rec.autos.simulators

GP3 Something wrong.

Alan

GP3 Something wrong.

by Alan » Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:00:00

As a programmer (C, C++, 68k assembler) in my RL day job I can't
disagree with you more, reason follows:

'optimising' compilers do not optimise in the same way that writing
'pure' machine code does, Most optimise to compensate for the severe
'overhead' and redundancy that modern API's add to code, which mean that
they are optimised 'relative' to how they would be if this optimisation
didn't occur, however these routines do not IN ANY WAY compare to what a
coder can do with code written from scratch.

oh, and BTW, to the ppl deriding GC's use of Integer math, Yes FPU's
have improved, but are STILL a long way from acheiving the performance
needed,
IIRC Quake II was entirely Integer calc based too.

Alan




> :>I doubt GC is even using vector code
> :>optimised for PIII,Athalon etc. Which, by the way, is a piece of cake
> :>to achieve.

> : In assembler language? Thats what he uses.

>   Surely not - in this day and age it's not even efficient.  Optimising
> compilers are better than hand optimised assembly language anyway.  I
> don't believe GC is using assembler now.  For GP2 it wouldn't make MUCH
> sense.  For GP1 it's maybe just about a reasonable decision.

> --
> Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
>     Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
>       Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
>      UPDATED WWW: http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Richard G Cleg

GP3 Something wrong.

by Richard G Cleg » Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:00:00

: As a programmer (C, C++, 68k assembler) in my RL day job I can't
: disagree with you more, reason follows:

: 'optimising' compilers do not optimise in the same way that writing
: 'pure' machine code does, Most optimise to compensate for the severe
: 'overhead' and redundancy that modern API's add to code, which mean that
: they are optimised 'relative' to how they would be if this optimisation
: didn't occur, however these routines do not IN ANY WAY compare to what a
: coder can do with code written from scratch.

  Have you ever heard the saying "premature optimisation is the root
of all evil" - most coders I know including assembly language
programmers accept that a well optimised C program is faster than a well
optimised assembler program simply coz the C compiler will kno when to
unroll a loop and similar.  A lot of people waste a lot of time coding
assembler under the mistaken belief it is more  efficient.  It can be -
for some things.   In the general case, however, a well written C
program will almost always be faster.

  The stuff about APIs is totally irrelevant - leads me to think you're
a windows programmer.

: oh, and BTW, to the ppl deriding GC's use of Integer math, Yes FPU's
: have improved, but are STILL a long way from acheiving the performance
: needed,
: IIRC Quake II was entirely Integer calc based too.

  Integer math is faster if you can get away with it - but notby much.
It's dumb to go out of your way to limit all float ops - but reduce them
to a minimum sure.

--
Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
    Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
      Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
     UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

black..

GP3 Something wrong.

by black.. » Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:00:00

I'm all in favour of optimisation but when it comes to port to modern
3d\hardware the end results don't do the game justice.

I'm sure that GP3 performance is suffering with hardware 3D because the
software engine is over-optimised. COnverting all those int to floating
point texture co-ords, polygon co-ord and depth values is taking it's
toll on GP3's realism, looks and speed. IMO :)



> As a programmer (C, C++, 68k assembler) in my RL day job I can't
> disagree with you more, reason follows:

> 'optimising' compilers do not optimise in the same way that writing
> 'pure' machine code does, Most optimise to compensate for the severe
> 'overhead' and redundancy that modern API's add to code, which mean
that
> they are optimised 'relative' to how they would be if this
optimisation
> didn't occur, however these routines do not IN ANY WAY compare to
what a
> coder can do with code written from scratch.

> oh, and BTW, to the ppl deriding GC's use of Integer math, Yes FPU's
> have improved, but are STILL a long way from acheiving the performance
> needed,
> IIRC Quake II was entirely Integer calc based too.

> Alan




> > :>I doubt GC is even using vector code
> > :>optimised for PIII,Athalon etc. Which, by the way, is a piece of
cake
> > :>to achieve.

> > : In assembler language? Thats what he uses.

> >   Surely not - in this day and age it's not even efficient.
Optimising
> > compilers are better than hand optimised assembly language anyway.
I
> > don't believe GC is using assembler now.  For GP2 it wouldn't make
MUCH
> > sense.  For GP1 it's maybe just about a reasonable decision.

> > --
> > Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
> >     Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
> >       Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
> >      UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ruud van Ga

GP3 Something wrong.

by Ruud van Ga » Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:00:00


>I think it's GC all over!

>The Z-buffer could well only be a low-res - hence the ***depth
>problems.

>I think he has never heard if mip-maps either! The gravel and crowd
>textures shimmer horribly

>Geoff needs a hardware enima to get him going...

According to the credits, GC was doing the software graphics (he must
have had some spare time or something to do such an unnecessary
thing), and the hw gfx were done by a 2nd programmer.
Who should've first programmed some SGI's to see how it's done.



>> I think the main problem with the z-buffer is that there isn't one! :)
>> Also, i've also noticed that perspective correction is turned off on
>a lot
>> of textures like you say.  This is just bizarre.  Modern 3D cards can
>do
>> perspective-correct texture mapping on every polyon and z or w
>buffering
>> with a very small performance penalty, like 10%.  Also these features
>are
>> both in just about ever game that's been released for the last two
>years.
>> Seem obvious that GP3 wasn't deigned with 3d cards in mind.  I don't
>know
>> who did the 3d card support, whether it was Crammond or Microprose,
>but they
>> didn't do much of a job.

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>Before you buy.

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.53
MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Art: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Alan

GP3 Something wrong.

by Alan » Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:00:00


>   Have you ever heard the saying "premature optimisation is the root
> of all evil" - most coders I know including assembly language
> programmers accept that a well optimised C program is faster than a well
> optimised assembler program simply coz the C compiler will kno when to
> unroll a loop and similar.  

Heh. Yeah, but i'm sure that I can find a thousand and one  posts on
usenet saying the counter :) (this argument is as divided as the current
gp3 vs. gpl)

Sorry, have to agree to disgree here.

Hehe, nope, *nix console C++ and oracle/sql programmer these days. Used
the API term because wasn't sure what platform your/your friends
experience was in, could have easily said shared library but went for
the lowest common denominator ;)

Not by much is still faster IMHO (but ONLY when done right)

Alan.

Richard G Cleg

GP3 Something wrong.

by Richard G Cleg » Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:00:00


:>   Have you ever heard the saying "premature optimisation is the root
:> of all evil" - most coders I know including assembly language
:> programmers accept that a well optimised C program is faster than a well
:> optimised assembler program simply coz the C compiler will kno when to
:> unroll a loop and similar.  

: Heh. Yeah, but i'm sure that I can find a thousand and one  posts on
: usenet saying the counter :) (this argument is as divided as the current
: gp3 vs. gpl)

  (Grin) Now c'mon the GP3 vs GPL argument isn't that divided.  The GP3
vs punch in the face argument is divided.

:> however, a well written C
:> program will almost always be faster.

: Sorry, have to agree to disgree here.

  I agree.

:>   The stuff about APIs is totally irrelevant - leads me to think you're
:> a windows programmer.

: Hehe, nope, *nix console C++ and oracle/sql programmer these days. Used
: the API term because wasn't sure what platform your/your friends
: experience was in, could have easily said shared library but went for
: the lowest common denominator ;)

  In which case I apologise for the unwarranted abuse.

  Richard.

--
Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
    Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
      Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
     UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.