I think I'm really going senile.... I can't for the life of me remember how to get the FPS rate to show on screen. Anyone know how?
Thanks from this old git. Lol. ;D
Hawk.
Profile.ini in my docs
misc
showfps=1
Just hit CTRL-F on track Granddad ;)
Thanks guys.... I'm just having one of those days with plenty of senior moments.... Makes for a fun day though. Lol ;D
Speedy replies too! Much appreciated! ;D 8)
Hawk.
I use Fraps.
Also convenient for taking screenshots.
Screenshots built in F11 but not HQ to be fair.
Good answer: ctrl-f (as already stated).
God mode: Afterburner with screen overlay: FPS, cpu/gpu temps and loads, memory usage, switchable on/off, ...
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on August 28, 2015, 07:44:49 PM
Good answer: ctrl-f (as already stated).
God mode: Afterburner with screen overlay: FPS, cpu/gpu temps and loads, memory usage, switchable on/off, ...
MaX.
Interesting... I'll have to give that a try....
Thanks Max. ;)
Hawk.
I use Afterburner for all things GPBike related such as screens, vid capture etc etc. It does the lot, has done for years, and its free, and it does it all very well.
And its called "Afterburner" like a jet god, what more do you need.
I use "Action!"It is to show fps, take screenshots (PNG) and record (MP4) gameplay at the highest quality. Of those tested is definitely the best, but it's not free. ::)
Could not resist the urge to press CTL-F ;D
i5 and GTX750Ti anywhere between 80 an 120 fps on a few tracks i tried. Is my observation correct that the 'local' detail level seems to have very little impact on framerate ?
The framerate appears lowest when you are on an area of track that has a wide/long view to the horizon even if the detail level is quite low rather than a more enclosed area with a lot of local trackside detail.
I guess that the graphics engine does not reduce the level of detail for distant objects creating a large drawing load.
The
Quote from: h106frp on September 01, 2015, 12:56:07 PM
Could not resist the urge to press CTL-F ;D
i5 and GTX750Ti anywhere between 80 an 120 fps on a few tracks i tried. Is my observation correct that the 'local' detail level seems to have very little impact on framerate ?
The framerate appears lowest when you are on an area of track that has a wide/long view to the horizon even if the detail level is quite low rather than a more enclosed area with a lot of local trackside detail.
I guess that the graphics engine does not reduce the level of detail for distant objects creating a large drawing load.
80-120 seems low to me mine is usually banging 190 (i5/ R270x/ Max in-game/ no .ini GFX tweaks)
Agree with the framerate drops on horizon views - this was the exact problem I was having at Hengelo where it dropped to <20- JJ fixed it somehow.
I think you guess right - wasn't the track size limitation due to this engine drawing everything as one big blob?
The framerate is probably about right for the difference in graphics cards.
The 750Ti was chosen for its low power and small physical dimensions (only decent short card at the time) to suit my desire to build a capable gaming rig in as small and quiet a box as possible.
I was determined to squeeze i5/8GB/GTX750Ti/SSD/HDD/ROMdrive and a full size ATX PSU into one of these mini cases without creating another noisy wind tunnel machine.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTAwWDUwMA==/z/MhAAAOSwzrxUymM2/$_12.JPG)
My favorite of any PC i have built over the years, efficient, quiet and fast enough for 1080p gaming :)
yeh! That's a sweety! 8)
I'm pretty sure a lot of the frame rate problems with some tracks is down to all or most surfaces/objects in some heavy detailed tracks being counted unnecessarily in the collision detection model. That is a choice of the track author.
I remember JJ initially had everything counted as collision detectable at Hengalo, even down to the individual trees, bollards and straw bales, I mentioned it to him but not sure if not including all those objects in the collision detection model cured it or whether he did something else?
Basically at this time we only need the immediate surrounding terrain, track surface and barriers needing to be in the collision detection model; maybe later when Piboso has optimised everything we could stretch it a lot further. :)
Though I would say that if someone has a very fast/powerful PC they probably wouldn't notice the frame rate drops so much on the problem circuits.
Hawk.
Do the bikes have layered detail levels or are they draw at full detail level no matter what the distance away?
Not an answer to that question H but it made me think of something.
Remember when people say they have frame rate issues when close to another rider? (Personally I have not seen it). Could the size of the PAINT file be an issue? Just another thought as the sizes range from Kbs to Mbs. I have no idea whether PaintEd nullifies this when it packs them up or not.
Quote from: h106frp on September 01, 2015, 02:48:15 PM
Do the bikes have layered detail levels or are they draw at full detail level no matter what the distance away?
To be honest, I have no idea, but at a guess with the way the modding procedure goes I would say no they don't have multiple detail levels depending on how far the bike is away from you, unless it's automatically built into GPB code, in which case we need info from Piboso to confirm or deny that. :)
Quote from: Napalm Nick on September 01, 2015, 03:17:34 PM
Not an answer to that question H but it made me think of something.
Remember when people say they have frame rate issues when close to another rider? (Personally I have not seen it). Could the size of the PAINT file be an issue? Just another thought as the sizes range from Kbs to Mbs. I have no idea whether PaintEd nullifies this when it packs them up or not.
Yes Nick. I've often thought the same. I mean 16-25MB of paint file and if you get a few riders within viewing range, then that's a lot of processing power needed to render those textures as well as having to deal with rendering track and bike model details and textures.
In my opinion a 1-2MB paint file is quite adequate for GPB....... I greatly suspect it's for the guys who like to post and create screenshots who want high detail renderings? :P
Hawk.
I've never seen paints from 16-25mb :o
Quote from: Napalm Nick on September 01, 2015, 01:06:06 PM
TheQuote from: h106frp on September 01, 2015, 12:56:07 PM
Could not resist the urge to press CTL-F ;D
i5 and GTX750Ti anywhere between 80 an 120 fps on a few tracks i tried. Is my observation correct that the 'local' detail level seems to have very little impact on framerate ?
The framerate appears lowest when you are on an area of track that has a wide/long view to the horizon even if the detail level is quite low rather than a more enclosed area with a lot of local trackside detail.
I guess that the graphics engine does not reduce the level of detail for distant objects creating a large drawing load.
80-120 seems low to me mine is usually banging 190 (i5/ R270x/ Max in-game/ no .ini GFX tweaks)
Agree with the framerate drops on horizon views - this was the exact problem I was having at Hengelo where it dropped to <20- JJ fixed it somehow.
I think you guess right - wasn't the track size limitation due to this engine drawing everything as one big blob?
As an aside, if anyone has a newer Nvidia card and wants max fps with very low overhead (online play maybe) you can enable (force) FXAA in the nvidia control panel for GPB.
This is the newer pixel based anti aliasing (blurring) used by the consoles, with this setting my game just constantly maxes the frame counter at 200fps :o
It is not as good as the normal AA options :( and you do see quite a few jaggies on screen, but if you want a 'reasonable' view and low overhead it is quite an interesting technology.