Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (VoroneTZ, monk12, Quad), 829 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: Emre] #474437
10/15/18 15:24
10/15/18 15:24
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,370
Caucasus
3run Offline OP
Senior Expert
3run  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,370
Caucasus
That's indeed very strange... Thank you for sharing it with us Emre! laugh


Looking for free stuff?? Take a look here: http://badcom.at.ua
Support me on: https://boosty.to/3rung
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: Superku] #474532
10/22/18 06:33
10/22/18 06:33
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 106
3
3dgamelight Offline
Member
3dgamelight  Offline
Member
3

Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 106
Originally Posted By: Superku
Having one game loop is the way to go IMO, so as long as your project isn't that complex already change it.
wait(1) is rather "slow"[...]

With Lite-C 10,000 functions could run at the same time so avoiding wait will be pointless for many games.

Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: 3dgamelight] #474535
10/22/18 08:51
10/22/18 08:51
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,861
Kiel (Germany)
Superku Offline
Senior Expert
Superku  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,861
Kiel (Germany)
Sorry, but you are wrong. A big project is super tough to manage and debug when using wait. The initial setup is a little easier but that's about it, no other advantages, only disadvantages.
Btw. 10000 waits eat up 2ms of performance already on a 6700k. You'd have to do one hell of an optimization to save 2ms normally, or you could just NOT use wait.


"Falls das Resultat nicht einfach nur dermassen gut aussieht, sollten Sie nochmal von vorn anfangen..." - Manual

Check out my new game: Pogostuck: Rage With Your Friends
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: Superku] #474639
10/26/18 20:27
10/26/18 20:27
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 106
3
3dgamelight Offline
Member
3dgamelight  Offline
Member
3

Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 106
I can't get because wait makes debugging difficult. Your problem with proc_mode is documented " It is automatically reset by wait() for not affecting further functions, but restored when the function continues".
By default the order is not random: "the execution order of functions is determined by the order of their calls"

Originally Posted By: 3run
I remember having performance issues when I used while loop for each NPC etc.

This only makes sense if you need many functions active. With Lite-C more than 30000 functions could be waiting at the same time with a good fps.

Last edited by 3dgamelight; 10/26/18 20:53.
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: 3dgamelight] #474643
10/26/18 22:00
10/26/18 22:00
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,107
Germany
rayp Offline

X
rayp  Offline

X

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,107
Germany
I think 3run and Superku are right here. Whiles and waits killing fps very fast in a bit bigger Project.

Last edited by rayp; 10/27/18 00:11.

Acknex umgibt uns...zwischen Dir, mir, dem Stein dort...
"Hey Griswold ... where u gonna put a tree that big ?"
1998 i married my loved wife ... Sheeva from Mortal Kombat, not Evil-Lyn as might have been expected
rayp.flags |= UNTOUCHABLE;
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: rayp] #474649
10/27/18 05:23
10/27/18 05:23
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 106
3
3dgamelight Offline
Member
3dgamelight  Offline
Member
3

Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 106
Optimizing for more than 200 fps on the target platform do not makes sense.

Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: 3dgamelight] #474650
10/27/18 06:11
10/27/18 06:11
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,370
Caucasus
3run Offline OP
Senior Expert
3run  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,370
Caucasus
Originally Posted By: 3dgamelight
Originally Posted By: 3run
I remember having performance issues when I used while loop for each NPC etc.

This only makes sense if you need many functions active. With Lite-C more than 30000 functions could be waiting at the same time with a good fps.
It's actually so funny to read grin You probably didn't understand what Superku (me) was talking about.
Just to make things more clear for you, try to run 30.000 npc at the same time, make sure each of them will have it's own while loop, share your results here grin
When you will fail, try to run at least 10.000 npc, all at the same time, make sure each npc has it's own while loop running, share your results (as screen shots, with debug panel ON).

Best regards


Looking for free stuff?? Take a look here: http://badcom.at.ua
Support me on: https://boosty.to/3rung
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: 3run] #474651
10/27/18 08:07
10/27/18 08:07
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,107
Germany
rayp Offline

X
rayp  Offline

X

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,107
Germany
Quote:
Optimizing for more than 200 fps on the target platform do not makes sense.
200 fps with 30.000 while loops running ? This is acknex, not unreal 4. Theres no way to have even 50fps with 5.000 npcs and while loops.

In a normal project, 20 while Loop npcs with c_move+ent_animate are enough to kill performance already.

Last edited by rayp; 10/27/18 08:10.

Acknex umgibt uns...zwischen Dir, mir, dem Stein dort...
"Hey Griswold ... where u gonna put a tree that big ?"
1998 i married my loved wife ... Sheeva from Mortal Kombat, not Evil-Lyn as might have been expected
rayp.flags |= UNTOUCHABLE;
Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: rayp] #474652
10/27/18 11:17
10/27/18 11:17
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,337
Hiporope and its pain
txesmi Offline
Serious User
txesmi  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,337
Hiporope and its pain
The only way of speaking about the offtopic is with numbers.



Code:
-----------------------------------------
| a wait per entity | own scheduler     |
| 1 byte stack      | 1 byte stack      |
-----------------------------------------
| a wait per entity | own scheduler     |
| 128 bytes stack   | 128 bytes stack   |
-----------------------------------------


Notice that the stack memory size has also its impact in the difference.

Click to reveal..

Code:
#include <acknex.h>
#include <default.c>

#define ENT_COUNT    10000
#define STACK_SIZE   1
#define COMPLEXITY   1

ENTITY *ents[ENT_COUNT];

action actWait() {
	BYTE _n[STACK_SIZE];
	while(1) {
		int _i = 0;
		for(; _i<COMPLEXITY; _i+=1)
			_n[random(STACK_SIZE)] = random(256);
		wait(1);
	}
}

var actList(ENTITY *_ent) {
	BYTE _n[STACK_SIZE];
	int _i = 0;
	for(; _i<COMPLEXITY; _i+=1)
		_n[random(STACK_SIZE)] = random(256);
	return -1;
}

void entLoop () {
	while(!key_esc) {
		wait(1);
		ENTITY **_ent = ents;
		ENTITY **_entLast = _ent + ENT_COUNT;
		for(; _ent<_entLast; _ent++) {
			if(*_ent == NULL)
				continue;
			var _result = actList(*_ent);
			if(_result == 0)
				continue;
			switch(_result) {
				case 1:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 2:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 3:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 4:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 5:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 6:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 7:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 8:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 9:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 10:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 11:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 12:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 13:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 14:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 15:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 16:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 17:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 18:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 19:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				default:
					break;
			}
		}
	}
}

void main () {
	max_entities = ENT_COUNT;
	
	void _act ();
	_act = actWait;
//	_act = actList;
	
	level_load("");
	def_debug();
	int _i = 0;
	for(; _i<ENT_COUNT; _i+=1)
		ents[_i] = ent_create(SPHERE_MDL, vector(0, 0, -1000), _act);
	if(_act == actList)
		entLoop();
}



I gived a bit of complexity to the scheduler loop so it can be considered a complete flux manager. The numbers speak by themself. It is clear it gains performance with a single while loop but it is not that much. Take into account that we are speaking about a difference of 3/10000 ms/ent: the time taken by few operations. Bad programming practices will waste more time.

Salud!

Re: 'you' and c_scan [Re: HellThunder] #476068
01/24/19 06:44
01/24/19 06:44
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 1
None
S
sneha Offline
Guest
sneha  Offline
Guest
S

Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 1
None
Hi HellThunder,
Excellent, I agree with you.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  HeelX, Lukas, rayp, Rei_Ayanami, Superku, Tobias, TWO, VeT 

Gamestudio download | chip programmers | Zorro platform | shop | Data Protection Policy

oP group Germany GmbH | Birkenstr. 25-27 | 63549 Ronneburg / Germany | info (at) opgroup.de

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1