It would be interesting to see what the performance is like in huge maps like Foursite. Currently I still have to use other source ports to play it as it drops to <10fps in doomsday 2.x.
It would be interesting to see what the performance is like in huge maps like Foursite. Currently I still have to use other source ports to play it as it drops to <10fps in doomsday 2.x.
Unfortunately, still very bad performance with Foursite in the classic renderer. Maps of that complexity just hit all the old bottlenecks.
The core problem of the classic renderer is that it (unwisely) runs in a frame-by-frame mode, where each frame is set up and drawn without retaining knowledge of the previous frame. This is a bad idea because a) we are actually rendering many frames in a rapid succession, and b) typically not much changes between frames. So it ends up wasting a lot of time repeating the same tasks over and over.
The new renderer is designed around the opposite assumption that most data stays the same between frames, and only changes cause expensive work to occur. It's too early to benchmark the new renderer, though, since it's quite incomplete. It lacks some safeguards that are required for large maps like Foursite.
Comments
https://skyjake.fi/@doomsday/105429548824395652
The core problem of the classic renderer is that it (unwisely) runs in a frame-by-frame mode, where each frame is set up and drawn without retaining knowledge of the previous frame. This is a bad idea because a) we are actually rendering many frames in a rapid succession, and b) typically not much changes between frames. So it ends up wasting a lot of time repeating the same tasks over and over.
The new renderer is designed around the opposite assumption that most data stays the same between frames, and only changes cause expensive work to occur. It's too early to benchmark the new renderer, though, since it's quite incomplete. It lacks some safeguards that are required for large maps like Foursite.