This is what i get with game guru..... and lots of demos from GG runs at 12 fps....

my Desktop PC:

Motherboard Manufacturer MSI Model MS-7A59
Total amount of system memory 8,00 GB RAM DDR4 2666 ghz
System type 64-bit operating system WIN 7 ULTIMAGE 64 BITS
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20 GHz Number of processor cores 4
SAPPHIRE AMD Radeon R7 250 Series 2 gB DDR3

please STOP telling me its my graphic card, i know its a small video card but in others game engines, it works like a charm even with UE4 who is really heavy and S2ENGINE HD, so with a new machine now, i still CAN'T develop something with GG....

haven't you already mentioned this before, not sure what you want us to do.........have you tried even to put everything down to low settings and gradually move up until you get the 12 fps. or are you getting 12 fps with lower settings?

it's probably your graphics card.....just kidding... I have no idea. Try lowering your windows settings , a lot of people just set everything on high these days and expect their pc's to run fast...... ridiculous.......

Sorry that's the mood I'm in..

good luck....

I'm having a great day

i just load the levels demos from GG who are suposed to work fine, i change nothing and i don't put the windows seting at HIGH, here i reach maximum 18fps...when i start walking in the level the game goes lower than 12fps....

I think that's at least one of the problems and that's the fact you haven't changed anything......
everyone has different PC specs, some fast, some medium and some incredibly slow.....
If I were you I would inspect the .ini file and change some of the settings there...... and also play around with the setting.FX file in effectbank, maybe turn some options off where possible.

The thing is, people won't stop telling you it's your graphics card, because it is your graphics card, the 250 benchmarks in the low 2000's, that is very close to the minimum needed to run GameGuru, you don't have a bad card for gaming, but for GameGuru it's just not powerful enough to get much more than you are getting.

You can't compare it to playing other games or game making software, every piece of software has different requirements, the requirements are higher than most for GameGuru, that's will be tweaked, changed and improved over time, and there may be a performance boost once Lee has finished the DX11 port, but don't expect it to change so much that the 250 will perform much better than it is. The biggest change you can make is to adjust the test level settings, you should be able to double your FPS by knocking everything down to medium and tweaking things like shadows, water detail, viewing distance, bloom, SAO etc.

One thing people don't seem to understand, is newer does not equal better, for example the 7950 is a 5 year old card, and it benchmarks twice as high as the R7 250 which is a 2 year old card. This is why I'm constantly stating that instead of min/recommended specs, companies need to provide min/recommended benchmarks as well.

yes, Belidos is correct as GG is a development tool and not a game, there are lots of debug stuff going on inside the engine most likely that will slow stuff down. If your graphics card is not above 2500 passmark, it won't cope. So all in all it's most likely your graphics card..... take that from someone who has 36 years experience with computers.

Well I have 40 years experience! Have you tried using C60 tapes, I find the C90s tend to stretch and become unreliable.

It's your card.

Have you done what Lee asked when you raised this in another thread - to pass him your super fast unreal project so he can compare? If you are up for helping him to optimise then please do. It will help us all.

If not then constantly raising the same problem you are having will get the same response. There's not much other users can do other than what has already been suggested - you have a direct line to the developer who has offered to help but you need to give him something to work with.

If you are just ranting to get it off your chest then perhaps we need another board for these type of threads . I get as frustrated as everyone else from time to time but just splurging that on the rest of the users is not helpful really.

Cheers.

i can't write on the other post its locked, so i sended an url by pm to Lee, the projects i loaded in UE4, are default projects, free, who come with tons of fx, tried yesterday and thoose projects are very fluid & fast to load.
what i would like is to achieve, create a game with GG, import export in X format works perfectly, but GG need to be improved a lot at this time.

Try the "#define LAPTOP" option in "\files\effectbank\reloaded\settings.fx" if you enable this option by removing the "\\" infront of that line (using a text editor), it could nearly double your FPS without removing to many visuals. Give it a try, and let us know your new FPS

Remember to restart GG after this change.

it changed everything, now the demos run almost at 40fps, but no more shadows....

try changing your desktop resolution down and try again.

Sorry about that , I still consider this option as WIP, but to get the shadows and still the nice FPS boost do this:

Near the bottom of the text file locate these 3 lines:


And change them to:



Sorry about that , from the next release i will get it working without the need for this extra step

That's why you need chrome tapes ;p

As far as speed goes, yes GG is well down from the likes of Unreal Studio, it's also a lot easier to use than Unreal, hopefully the new DX11 update will help somewhat, but I imagine you will still need a fairly beefy video card to run anything GG. The fact is, whenever you take a shortcut to make games (an editor style package like GG ), you will end up with something not as fast or polished as one coded specifically. It's always been that way and until computers are so fast that programming language makes no odds, it will always be so. Just be glad it's 2017 and you have better options than back when I started, such as Pazzaz. The worst game making utility I have ever used. Back then you really had no chance of making much of a game without serious programming.


This is the C64 version, the Spectrum one was even worse due to it's hardware. I tell you, when I got hold of this after reading the amazing description of it, I was very, very disappointed. Oh, and yes all you could do was make rubbish dance anims...

Chrome tapes, I had those

Yes, back in the day I remember progging my Vic-20 (ugh thumbs down to the C64 ha) and using graph paper to map out my graphics and then using the useful POKE command alongside DATA statements to create my 8x8 characters and some even larger. And then saving to tape and loading back from tape and taking 3 hrs to load in 16k of data

We have it so easy now, thanks goodness (I think)...... there will come a time when kids will get bored with 3D and go back to 2D (or has that already happened? )

Yeah, tapes were cool, but slow. I remember overwriting a load screen I had spent a week on drawing out with plot and draw commands by mistake. A Transformers game I believe. Never got any further than having a version of Optimus Prime running around and changing from robot to truck and back though. The load screen overwrite was a big factor

ah yes the load screen overwrite, is all flooding back now. I actually remember the tape machine not loading my program from tape that had taken ages to write and spending hrs actually physically cleaning the tape ha and with a pencil to roll the tape around (or something like that(.... what a loser

Sorry gone off topic......

OMG! a lot of older on board, I began with Programma 101 LOL
Just kidding guys, but I've the chance to start with commodore, but I was young and thinking in another thinks, my fault.

3com

I find this the #1 problem in retail(I work in retail). People do not do the research before they buy the product then complain when it doesn't work the way they thought it would. 100% its your graphics card next time you buy a graphics card or anything else over $100, research it to make sure you are getting what is best for you and your needs.

I did check out the free Unreal demos to see if I could do a side by side comparison but the ones I tried are very much geared to show off optimized art and a limited in-demo functionality (in fact one of them has been tuned to run from a Metal API based mobile device). What I would ideally need is a standalone executable created from a user's Unreal game they have made to do a good side by side comparison with a GameGuru standalone executable. What I mostly get in this area are general comments about performance and then get something like Battlefield 4 thrown at me for comparison I think we can all agree I am not competing with a 100 strong team of AAA coders and artists with unlimited budgets and three years to focus purely on the optimization.

The good news is that the DirectX 11 port is going well and in some areas will reduce the draw calls by half, meaning it will run better on lower-end graphics cards like the R7 240-260 range (and to some degree integrated mobile GPUs too). I also have my sights on a faster way to do shadows so performance is my primary goal for the first beta of the current dev work. Naturally visuals will follow, but there have been enough reports on performance matters to justify this focus and hopefully, it will bring more users into the tolerable 25-30fps speed range on most systems out there.

@ Lee, will dx11 version also reduce the loading times ?

Lee are you going also to optimize the speed of the occlusion lightmapper?

Yes, some of the DX9 shaders take 7-seconds+ to load and compile. The new DX11 shaders load and compile instantly, so already seeing much faster loading of GameGuru (and standalone executables will share this benefit). Still need to see what the extra texture for PBR does to load times, but I think you will be happy we moved to DX11.

There are no plans to optimize the light mapper for the next major update, as the general request for better visuals and more performance tend to point towards modern AAA techniques (i.e. real-time dynamic shadows and pre-generated light probes) which suggest light baking may become a thing of the past once we find our feet with the newer graphics techniques. The light mapper already uses multi-core processing to generate the light maps, but we might look at ways in which a third party light mapper can be attached to the import features of GameGuru, this way you can use something a little more industry standard instead of our somewhat antiquated DarkLIGHTS module.

I could provide the prototype from Antinomy created in GameGuru (I guess you have that oen already) and the latest one from Unreal 4 using almsot the same assets as soon as I have fast itnernet here down under.

However, Spoiler alert: Unreal looks nicer but doesn't run significantly faster on our dev machines.

For the first time ever, I'm actually getting 600 FPS when looking at an empty map's sky. 680 FPS with low settings.

Game Guru has come a LONG way since its early days. Its very exciting. I think really focusing on optimizing techniques will help a lot from a game developers' perspective and role. Things like LODs and culling and trying to avoid cluttering areas with active AI.

It should be noted as Game Guru is a game engine and not a video game itself. So with all rigs intended for developing games it is wise to get a high end video card. A mid range card for testing your standalones to see what the user-experience is like.

@Ertlov : If you can send me both GG and UR standalone, that would be awesome! When I tried UR a few years ago for performance comparison, it crawled along at a few FPS with the low-end card I had at the time. I imagine they must have improved the low-end support by now - would be good to see a 2017 side by side compare (and also set some targets on the visual side too).