[zsouthboy]

I just don't get it. This game isn't a big poly-pusher. Is it ATI's OGL drivers? Something they're doing in the rendering of the game that is slow, for one reason or another? Would doing a FireGL softmod change performance at all(due to OGL drivers)?

I'm a little annoyed. This game is great, but the performance on my 9500 softmod leaves much to be desired.

[OpenGL guy]

Originally Posted by zsouthboy

I just don't get it. This game isn't a big poly-pusher. Is it ATI's OGL drivers? Something they're doing in the rendering of the game that is slow, for one reason or another? Would doing a FireGL softmod change performance at all(due to OGL drivers)?

I'm a little annoyed. This game is great, but the performance on my 9500 softmod leaves much to be desired.

Did you get the latest patch for the game? It made a large difference for me, particularly with AA enabled.

[CorwinB]

Latest couple of patchs + new Catalyst drivers helped my config a lot too, as numerous rendering errors were solved, and performance was increased by a nice margin. It's still not going very fast considering the workload, but at least it's playable now.

[zsouthboy]

The latest patch and Catalysts made a tremendous difference, as you said.. but it's still not performing where it should be, considering the workload. Ah well.

[OpenGL guy]

Originally Posted by zsouthboy

The latest patch and Catalysts made a tremendous difference, as you said.. but it's still not performing where it should be, considering the workload. Ah well.

The game is using stencil shadows, which are quite expensive, especially with a lot a lights around. Also, the game does some things that are not optimal for our HW/driver. We're still working with the developer to improve things.

[zsouthboy]

Originally Posted by OpenGL guy

The game is using stencil shadows, which are quite expensive, especially with a lot a lights around. Also, the game does some things that are not optimal for our HW/driver. We're still working with the developer to improve things.

Well I'm glad you guys are working on it I am quite addicted to it already (bought it two days ago)

[K.I.L.E.R]

Originally Posted by OpenGL guy

The game is using stencil shadows, which are quite expensive, especially with a lot a lights around. Also, the game does some things that are not optimal for our HW/driver. We're still working with the developer to improve things.

I've already backward engineered the Radeon drivers to fix that.

On a serious note:
What are they doing that isn't optimal for R3xx hardware?
Logic errors in the code?

[zsouthboy]

Originally Posted by K.I.L.E.R

I've already backward engineered the Radeon drivers to fix that.

On a serious note:
What are they doing that isn't optimal for R3xx hardware?
Logic errors in the code?

I've come to the conclusion that nothing is un-optimal for R3xx... Hell, I bet I could make a shader that just said shit, over and over again, and it'd run it at 1000 fps anyway! ROFL XD R3xx rocks.

[Quitch]

The real problems would start if the game was developed entirely on nVidia hardware. Then of course the code might be sloppy, with extensive use of nVidia only extensions to compensate. That would of course lead to lousy Radeon performance, through no fault of the card.

Of course, I don't know how other cards handle this game, so...

[ZoinKs!]

Originally Posted by OpenGL guy

Also, the game does some things that are not optimal for our HW/driver.

Can you give an example or two of what the game is doing?

[zsouthboy]

Originally Posted by ZoinKs!

Can you give an example or two of what the game is doing?

I have something to add to that... What if they were using D3D instead?

[OpenGL guy]

Originally Posted by zsouthboy

I have something to add to that... What if they were using D3D instead?

I think things would have worked better all around if D3D had been used as the API. OpenGL extensions are a good way to more directly access a chip's features, but can be problematic when porting to other vendors' extensions.

[K.I.L.E.R]

Originally Posted by OpenGL guy

I think things would have worked better all around if D3D had been used as the API. OpenGL extensions are a good way to more directly access a chip's features, but can be problematic when porting to other vendors' extensions.

*cough* Logic errors resulting from bad coding. *cough*
Why don't you just say it outright GL Guy?

The NWN programmers use bad coding practices and haven't planned the game out properly from scratch.

That is what I derived from your posts.

[OpenGL guy]

Originally Posted by K.I.L.E.R

*cough* Logic errors resulting from bad coding. *cough*
Why don't you just say it outright GL Guy?

I don't think that's the case here.

The NWN programmers use bad coding practices and haven't planned the game out properly from scratch.

That is what I derived from your posts.

No that's not what I am saying. Let's say that you have your codebase set up for a certain vendor's extensions. Now you want to port your code to another vendor's extensions. There are two approaches:
- Have two separate engines that utilizes each set of extensions fully
- Have one engine that handles both

The second approach is probably a lot easier to develop, but it doesn't guarantee the best results on all platforms.

This is why I believe people should stick with industry standard extensions if they want good results on all platforms. Note I said good results. It's possible that you won't get the best results on some platforms this way, but should guarantee "good enough" results.

[K.I.L.E.R]

I see what you're saying.

Their decision in the planning stage wasn't the best decision.

If they wanted to use PS then they should have went for DirectX without question at the time.
Their shadows could have been done more optimally in DirectX.

I think that's all DirectX is good for; creating special fx.

[zsouthboy]

Originally Posted by K.I.L.E.R

I see what you're saying.

Their decision in the planning stage wasn't the best decision.

If they wanted to use PS then they should have went for DirectX without question at the time.
Their shadows could have been done more optimally in DirectX.

I think that's all DirectX is good for; creating special fx.

But DX would've made it harder to do Linux ports, etc... so who knows.

[OpenGL guy]

Originally Posted by K.I.L.E.R

I see what you're saying.

Their decision in the planning stage wasn't the best decision.

If they wanted to use PS then they should have went for DirectX without question at the time.
Their shadows could have been done more optimally in DirectX.

I think that's all DirectX is good for; creating special fx.

Or the developer could have just stuck with industry standard extensions...

[K.I.L.E.R]

I don't believe they had industry standard extensions for pixel shaders at the time, hence they used nVidia's proprietary extensions.

[Saem]

Actually, I believe by that time, both Matrox and ATI were supporting the same extensions, Nv was going it alone.

[Luminescent]

This is why I believe people should stick with industry standard extensions if they want good results on all platforms. Note I said good results. It's possible that you won't get the best results on some platforms this way, but should guarantee "good enough" results.

In theory, that is the way it should be. Before this ideal is plausible, however, all hardware should function properly according to the specifications of the industry standard.