dorpond wrote:Hey Trevor, should I abandon the idea of getting those pre 1.2B9 campaigns from working properly
I could make the default the background layer for the wed build. The problem is that anyone who uses drawables and background stamps won't be able to see their drawables either. We can switch it and see how it works out
Just a question...why not put in a choice box when Maptools detects a map from a previous version? Allowing them to choose which layer they want to copy the single layer of drawing to. Then when they save it, it is now 3 layered. This way they can try it out in each layer and decide which is best for them. Once you release the "stable release version" you can get rid of the option.
Phergus wrote:Is anyone else reporting a performance decrease?
And what is odd Phergus is that the older system that I mentioned actually runs the massive campaigns better with 1.2B8 than 1.2b9
So that boggles my mind. It's alomost like we increased the speed in one area of Maptool and decreased the speed in another area. The decrease though is more noticable in the slower system than the faster. *shrug*
I just hope that older systems can still run the newer campaigns well. Many of my players have older laptops during game. (btw, I am still using 1.1 during game)
Does anyone run MT on older systems where they could do some testing? All my systems are more on the powerful end.
Phergus, try that MASSIVE campaign I posted one the first page of this thread. If you could, try it with 1.2B8 and then with 1.2B10 and tell me on which it runs better. Could you do that for me sometime? I'd appreciate it.
Maybe it is stamp related and has nothing to do with the texture draws in this case (or LBL for that matter however I am not using LBL in this campaign file)
(Be warned, all of my stamps are behind the texture draw so it is a lot more advanced campaign file than it looks)
Perhaps I should explain the changes, that will shed some light on the behavior dorpond is seeing.
The idea is simple: cut up the map into square sub images, or chunks. As new chunks become visible, render only the shapes onto the chunk that overlap it. As chunks go out of sight, remove them from memory. This means that the drawables are only rendered once for a chunk that's on screen.
The jerkiness when panning is due to new chunks being rendered. On my test machine (which is middle of the road performance) I tweaked the size of the chunks until the jerkiness was almost unnoticeable. It seems that different machines may need different values.
One thing that I might try is to swap the rendered image out to disk as they go out of view and load them up when they come back in. It boils down to disk IO performance vs rendering performance. I assumed that the rendering performance would trump, but it might be worth investigating.
The zoom will obviously be chunky because it has to render all of the chunks over again. Although as I type this I think I may have an idea about that one too.
dorpond wrote:Hey Trevor, should I abandon the idea of getting those pre 1.2B9 campaigns from working properly
I could make the default the background layer for the wed build. The problem is that anyone who uses drawables and background stamps won't be able to see their drawables either. We can switch it and see how it works out
dorpond wrote:Phergus, try that MASSIVE campaign I posted one the first page of this thread. If you could, try it with 1.2B8 and then with 1.2B10 and tell me on which it runs better. Could you do that for me sometime? I'd appreciate it.
Just did that and it is much, much faster under B10.
Not much more jerky during panning under B8 or B10 than my campaign that is about 1/4 the size. I was running it on a 1400x1050 display.
dorpond wrote:Phergus, try that MASSIVE campaign I posted one the first page of this thread. If you could, try it with 1.2B8 and then with 1.2B10 and tell me on which it runs better. Could you do that for me sometime? I'd appreciate it.
Just did that and it is much, much faster under B10.
Not much more jerky during panning under B8 or B10 than my campaign that is about 1/4 the size. I was running it on a 1400x1050 display.
Was that with your lower end system or your fast one? Hmmm... Strange.
trevor wrote:It could be display size, which means more chunks to render, Dorpond, what res are you running MT at ? (the window size)
Slower PC: 1024X768 (unit that is acting slower with B10 VS. B8)
Faster PC: 1680X1050 (unit that seems to be performing OK)
I don't know; I guess we just wait and see if people running older machines are going to have performance issues - but then again, who in the right mind is going to be using MASSIVE campaigns like I am?
I am curious what you get Trevor when you profile that campaign.
Phergus wrote:I had thought about that and here is a further thought.
What if when the GM client was running stand-alone, ie no clients connected, it defaulted to Background but when running as a server it defaulted to Token layer?
After trying to attempt to draw a new massive map, I found that I agree with you Phergus - I am screwiing myself like crazy because of the default stamp layer that the drawables are at. Then each drawing tool has it's own settings so I have to manually change each tool to background - there has to be a better way.
I could make the current layer stick between tools
I think that would be better. Originally I thought having each tool remember the layer it was last used on was a good idea but then I realized that even if you are drawing with different tools it is probably going to be all on the same layer.
