Jump to content

Mitovo

Members
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mitovo

  • Birthday 08/02/1973
  1. As I figured. You can't provide a source, because none exists. You're making up your own facts, as usual. Color me shocked. The degree of shameless, arrogant self-delusion in this statement is amazing. Sums you up perfectly, though. Translated: "I see things, and then invent my own reality of why they are to fit my personal narrative, which I then assert as fact... because I say so". Oh wow, really? You've used Unreal Engine? No way! I bet you're the only person outside Epic Games who's done that! I can totally see now why you're qualified to overrule Epic's official reason
  2. Incorrect. UT4 didn't "fail so hard". It was put on hold indefinitely when team members working on it were shifted over to Fortnite after that game blew up. 'cause, you know.. Money. This did not happen recently. It happened in 2018. As for your "version".. Citation Needed. Unless you can link to an official statement citing "poor results from community contributors" as their reason for halting it, this is just you "inventing facts" to fit your narrative. It's fake news. You know, this thing called "search engines" exist. They make fact checking very quick and easy. So, you should pr
  3. Focusing on the numbers, while it's what they push as "what it can do", is missing the bigger point made, I think. It's not "what the tech can do in a controlled situation". It's more "what the tech is doing, period" and the implications that has for designers and developers working with it. Of course it's unlikely that any game is going to have scenes with over a billion triangles in a single frame. Except maybe in scripted cutscenes/cinematics. Even then, it just doesn't sound practical to throw more at the engine/hardware than is necessary. I doubut artists are going to start modeling s
  4. Every time I think "how can 3D graphics/engine tech possibly get more realistic?", Epic shows up with an answer... Increased detail in assets, while reducing the process of creating them... Sure, why not lol.
  5. Thank you, Caleb. I'll consider those options. Honestly, if the answer to my question is "We don't know for sure", then that's a perfectly acceptable response to give from the jump. It's quite possible that who ever created the demo, and/or altered it later is long gone and no longer active in this community, or just hasn't been around lately. Anyway, I'll look into those tools you mentioned, Caleb. Thanks again.
  6. Backpedaling and trying to flip the script now, are we? How are "we" supposed to figure it out, Duion? First of all, who's 'we?' You're the only one in this thread asserting, repeatedly, that it's something with my hardware/software because it runs fine for you and you "can't confirm" the frame drops I'm seeing. I ask you to give specific details as to what hardware/software it could be, and you resort to "How are we supposed to figure it out"? And "I can just make guesses". I'm the arrogant one? I'm "blaming Torque3D and others"? 1. I didn't blame Torque3D. I confirmed that, in al
  7. Yes. I read what you wrote. Every single word of every single post. And I've responded. I'll summarize: I said I'd downloaded and tested it multiple ways, with multiple versions. I tested the original GG version after your first mention, but didn't specifically include that detail, because the results didn't change. The only improvement I saw was ~20fps when I copied the full Pacific Demo's assets over T3D 3.10.1, as I stated in another post. To clarify, so you can move past that argument: Yes. I tested the original GG version. No, the results were not notably different. FPS pikes up to
  8. I did test it by dragging the assets from the direct demo download onto a fresh setup of 3.10.1 and the performance improves by about ~20 FPS in all cases. So that's something, but still well under what I would expect all else considered. As for it possibly being my hardware as the bottleneck... - If I was seeing similarly poor results on other T3D demos I could consider that. But that's not the case. I get upwards of 200+ FPS on the other T3D demos. -If I wasn't getting solid 60+ FPS on games like Witcher 3, Outer Worlds, and any other recent titles, at high or highest settings, I could
  9. I first downloaded and tested the Pacific Demo from section 2 of the Downloads page. Performance was as I described, as low as the 20s in FPS with hiccuping while turning the camera. I then tested Pacific Demo by downloading the Art/Level Package from section 3 of the same downloads page, and extracted it over a new install of 10.3.1. I run it on max settings @ 2560x1440 (though resolution changes make negligible difference) Ryzen 2600 NVidia 2070 Super 32 Gigs RAM Samsung SSD Not sure what other games are out there that would be a good apples-to-apples comparison with T3D... b
  10. Hello everyone, So, been poking at T3D again and wanted to take a look at Pacific demo again, as I remember it featuring a lot of T3D's features to reference. I noticed something kinda surprising, though.. my frame rate was LOW. Like, really low. I'm on a 2070 Super, which is getting easily well over 200+ FPS on other games, and even in the other T3D demos. But i'm hitting as low as the 20s in the Pacific demo. This is on DX9. For some reason if I try it in DX11 (by copying the assets into a current T3D setup), GEForce Experience won't show the FPS overlay. So, I don't know if there'
  11. And there it is. This is why a CoC is necessary. Because people like you can't have a civil, respectful conversation without attacking others. This is a perfect example. I asked a sincere, good faith question. I did not attack you. I did not insult you. And that's what you open your reply with. Wonderful. Discussion's over.
  12. Why you try to appeal to people that never used Torque and never contributed to it? If the target group you try to appeal to does not exist here, there is nothing you can gain. That's a weird question. The only way you grow a community is by welcoming and appealing to new people. And anyway, every person who uses or contributes to T3D started as a non-user/non-contributor. Yourself included. Are you against seeing this community grow and thrive? Would you prefer it remain insular and mostly static? That's a sincere question, because I really can't fathom why one would want to disc
  13. I gave Wings3D a go. It's a neat program, but it has some weird quirks that make it annoying to work with for me. Seen others do cool stuff with it. I gave Hexagon3D another try. It's a solid modeler with some nice tools, but has a lot of stability problems. Will crash on you randomly while doing normal operations. I've decided just to stick with Blender. Diving into 2.8 and getting used to the new setup.
  14. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
  15. NEVER a problem? Did nobody notice the huge scandal when a CoC for Linux was introduced which resulted in Linus Torvalds leaving the project and several other Linux contributors threatening to revoke the licenses for their contributions, which could have resulted in the destruction of the Linux project in total and in the destruction of 90% or whatever of computing infrastructure, since most computers run some kind of Linux. So just recently a useless CoC almost destroyed most of the computing world, but you don't see a problem in that, if everyone just pretends to be nice to each other.
×
×
  • Create New...