Grimrock

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:33 pm**

I am running Yosemite - OSX 10.10.2

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:09 pm**

An important question: can the beta be distributed by any of the beta testers or AH so more Mac users can test it? Or a Steam copy can't be played without a Steam connection? At the moment I have a fast internet connection of 8 Mbps. All it needs is a dropbox or similar link...

Posted: **Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:22 pm**

Frenchie wrote:An important question: can the beta be distributed by any of the beta testers or AH so more Mac users can test it? Or a Steam copy can't be played without a Steam connection? At the moment I have a fast internet connection of 8 Mbps. All it needs is a dropbox or similar link...

No, you may not distribute the game. The beta is limited to Steam users.

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:36 am**

Hi Petri, some performance numbers from my MBP (H/W details in a previous post - but basically i7, 16GB Ram, 750M 2GB). I just used setPosition to these locations, let it settle down and wrote then numbers down. As discussed via Twitter - I would love to see if there is any difference between the current build and a build on a more recent version of OS X!

NOTE: I am running Yosemite 10.10.3 (Beta). I doubt this makes a difference, but you should know that just incase!

Specs: 15-Inch Retina MacBook Pro (Late 2013) - 2.3Ghz i7, 16GB RAM, GT 750M 2048 MB, OSX Yosemite 10.10.3.

Performance Benchmarks

SpoilerShow

1680x1050, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), DD (Medium), TR (High), TF (Medium), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Medium)

start (19,29,0,0,31): 31 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 19 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 16 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 20 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 26 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 48 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 50 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 38 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

1680x1050, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), DD (Medium), TR (High), TF (Medium), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Off)

start (19,29,0,0,31): 34 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 20 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 17 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 22 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 28 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 56 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 60 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 42 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

1680x1050, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), DD (Medium), TR (High), TF (Low), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Off)

start (19,29,0,0,31): 35 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 21 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 17 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 22 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 28 fps
...

1680x1050, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (Low), DD (High), TR (High), TF (-), SQ (-), SSAO (-)

start (19,29,0,0,31): 60 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 44 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 36 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 54 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 48 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 60 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 60 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 60 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

Activity monitor reports...

CPU Usage 37% when frame capped in High Rendering mode.
CPU Usage 47% when running at 60 fps in Low Rendering mode.

Let me know if you need any more diagnostics. Open GL Driver Monitor reported Core Utilisation to be at 99% when running at <60fps and GPU Memory Utilisation was at 600Mb when in high or low texture mode (not sure if that says anything or the Driver Monitor is rubbish :p).

I'm going to add this to my bugs/glitches thread, but I don't know if changing the Shadow settings actually did anything... It didn't even force a restart of the engine, but even if I manually restarted - the shadows of trees (presumably dynamic) looked the same to me!

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:34 am**

Thanks for the benchmark results, John! At 1680x1050 rendering is typically GPU bound on Macs. I can try to optimise shaders but other than that these is not much I can do. The next build 2.2.3 will have an optimization that improves rendering of water reflections (GPU & CPU) -- I made a trick that allows switching the rendering quality setting on the fly, so that water reflections are always rendered with low quality settings. That should help in levels with water. Especially performance in sewers improves quite a bit.

Also, could you try to lower the resolution to something small, e.g. 1024x720 (you probably need to edit grimrock.cfg), and see if the fps values increase, please?

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:45 am**

Wow. You have got nice FPS for that resolution. I am itching for testing OpenGL renderer under Windows if Petri has got plans to port it (I hope so).

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:12 pm**

A couple more benchmarks for you...

1152x720, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), DD (Medium), TR (High), TF (Medium), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Off)

SpoilerShow

Desktop Resolution: 1680 x 1050 (My Default)

start (19,29,0,0,31): 52 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 28.5 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 25 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 33.5 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 37 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 60 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 60 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 60 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

Desktop Resolution: 1440 x 900

start (19,29,0,0,31): 58 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 30 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 26 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 35.5 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 40 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 60 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 60 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 60 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

Note that, with exactly the same game settings, having a different desktop resolution made a difference. I guess this is because you are always rendering to a window (even in fullscreen mode) and the window manager has to compose it all together. I remember reading somewhere that OS X can do certain optimisations in full screen mode if the Backbuffer is the same size as the desktop resolution. With this in mind, I also tried...

1280x800, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), DD (Medium), TR (High), TF (Medium), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Off)

SpoilerShow

Desktop Resolution: 1280 x 800

start (19,29,0,0,31): 53 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 28 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 24 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 32.5 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 38.5 fps

I switched Draw Distance to low in High Rendering mode, which made a good difference in the outside areas like the river (+5 fps or so). BUT, the way the tower comes into view (and you see clouds through the courtyard door for a few squares) at 10, 16, 1, 22 is a bit jarring (expectedly so really, but this means I would probably rather play on Low Rendering mode at a higher resolution than High Rendering mode at low DD and resolution.

Just for giggles, I thought I would try to play in Retina resolution in Low Rendering mode...

2880x1800, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (Low), DD (Medium), TR (High)
NOTE: In order to get the game to run at 2880x1800 I had to use a resolution switcher to change my desktop resolution to 2880x1800 first. If I set the game resolution to this and my desktop was at a lower resolution, the results were horrible, horrible scaling).

SpoilerShow

start (19,29,0,0,31): 55 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 22 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 22 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 37 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 41 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 60 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 60 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 60 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

Funnily enough, the game felt quite playable at 2880x1800 in all but one or two places.

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:44 pm**

I just jumped into Windows to do a quick comparison on the same hardware. Obviously, it's running the older version of Grimrock (the currently released version on Windows).

1680x1050, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), TR (High), TF (Medium), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Medium)

SpoilerShow

start (19,29,0,0,31): 39.5 fps (31 on OSX)
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 21 fps (19 on OSX)
river (2,9,1,0,22): 17 fps (16 on OSX)
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 23.5 fps (20 on OSX)
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 24 fps (26 on OSX)
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 55 fps (48 on OSX)
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 60 fps (50 on OSX)
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 39 fps (38 on OSX)
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps (60 on OSX)
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps (60 on OSX)

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:18 pm**

JohnWordsworth wrote:Hi Petri, some performance numbers from my MBP (H/W details in a previous post - but basically i7, 16GB Ram, 750M 2GB).

Hi John, didn't found the detailed HW post, so may I ask how many cores your i7 has? To understand to what core utilization your percentual CPU load relates.

JohnWordsworth wrote: Performance Benchmarks

SpoilerShow
1680x1050, Fullscreen, VSync (Off), RQ (High), DD (Medium), TR (High), TF (Medium), SQ (Medium), SSAO (Medium)

start (19,29,0,0,31): 31 fps
twigroot (13,29,0,0,19): 19 fps
river (2,9,1,0,22): 16 fps
swamp (1,13,1,0,33): 20 fps
hamlet (14,0,2,0,6): 26 fps
mine (2,19,1,0,16): 48 fps
ruins (5,16,1,0,8): 50 fps
sewer (15,16,2,0,7): 38 fps
tomb (20,12,3,0,3): 60 fps
catacomb (1,28,1,0,14): 60 fps

Hmmm, it seems your FPS are always limited to 60FPS despite Vsync off. What is the value in the cfg of the grimrock internal framerate limiter? Or do you have an external framerate limiter of some kind (forcing vsync in driver)?

Posted: **Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:52 pm**

Ah, my specs were in my Beta feedback thread. Now edited in above so my previous post makes sense. It's a 2.3Ghz Quad Core i7. V-Sync is off and the frame cap in the cfg file is 120. Maybe the Window manager limits it to 60fps?

Grimrock

Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta

Re: Grimrock 2 Mac Steam Beta