Grimrock

Dr.Disaster wrote:

sarvrin wrote:How about performance tweaks for high end laptops?

Checked the game today after the recent patch, hoping it would bring some changes. Now I get power shortages on the GPU all the freaking time even though the game seems to run smoother O_o. No idea what is going on. Fingers crossed for the optimization. I am out of LoG2 for the time being

Those things should be preventable by the OS or gfx driver. In case you have an nVidia GPU: inside the nvidia driver you can set the Power Management Mode for your GPU. Setting it to "Maximum" usually clears the power shortage issue.

The problem is not that the power-consumption is limited on this specific laptop (for a good reason) but that in first place the grimrock engine uses (wastes!) too much resources and spew out to few frames for that. The FPS/Watt & FPS/GPU-resources efficiency ratio of the grimrock engine is not good in general and insufficient outdoor. This gets finally a critical problem as there are not enough and fine grained GFX and performance options given to the players.

What the hell are you talking about?
When the GPU is asked to render but it's system cuts it's power it's not the fault of the software that requested the render.

Addtional info for sarvrin:
In case you updated your nvidia driver in the meantime make sure to re-apply the "Maximum Power" setting.
nVidia reverts it's driver settings back to default with each update, at least for me.

Also you now need to keep an eye on GPU and overall system temperature due to the "Maximum Power" setting. The GPU will produce a lot more heat this way so make sure the cooling system is in top shape!

Every single setting in Nvidia control panel is set accordingly. Only LoG2 somehow manages to limit GPU's power consumption. Sleeping Dogs? no problems, Crysis series? no problem, Saints Row 3? No problem, Starcraft 2? no problem...shall I continue? GPU on full load and all clocks at max does not go higher than 75C. Power of my cooling ^^

What is more, my cooling system is rigged with 'Collaboratory Liquid Ultra' cooling paste (Never used the stock toothpaste supplied with all laptops). Fans are cleaned monthly for best performance.

Good news is that the patch somehow boosted the FPS so rejoice laptop owners with issues!

sarvrin wrote:Only LoG2 somehow manages to limit GPU's power consumption.

Still? How does that show inside GPU-Z? Again green bars in PerfCap or a different color/reason?

sarvrin wrote:GPU on full load and all clocks at max does not go higher than 75C. Power of my cooling

That sounds absolutely fine.

It might be possible that at 75C the system's thermal powercut reason for the GPU is triggered which GPU-Z should show. Yet i can't find any info on thermal limits of this chip, only that it can consume up to 75 Watts of power.

Engine is definitely little fuck up - this game is slower the Crysis 1 and 2 what is pure absurd. But D3D Antilag 1.01 little help me, as always when old engine is used on modern hardware.

[config]
RenderAheadLimit=2
FPSlimit=30

This config give me good playability.

badhabit wrote:

vlzvl wrote: Actually the smaller the resolution is, the greater performance i get but only on scenes involving no depth of horizon. I can get a boost from 14 fps to 20 fps by just changing from 1024x768 to 800x600 or lower if i'm looking a boulder in front of me or 2,3 quads far away, but when im looking that beautiful ship in the beach from far away then fps is going to about ~8, no matter if i have 1024x768 or 800x600 or 64x64 icon resolution (im not going to play a GIF animation)

PS. just waiting for devs getting their hands dirty on lower-end machines; i read somewhere they didnt actually tested the game on such machines, so i have a hope

Good news, as vlzvl pushed the pressing performance question to the devs in the Twitch interview, Antti almost promised to take a look on performance tweaks for low end systems when they start the OSX port, as they are aware that many Mac people run flimsy laptops! Thumbs up!

link to the question and answer: http://www.twitch.tv/arvaneleron/c/5361029?t=1h45m16s

Hey, thanx for reminding me that Andi didn't answer another question of mine of equal importance:

QUESTION: Are there any beholders to the game? I need to kill one nowadays

Seriously i hope Andi didn't meant tweaks for OSX only since there are also flimsy PCs & PC laptops as well
It's rather obviously the game it's running well on decent PCs but crawls at best on lower ones more than more-demandings PC games.

I know MACs can't really compete directly (on performance level) with a PC gaming-hardware and this is mostly with the current hardware and drivers for PC users. Regarding that, i'm only going to assume Almost Human to dig deep in the code for some performance tweaking. And this is only good news for us with low hardware.

Can confirm a significant speed-up on PC with version 2.2.4 compared to 2.1.13 (analysis 2.1.13) Minor increases in GPU utilization. Still, the performance is still pretty CPU dependent/limited. Interestingly, it seems the Log2 engine seems to be unable to create more than 85 fps overall due to CPU boundness in my system, independent what graphic card I would use... (if the GFX influence is taken out by low settings and GPU load < 100%, no difference between 400x400 and 1024 x 786). Question, has someone else more FPS in this spot? GPU seems not to matter...

Most positively, the input lag in low FPS situations, which made timed puzzles hard to impossible, seems gone, hurray!


640x400 all low settings, no frame cap, 1 CPU core 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: not GPU bound, CPU bound and fully utilizing 1 core(+20% FPS vs 2.1.13)



640x400 all low settings, no frame cap, 2 CPU cores 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: not GPU bound, CPU bound and NOT fully utilizing 2 cores(!)(+20% FPS vs 2.1.13)


640x400 all high settings, no frame cap, 2 CPU cores 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: just GPU bound, (almost)CPU bound and NOT fully utilizing 2 cores Near sweet spot between balanced CPU and GPU load ( if both 100% used)? both seems good utilized....

640x400 all high settings, no frame cap, 1 CPU core 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: not GPU bound, CPU bound and fully utilizing 1 core

1024x786 all high settings, no frame cap, 2 CPU cores 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: GPU bound, not CPU bound

1024x786 all low settings, no frame cap, 2 CPU cores 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: not GPU bound, CPU bound and NOT fully utilizing 2 core

400x400 all low settings, no frame cap, 2 CPU cores 3.6GHz, Twigroot forest: not GPU bound, CPU bound and NOT fully utilizing 2 core

badhabit wrote:Question, has someone else more FPS in this spot?

In a 1024x768 window and all setting maxed i get 90 fps and with all settings low i get 116.

I'm going to start off by saying that my laptop is not beefy by todays standards, not in the slightest. I do not meet the graphics card specs required by the game ( 2011 Mac w/ Intel HD 3000 348 mb). As such, as you can probably guess, the game is completely unplayable, depending on which way I turn. North is a black screen, east is a tearing cacophony of colors, west is black with the occasional flash of color, and south is crystal clear. Thus I am left with a $14.39 ocean watching simulator. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this; I would put it off as my computer being too old, and I'll play the game at a future date on a more powerful computer. What troubles me, however, is that this is not the first time I've played LoG 2; I've played it before using a wine from Paulthetall, and aside from occasional frame rate issues, it played fine, on maxed-out graphics. So my question is simply: why?

Selgar wrote:( 2011 Mac w/ Intel HD 3000 348 mb)

From http://www.grimrock.net/2015/03/18/grim ... platforms/

Low Rendering Quality setting is recommended on Mac models without dedicated graphics cards such as the Macbook Air.

Regarding the "why?":
LoG 2 uses Direct X on Windows while on Mac it has to use OpenGL.