1. Trouble with the game?
    Try the troubleshooter!

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Issues with the game?
    Check the Known Issues list before reporting!

    Dismiss Notice

Moonhawk FPS

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Cwazywazy, Sep 15, 2013.

  1. Cwazywazy

    Cwazywazy
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,245
    First off, I absolutely LOVE the Bruckell. But, when using a fully loaded one (Chrome, hubcaps, etc) I get like 20-25 FPS. (It's the GPU that's lagging) When using something like the Terrible preset my FPS is pretty much normal. The other cars' parts don't affect my FPS nearly as much as the Moonhawk. Why is this?

    BTW, this is on my Radeon HD 7750. I just bought a 650TI that I'm still setting up and I haven't played Drive on it yet.
     
  2. bosseye

    bosseye
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    27
    Yeah, same for me, FPS drops considerably when running the full beef Moonhawk (still playable but noticeable), FPS rises considerably when using the Terrible variant with all the shiny bits removed. Does it with the Cadillac too, so its probably just the amount of detail on each car slowing things down. Will perchance be improved as we head towards Beta etc.
     
  3. gabester

    gabester
    Expand Collapse
    Vehicle Director
    BeamNG Team

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    It's not graphical, period. I guarantee you your framerate would skyrocket as soon as you pause the physics with J. You could probably have 10 Moonhawks side by side with the physics paused and get 100 fps.
     
  4. bosseye

    bosseye
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    27
    Ok, thats interesting. I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with the Moonhawk, I merely meant that there is a nice amount of detail on the car; looking at it as a layman it would suggest more data to process and therefore lower framerates. This is an assumption that is also given weight by the fact that the FPS is higher when using the stripped back Terrible variant, which I imagined would be essentially identical in terms of main physics set up as the full fat Moonhawk, but just has less geometry detail to process. So relating perceived higher model detail to lower FPS is not an outlandish suggestion.

    I'm genuinely curious then, if the actual graphical geometry of the car makes a negligible difference to frame rates, what is it about the fancy full fat Moonhawk that makes FPS lower than on the stripped down version of the Moonhawk? Is it just an increased node/beam structure on bumpers and so on?
     
  5. Davidbc

    Davidbc
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,333
    Full version has more n/b to calculate.
     
  6. bosseye

    bosseye
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    27
    Heh, I still need to get my head around the fact that everything on the car is being calculated in real time. Its so ingrained that bumpers and so on are just geometry objects that just drop off as oppose to a proper physics object that reacts and deforms correctly. Its pretty f*****g clever stuff.
     
    #6 bosseye, Sep 16, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2013
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice