2022-11-03 snapshot (updated 2022-11-24)

Post anything about MX Simulator here. Please. I'm begging you.
sethypeety
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:51 pm
Team: SpitFire Aprilia
Location: in your face
Contact:

Re: 2022-11-03 snapshot (updated 2022-11-24)

Post by sethypeety »

Thank you for fixing the lean indicator :D :D

I do have a question about the 4097x4097 tracks. The new update unfortunately makes the editor unusable for me, when I try to move/place a decal the game freezes for a few seconds (usually 2-5 seconds), and when I try to use/move a gradient it does the same thing. I decided to try the track on an old update (the 1-14-22 snapshot) and the track worked, it played fine, the editor had no problems and the game never did anything weird while I was working on the track. I checked to make sure the terrain was still 4097x4097 and it was. Was I always able to use terrain maps this big? If so what is the advantage to updating the way the texture rendering is handled?
Image
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14913
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: 2022-11-03 snapshot (updated 2022-11-24)

Post by jlv »

sethypeety wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 3:31 am Thank you for fixing the lean indicator :D :D

I do have a question about the 4097x4097 tracks. The new update unfortunately makes the editor unusable for me, when I try to move/place a decal the game freezes for a few seconds (usually 2-5 seconds), and when I try to use/move a gradient it does the same thing. I decided to try the track on an old update (the 1-14-22 snapshot) and the track worked, it played fine, the editor had no problems and the game never did anything weird while I was working on the track. I checked to make sure the terrain was still 4097x4097 and it was. Was I always able to use terrain maps this big? If so what is the advantage to updating the way the texture rendering is handled?
It wastes a lot of memory the old way, but not *that* badly actually. The old way had 6 levels of textures (each level being a 4x4 array of textures) and the 7th (the lowest level) covered the entire field (a 64x64 array of textures for a 4097x4097 track). At 256x256 it'd use around 2.4 GB for the lowest detail level on a 4097x4097 track. With the 64 bit build and a 4 GB graphics card, I can see how it'd work despite being so wasteful.

Regardless of that, I need it to use bigger textures so I can draw the terrain in larger batches of vertices for better overall speed. It's also going to be better for adding decals on the fly. The new way I'll just have to draw the decal on 9 textures (3 levels for color, norm and spec). The old way there were thousands of textures for a 4097x4097 track, so adding a decal would be a mess.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
sethypeety
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:51 pm
Team: SpitFire Aprilia
Location: in your face
Contact:

Re: 2022-11-03 snapshot (updated 2022-11-24)

Post by sethypeety »

jlv wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 2:13 am
Wow okay, after seeing that I decided to see how big the difference was for myself. On the old snapshot it used 3.9 GB of memory, the new one it only used 667MB. Not sure how I didn't catch that to begin with but thanks for letting me know.
Image
Post Reply