Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fixes getViewDistance #3207

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Oct 31, 2021
Merged

fixes getViewDistance #3207

merged 10 commits into from
Oct 31, 2021

Conversation

bosvensson1
Copy link
Contributor

I have been informed by @akortunov that my addition of Groundcover::getViewDistance is not working in some cases. Investigations revealed that some ViewData code interacting with my additions had been quite thoroughly optimised in a way that was not sufficiently documented and interfered with the new feature. With this PR we repair getViewDistance while preserving such optimisations and add a necessary comment to avoid issues in the future. In addition, we now rebuild views when the global mViewDistance changes.

@psi29a psi29a merged commit d88d006 into OpenMW:master Oct 31, 2021
@akortunov
Copy link
Collaborator

akortunov commented Nov 1, 2021

This PR seems to degrade performance a lot when groundcover is used. I have a scene where I get an FPS drop from 75 to 35 due to twice larger GPU usage.

https://imgsli.com/Nzk3MjQ

An issue ticket on our bugtracker: #6377

@psi29a
Copy link
Member

psi29a commented Nov 1, 2021

This is an incredible hit to performance, it needs to be fixed rather sooner than later. Otherwise I'm going to have to revert his @bosvensson1 . :(

Any ideas?

@bosvensson1
Copy link
Contributor Author

I will have to rethink getViewDistance approach here and it will take some time in light of other work that has accumulated. If we prefer pop in issues over such a performance hit I suppose we can revert this PR in the meantime.

@akortunov
Copy link
Collaborator

Personally I perefer 0.47 behaviour (no performance hit and no pop-ins). A behaviour prior to #3126 seemed to work as well.

@bosvensson1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Unquestionably, yes. Regretfully the 0.47 behaviour negatively impacted the behaviour of several non groundcover features.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants