Pick one. This sentence makes no sense.

I'm not part of the development team, nor do I know what specific part of the software is causing this or what you might already be trying to do to mitigate this, so I'm not saying there's no excuse to how it runs, but posts like these are more irritating than useful or anything else, especially after you already suggested to lower the resolution previously, which is enough to help in case that's the problem.

Did you happen to overlook the previous post in the topic that linked an optimized executable to try? Did you also notice that it was a developer that identified the problem? Did you also notice it was a developer who supplied the patch?
Posts like yours are far more aggravating than the post you are trying to criticize. You overlook important information to try and argue a point when your point has already been addressed and resolved, and the post was providing additional information. It is very insulting to me that you would overlook that the team went ahead and addressed your concerns already to try and make a point about how we handle our game when we do our damndest to try and correct for errors like these.
And by the way, the source is public, so if you wanted to go and look through and see what part of the renderer was causing it, that would have been a far more productive use of your time (and far more beneficial to the project because we do actually pay a good amount of attention to what people contribute, contrary to popular belief) than trying to shoot down a post providing a little bit extra insight and tries to at least temporarily remedy the problem.

Blaming people for wanting to play a game at a resolution that's basically the standard nowadays (1920x1080, mind you) isn't really going to do anything but make you look like you don't want to acknowledge the problem in the first place, and rather just force them to ignore it (Yes, I'm aware you pointed it out yourself in the post before, but I'm replying to this post in particular because I feel the other post would've been more than enough by itself).

Again, you are ignoring pertinent information to try and make a point. Nobody was blaming anyone for anything. Mystic was making a general statement that actually helps some people who are experiencing framerate issues we may not otherwise be able to account for. There's no blame being presented here. And also, it's important to note that many game developers for PC will go and suggest reducing visual intensity when there are framerate issues. It's pretty common, and trying to pretend otherwise is rather ignorant.

Okay, you prefer your resolution, fine. I prefer mine. The game should run well at all of them regardless, if the PC can make it. That's something that should be fixed, end of story.

Hold on there tiger, that's not how things work, and this is where you go totally off the deep end.
You should be aware that there is an upper limit to what rendering resolution software has and breaks down after that (I admit to not knowing the exact numbers off my head, but it does exist). There is no known way to fix that and no real reason to either because it's pretty high. This is an inherent restriction of the renderer, and the closer you get to that resolution, the more the renderer breaks down, including framerate issues. At no point can we ever guarantee that we can make the game work on "all of them". It literally can not. We support what we can, and the rest is just going to be hit or miss. Again, if you take issue with this, you are welcome to take a crack at fixing all of software's issues, or making OpenGL function. But we're a volunteer team and our time is better spent completing the game, not trying to fix any and all software issues that you may or may not encounter. We fix the major ones and do everything within reason to keep the game playable. That should be more than adequate.

EDIT:With all of that said, I've been using this fixed exe and not having any problems at all, on OGL SDL2, just wanted to make a point.

This right here pisses me off the absolute most. You outright acknowledged that we fixed the issue. We provided the damn patch. And you go on a rant about something so basic and insignificant as changing resolution to see if that helps? Why? There was no justification to try and call someone out on something like this.

 

[gregory_house]

You just contradicted yourself. Either it functions at 1920 x 1080 or it doesn't. Pick one. This sentence makes no sense.

I was saying how, clearly, if some people have expressed the problem here, it's not working in their case. I never had any problems with the game myself. Doesn't mean I can't talk about the issue.

Did you happen to overlook the previous post in the topic that linked an optimized executable to try? Did you also notice that it was a developer that identified the problem? Did you also notice it was a developer who supplied the patch?
Posts like yours are far more aggravating than the post you are trying to criticize. You overlook important information to try and argue a point when your point has already been addressed and resolved, and the post was providing additional information. It is very insulting to me that you would overlook that the team went ahead and addressed your concerns already to try and make a point about how we handle our game when we do our damndest to try and correct for errors like these.
And by the way, the source is public, so if you wanted to go and look through and see what part of the renderer was causing it, that would have been a far more productive use of your time (and far more beneficial to the project because we do actually pay a good amount of attention to what people contribute, contrary to popular belief) than trying to shoot down a post providing a little bit extra insight and tries to at least temporarily remedy the problem.

I did not overlook Mystic's previous post. I even said how it was enough to help in case the problem was indeed caused by too high a resolution, and I acknowledged that it was made clear that the game does not scale well with resolution, and a fix was already supplied (I am using it and I am thankful for that). I have nothing against that. That post was spot on. It was helpful to all users.
I was answering to the post added after that, which was not "providing additional information" nor "a little bit extra insight" unless you consider Mystic's resolution preferences additional information.

Again, you are ignoring pertinent information to try and make a point. Nobody was blaming anyone for anything. Mystic was making a general statement that actually helps some people who are experiencing framerate issues we may not otherwise be able to account for. There's no blame being presented here. And also, it's important to note that many game developers for PC will go and suggest reducing visual intensity when there are framerate issues. It's pretty common, and trying to pretend otherwise is rather ignorant.

Again, you don't seem to have read what I posted. I am not ignoring anything. I am not saying that people with framerate issues should force themselves to keep the highest resolution possible (it doesn't matter that I would prefer to do so), or that reducing resolution to achieve better performance is unheard of. By all means, if it's unplayable slow, go ahead and lower the resolution. I am just saying that these framerate issues, as already noted by some people, are not only dependent on the resolution, but it seems to be on a per-machine basis, and that is an issue, and I shouldn't be forced to use a lower resolution than the one I want just because "this one desktop computer in my room has this issue with SRB2 but that other old laptop, despite being older, runs well at full res".
Of course lowering the resolution helps performance in any case. Of course do that if the framerate is too low. But it shouldn't be random which machines it is too low on to start with.

Hold on there tiger, that's not how things work, and this is where you go totally off the deep end.
You should be aware that there is an upper limit to what rendering resolution software has and breaks down after that (I admit to not knowing the exact numbers off my head, but it does exist). There is no known way to fix that and no real reason to either because it's pretty high. This is an inherent restriction of the renderer, and the closer you get to that resolution, the more the renderer breaks down, including framerate issues. At no point can we ever guarantee that we can make the game work on "all of them". It literally can not. We support what we can, and the rest is just going to be hit or miss. Again, if you take issue with this, you are welcome to take a crack at fixing all of software's issues, or making OpenGL function. But we're a volunteer team and our time is better spent completing the game, not trying to fix any and all software issues that you may or may not encounter. We fix the major ones and do everything within reason to keep the game playable. That should be more than adequate.

I clearly stated I do not "take issue" with how the game runs. I said I don't know anything about the inner workings of this software. I never blamed the dev team for not working on fixing this, but actually expressed how I don't know what's being done (other than this patch). No, I won't just attempt at fixing this myself, because I do not know how to do that, and because volunteer or not it should be the dev team to attempt that. "Why don't you fix it then?" isn't really a reply to give to any user of your product.

I understand that each renderer has its own limitations. That makes perfect sense and is the reason why scalability might be an issue. I am not asking for the game to run at 4K nor to run on a 1995 machine. That's not what I meant by "all of them". I simply meant that if this particular 2006 PC can indeed run 1080 fine, it is not a renderer limitation that's forcing some people with perfectly capable computers to lower their resolution, instead of being able to use the ones up to 1080.

This right here pisses me off the absolute most. You outright acknowledged that we fixed the issue. We provided the damn patch. And you go on a rant about something so basic and insignificant as changing resolution to see if that helps? Why? There was no justification to try and call someone out on something like this.

Again, the rant wasn't about changing the resolution itself. That is not the problem. The problem is having to do that on these people's PCs while others, better- or worse-specced, run it fine. And once again, I was replying to Mystic's post right above mine, which was completely unneeded after the one before. I don't care what resolution he prefers and I don't like how he's basically saying that if for some reason my PC happened to be one with framerate issues (again, not related to the power of the machine), it would be my fault if the game ran slowly at a perfectably acceptable resolution.

Asserting that he's being dishonest here is a very poor move on your part.

This I will admit, I am sorry. I understand my opinion isn't universal nor it has to be anyone else's opinion, and his was different, and he was being sincere about it.
I should have worded that whole sentence differently, because my issue with that was how Lat' expressed his own opinion and Mystic's post contained a direct quote of that and was basically a "no, what you said is false". But now I realized that my answer to that was basically the same, I should've probably written that I find it awful and stopped there.
What triggered me was that by saying that it "does not look afwul" Mystic himself seemed to ignore that that, too, was only his opinion, and one that whoever might be looking for a fix to be able to play at high resolution probably doesn't share.

 

[Mystic]

What triggered me was that by saying that it "does not look afwul" Mystic himself seemed to ignore that that, too, was only his opinion, and one that whoever might be looking for a fix to be able to play at high resolution probably doesn't share.

I think you're misinterpreting my second post. My second post was more implying that using a low resolution for higher framerate is worth it for most players. I'd wager if you did a poll of users and asked them whether they cared more about high resolution or high framerate, framerate would win out pretty handily. I've played many games on really ugly settings over the years because I wanted 60 fps over the game looking good. It's a trade-off like everything else. In a perfect world we'd all be on amazing PCs that can handle high resolution with all the bells and whistles maxed out, but in reality that's obviously not the case.

I was certainly not implying that my resolution preferences for our game are "better" than yours. I'm simplying implying that maybe if you're having problems losing some visual fidelity for framerate would be in your best interest, even if you think it's ugly (which I personally stated I do not).

 

[Ritz]

I have been running this game at 320x200 or 640x400 for most of the last 15 years. In fact, I actually PREFER 640x400, my computer can quite easily handle higher.

Why, though? I just gave those resolutions a look for reference, and while it mostly works for the stock game where all the graphics are flat shaded with straight edges, software's nearest neighbor scaling really decimates assets with any degree of detail or dithering at those dimensions. Just a forewarning, it's going to be real sobering when people start realizing the stuff I'm working on looks way better in screenshots than it does in the actual game (at any resolution, really)

Mostly just funny to hear that from you, since I recall that it was you who convinced me to use the highest resolution my computer could support back in 2005, when I was still running 800x600 globally because I liked having large icons on my desktop.

 

[Mystic]

The main reason I prefer 640x400 is because SRB2's art assets are low resolution and low detail enough that I don't see much benefit in the extra pixels, and running at a lower resolution assures that no matter what happens, I get 35 fps.

There's a big difference when it comes to desktop resolution, because higher resolution means I can fit more stuff on the screen. I'm currently running at 2880x1800 desktop resolution. Increasing the resolution of SRB2 just means I can see our pixelated assets more clearly =P

 

[Kaysakado]

I've always had trouble reading far away objects at 640x400, especially monitors. I can see that they're there, but I can't tell what they are until I get up close. I tend to run 960x600 and find it much easier to identify.