ASMCast

Lithium · Post by **Lithium** » Feb 01, 2007 0:39

cha0s, what kind of computer are you running that on?

EDIT: Anyway... it seems as though all my attempts to optimize further are either backfiring or not working, so I'm going to leave that alone and finish the rest of the engine.

Halifax · Post by **Halifax** » Feb 01, 2007 1:31

900mhz
XP, no idea what service pack
756 non-ddr
ati radeon 9150

320x240 - 96 fps
640x480 - 23 fps
1024x768 - 10 fps

cha0s · Post by **cha0s** » Feb 01, 2007 10:05

Lithium; a 450-mhz p3 with 256 ram.

Lithium · Post by **Lithium** » Feb 01, 2007 10:30

cha0s: sweet! looks like I've achieved my goal ;) (which was 60fps @ 320x240 on a 500mhz)

anyway, I said I wasn't going to optimize any more before doing more of the engine... but you know, it's 6 am and my mind won't shut off. Anyway -- same url http://lithium.zext.net/asmcast_test.zip - F to get framerate

my question is: other than speed, do you notice any difference?

badmrbox · Post by **badmrbox** » Feb 01, 2007 15:07

Haven't tested this since my stats the last time.

320x240 410fps
640x480 101fps
1024x768 40fps

running the 1024x768 version I noticed that it goes slooow when you are close to a wall. When you face the wall you turn way slow but at the very moment you are turned about 50% away from the wall it moves like normal. I think my framerate dropped by 20fps looking at the wall -_-

Difference? Hm, well... it's darker then the last time I tested it?

Lithium · Post by **Lithium** » Feb 01, 2007 21:42

I suppose I should just say.. I will because I don't think it will skew my survay by changing "do you notice a difference" to "do you notice this"

Basically, I just have it cut the xres in half and stretch by two... which equates to 2*less memory reads and an equal ammount of memory writes... I can't really notice it even on 320x240 were it should be most visible... the question is do you see a difference now knowing this... (and would you have noticed the difference if I didn't tell you?)

sir_mud · Post by **sir_mud** » Feb 01, 2007 23:50

Ok here's my results with the latest test version:

320x240 :: 300 fps I can barely keep it under control :p
640x480 :: 82 fps
1024x768 :: 14 to 34 fps

This system's specs:
AMD Athlon running at 1.15 GHZ
384 MB Ram
Nvidia Geforce4 MX4000
XP Pro SP2

On the other system I have currently I got:
320x240 :: 289 fps
640x480 ::74 fps
1024x768 :: 13 to 29 fps

This system's specs:
AMD Sempron 2500+ 1.77GHZ
1 GB Ram
XP Pro SP2
Nvidia Riva TNT2 64MB

oldmike · Post by **oldmike** » Feb 02, 2007 0:18

nice.

1024x768: 25
640x480: 74
320x240: 282
P4, 2.33 MHz, 512 MB, NVidia GForce-440

or vfw (whatever that is)...

it's Video for Windows (Win 3.11 graphics)

D.J.Peters · Post by **D.J.Peters** » Feb 03, 2007 5:54

sorry but 25fps is posible with 386DX40 learn assembler and don't thing in BASIC.

Lithium · Post by **Lithium** » Feb 03, 2007 18:13

yeah, 25 fps is possible on a 386, if you don't have texture mapped floors and ceelings, and if you don't have depth shading.

and what the hell do you mean by "learn assemlber and don't thing in BASIC"? Were you drunk when you posted that?

anonymous1337 · Post by **anonymous1337** » Feb 03, 2007 18:45

Lithium wrote:and what the hell do you mean by "learn assemlber and don't thing in BASIC"? Were you drunk when you posted that?

Lol don't be so hard on him. He's been trying to suggest optimizations for a bit, but uhm, had deleted those posts, probably because he thought they were too harsh. :D

Lithium · Post by **Lithium** » Feb 03, 2007 19:48

Right... I apologize, I'm guessing he ment "learn assembler and don't think in basic", or something along those lines -- it just erked me because I have been making an effort to optimize, and learn how it's done in a assembler. I'm not just converting my old raycaster to asm, I'm doing everything from scratch, and putting a lot of effort into it. And it's not proving to be a futile endeavor either, this engine is atleast 2x as fast as my last one, and much more flexible.

ikkejw · Post by **ikkejw** » Feb 03, 2007 20:58

3GHz P4
1536MB RAM
Windows XP SP1
GeForce 7800 GS AGP

320x240 - 500
640x480 - 150
1024x768 - 60

Oh and it's way too dark on my 19" CRT

Dr_D · Post by **Dr_D** » Feb 03, 2007 23:14

Another nice looking raycaster, Lithium. ;)

2.1Ghz AMD Spempron
512 MB ram
nVidia 5500FX overclocked
WinXP SP2

1024x768 = 55 (+/-) 5 FPS
However, if I was right next to the wall the FPS dropped to like 20-30.

320x240 = 560 (+/-) 10 FPS

640x480 = 130 (+/-) 20 FPS

D.J.Peters · Post by **D.J.Peters** » Feb 04, 2007 7:07

Lithium wrote:...Were you drunk when you posted that?

Yes and sorry for my hard words.