Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

FPSC Classic Product Chat / fpsc doesnt meet my expectations (trial version)

Author
Message
Casper
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 01:08
Link
ive been playing with the trial version for a bit, but im not yet convinced i should buy. The main problem is the pathetically low frames per second.. it runs at 32 normally, but if im looking at more than 20 or so wall segments at one time it runs down to 15 fps. Now i consider my machine to be pretty good (its brand new). A pentium 4 3.2 ghz machine with 1gb ram and a gefore 6600 GT. I run half life 2 (which looks FAR better than fpsc) at about 120 fps at 1280x1024 resolution. With 1024x1024 textures and an amazing physics engine. How is it that a program such as FPSC, in which a relatively small level, with 256x256 textures, and virtually nothing running in the background, can run at 15 fps? I really think that FPSC has to be optimized to run faster (MUCH faster) considering the lack of modern day graphics/physics its ease of use has to make up for.

Besides the low quality graphics, pathetic AI, and terrible slowdown, fpsc is an extremely easy to use program, allowing me to make levels in minutes what used to take hours and hours with crummy self made level editors in db pro. Perhaps im asking too much, but i really expected more..
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Opus
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 01:27
Link
Most people are reporting adequate FPS in the exe versions of their levels. Most of the demos that I have downloaded and played have run at an adequate FPS. It's just in the FPSC environment itself that things are running slow. I agree that this is not good so far as the creation process is concerned, but the finished exe products are not running slow.

Eternal student in search of knowledge. But will settle for the occasional epiphany.
Back to top
Profile PM
Coldnews
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 02:01
Link
well, thats not completely true. Even Lee has acknowleged the fact that the speed needs to be optimised. Aparently the new Physics engine is actually IMPROVING the Frames Per second! And the AI at the moment is slowing things down. I agree up to a point that FPSC should DEFINATELY be faster in general, even the .exe's.
and what exactly would you call modern day graphics/media?

www.ColdNews.co.uk - the worlds first solo band.
New coldnews single avalable from here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
SoulMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Nov 2002
Location: In a house somewhere on the planet earth
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 02:42
Link
Casper,
Please realize that this is the EA release. You must give it time. The V1 release will be much better. This is more like a sneak preview and so far the preview has been good.
SoulMan

This is as backwards as is This
Back to top
Profile PM
Aoneweb
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 02:45
Link
I have been testing the EA ver and I can tell you theat the .EXE's run with no problem, I have not gone over the top with entities but as I said I am still testing.
Lee has said any speed issues will be delt with by the V1.

Toshiba Sattelite, 2GHz,Nvidia GeForce4 420go, Windows XP Home. www.aoneweb.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Cellbloc Studios
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 03:51
Link
From my reading, there is a "cap" on the FPS anyways, so you should not go above 33 FPS I believe.

-This...is my boomstick!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Petter
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 04:36
Link
The cap must be at 38.
That is my maxed framerate.

-->>PETTER<<--
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 05:26
Link
The cap is probably 40, you are likely getting 38 due to imprecise timing of the SYNC RATE command.

Having said that I am surprised that your framerate is so low. Do you have any entities active?


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nightbyer
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 10:55
Link
Think of your graphics complaint this way. Someone(I don't rememeber who) asked, "Would you rather have just 5 high quality models, or over 50 average ones?"

And also think of this: The trial version lessens the amount of models usable. How would you like it if you could only use 1 model?

Have you noticed that there is a decrease render shroud which could limit the number of segments you see to something like 5 fully rendered segments? This will greatly improve framerate.

The AI is already known to be pethetic, as already said this is the EA release. You could always improve it yourself seeing as you use DB!

On the Half-Life 2 note: I have it too and it DOES run faster than FPSC. So what? FPSC was NOT created to make games that look like DooM3 or HL2 right from the box.
Back to top
Profile PM
Casper
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 14:13
Link
well i can understand that fpsc will never look as good as commercial big name games like half life 2 and doom 3, and im glad to hear that the compiled exes run without slowdown. But im still somewhat dissapointed by the low res textures. The trial version is supposed to have 256x256 textures, but they look like they are closer to 128x128 or even 64x64, and have just been scaled upwards to 256x256... This in itself would not be such a problem if the program ran at 100 fps or so. I think i was mainly let down by the fact that both of these problems are present at the same time.
thanks for your replies
Back to top
Profile PM Website
GameKing
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 14:52
Link
In the trial version texture are 256x256 in the EA version there are 3 different texture sizes 128x128 256x256 and 512x512 also the trial version can not even compare to what the EA version can do.

Alot of the problems in the EA version are being addresses right now and should be realeased in the V! release of the product.

enjoy

Abit IC7-G Max II, P4 2.5 gig, 1 gig DDR Ram, 80 gig Maxtor HD, NVidia FX-5700 128 DDR, Sound Blaster Live! Digital.
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Feb 2005 18:21
Link
Quote: "In the trial version texture are 256x256 in the EA version there are 3 different texture sizes 128x128 256x256 and 512x512 also the trial version can not even compare to what the EA version can do."


No excuses, the trial version is a pretty good demonstration of the full EA release.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
uman
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 27th Feb 2005 05:10 Edited at: 27th Feb 2005 05:11
Link
In my experience thus far and I work with many engines, FPSC is capable of competing with most of them in terms of overall game creation capability. You can as with any engine - within the limits that they allow create good games with it, certainly equal to most indie engines and it can be a lot easier using its in built features to advantage. If you want to stray a little from what its designed specifically to do and make your own content and push the engine to the limits of its level design capability then you may even make even better games but it will take more time, quite a lot more.

There is some room for future improvement and currently the AI and FPS needs improving but no one yet knows how that will pan out.

FPS I can say is not great but thus far playable when it comes to rather complex scenarios. I am using a great deal of in level entities though most are static of course and dont draw so heavily on CPU time so I can have a large number.

I have not found any great deal of FPS improvement in a final .exe over that of the editor in test mode - though there is a small improvement and gameplay smoothness can be slightly improved.

AI I cannot definatively say as I have not yet work extensively with it to see what can fully be achieved with a combination of careful level design, Patfinding and and AI scripting (that yet to come shortly) - has anyone?

The default enemy characters behaviuor if you choose to use the correct AI scripts is enough to allow enemies to behave in a reasonable behavioural manner and additionally kill you if you want them to. Its probably true to say though that the default enemies and their associated scripts need some improving so that those downloading the software would have no reason to complain from day one.

Any engine will never be as good as we might like, as humans we are never satisfied. Except for FPSC currently though, I dont see may others even allowing users to complete many games.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-05-19 14:31:51
Your offset time is: 2024-05-19 14:31:51