|
Post by commended on Apr 8, 2016 8:40:35 GMT
OK, I decided to mess around with an intensive compiled project to see if I could reduce frame rate drops and it worked, I found my self getting about 10-15fps performance increase only to a very slight un-noticeable physics tweak. All you need to do is open your compiled project and delete two files.
PhysXLoader.dll + PhysXDevice.dll Enjoy your performance boost!
|
|
|
Post by BorekS on Apr 8, 2016 10:42:47 GMT
well, not sure hows your system config, but removing such files caused error message and want run the game, at my PC... not unawaitable event, indeed could be your mentioned dlls are also stored in a windows system folder or just elsewhere on a system path, then I would get this solution could work. but not all game players have 3drad installed, also not the current PhysX or DirectX stuff. also I would recommend to all 3drad game makers test his stuff (the compilled projects) at PC machines which are 3drad unkissed.
|
|
|
Post by commended on Apr 9, 2016 7:24:02 GMT
well, not sure hows your system config, but removing such files caused error message and want run the game, at my PC... not unawaitable event, indeed could be your mentioned dlls are also stored in a windows system folder or just elsewhere on a system path, then I would get this solution could work. but not all game players have 3drad installed, also not the current PhysX or DirectX stuff. also I would recommend to all 3drad game makers test his stuff (the compilled projects) at PC machines which are 3drad unkissed. I don't know, it worked for me. Did you definitely delete the files from the COMPILED project??
|
|
|
Post by TinSoldier on Apr 10, 2016 6:21:11 GMT
I have to side with BorekS on this.. before you claim this as a tweak for everybody, you have to put together a demo project. In this project include every object 3drad has, you don't have to do anything special with them, just make sure the project doesn't crash and uses all default objects for the rigidbody and skinmesh etc. compile the project and then test it on a computer that doesn't have 3drad installed... Then report back, you may need to test a few systems cause some may or may not have the required libraries for other installed programs. Then... you're still removing things that Fernando put there for a reason, and claiming its a major speed boost to remove them.. Your basically saying they aren't needed... ummmmmm do you really think fernando would do that ?
|
|
|
Post by indiedev on May 7, 2016 4:52:29 GMT
OK, I decided to mess around with an intensive compiled project to see if I could reduce frame rate drops and it worked, I found my self getting about 10-15fps performance increase only to a very slight un-noticeable physics tweak. All you need to do is open your compiled project and delete two files. PhysXLoader.dll + PhysXDevice.dll Enjoy your performance boost! i posted elswhere on this issue, but i assume all that will do is disable hardware PhysX and force it to software instead? this can be done in Nvidia panel switching physX to cpu, or by disabling cuda in 3d settings. try that to see if it has same affect. i'd be very surprised if you are using an amd card, as they don't have hardware physX...
|
|
|
Post by indiedev on May 7, 2016 8:58:24 GMT
....actually, after some testing, it's not forcing software physX if installed elsewhere, and it is safe to delete those files as they are optional in compiler checkbox 'Include third-party runtimes'. without them it will just use the installed versions in 'C:\Program Files\NVIDIA Corporation\PhysX\Common' and if that's not installed they'll get the missing dll error - every gamer should have it though.
so it seems the issue is 3drad has outdated/laggy dlls while your installed versions are better, maybe you can try replacing the compiled dlls with the newer ones for the same effect?
i may be doing that myself as i think it's better to force permanent, stable dlls rather than various user versions causing issues beyond our control....then again different hardware may work better with different software versions, so maybe it is better to leave the dlls deleted and rely on user versions? better yet would be avoiding hard/soft conficts all together and turning hardware physx off without requiring users to do so. if you delete/rename just PhysXDevice.dll it can force soft mode but ONLY if physx is not installed elsewhere, it will also run without the 'missing dll' error as PhysXLoader.dll is the only one needed.
great find commended, i like the way you think outside the box, as we need every hack we can get to make 3drad optimal.
edit: i prefer the idea of replacing the 2 internal dlls with updated versions rather than deleting them and it does work.
|
|
|
Post by indiedev on May 8, 2016 4:50:39 GMT
.....ok, so i came up with a way for enable users to have control of this for troubleshooting/performance tweaking, but since it's a final stage issue i won't be doing it for 2-3yrs assuming i even get that far, but here's the theory: -no force software possible as drivers usually elsewhere -make a folder with both dlls in for copying -in games main menu, press a key to exitfade to a screen that will be text [with no physics to avoid 'in use' dlls] press: 1 to enable internal physx [tested drivers -either 3drad original or updated versions, whichever works best ] 2 to enable external physx [system drivers which may or may not be better, depending on setup -older or newer driver/hardware] 1=if bool iFileExists(string) both dlls, else iFileCopy(string,string) 2=if bool iFileExists iFileDelete(string) both dlls edited update:1 or 2=exit game and restart [to reload dlls as they are loaded/closed at the 'display options' screen right at startup - as seen in process monitor] ...if anyone gets this working please post here, as it's something that can benefit the discontinued engine.
|
|
|
Post by commended on May 8, 2016 13:02:59 GMT
.....ok, so i came up with a way for enable users to have control of this for troubleshooting/performance tweaking, but since it's a final stage issue i won't be doing it for 2-3yrs assuming i even get that far, but here's the theory: -no force software possible as drivers usually elsewhere -make a folder with both dlls in for copying -in games main menu, press a key to exitfade to a screen that will be text [with no physics to avoid 'in use' dlls] press: 1 to enable internal physx [tested drivers -either 3drad original or updated versions, whichever works best ] 2 to enable external physx [system drivers which may or may not be better, depending on setup -older or newer driver/hardware] 1=if bool iFileExists(string) both dlls, else iFileCopy(string,string) 2=if bool iFileExists iFileDelete(string) both dlls edited update:1 or 2=exit game and restart [to reload dlls as they are loaded/closed at the 'display options' screen right at startup - as seen in process monitor] ...if anyone gets this working please post here, as it's something that can benefit the discontinued engine. Thanks for the input, you've figured out more than I have on my own tutorial. Thanks alot!
|
|
|
Post by indiedev on May 9, 2016 10:42:41 GMT
no worries, can you confirm you get the same boost if you delete just the physxdevice.dll and what gfx card you have? if your still curious, a 2nd test would be to delete only physxloader.dll and see how it goes without the updated device dll.
i suspect device.dll is the key file for your boost as 3drad's dll is from 2010 and supports only gt6000-400, - while the latest 2015 dll [PhysX v9.15.0428] supports gt9000-900, so i'm sure must be above gt400 we can even use this dll in the editor by replacing it in 3drad root folder, this way it will be included in all compiles too, saving us from forgetting to replace it each time.
conversely, the physxloader.dll can NOT be replaced for rad editor as it crashes on start suggesting a possible version dependency or conflict which doesn't seem to affect the rad player [that we know of yet]. rad dll is v2.8.3.4, whereas latest 2.8.3.9 has been standard for the last 2-3 years or so.
i'm all for keeping 3drad/our games updated to support new devices, but due to above issue i'm not sure about loader dll, so if you can let us know if it is really needed for the boost that'd be great.
|
|
|
Post by commended on May 10, 2016 16:14:39 GMT
no worries, can you confirm you get the same boost if you delete just the physxdevice.dll and what gfx card you have? if your still curious, a 2nd test would be to delete only physxloader.dll and see how it goes without the updated device dll. i suspect device.dll is the key file for your boost as 3drad's dll is from 2010 and supports only gt6000-400, - while the latest 2015 dll [PhysX v9.15.0428] supports gt9000-900, so i'm sure must be above gt400 we can even use this dll in the editor by replacing it in 3drad root folder, this way it will be included in all compiles too, saving us from forgetting to replace it each time. conversely, the physxloader.dll can NOT be replaced for rad editor as it crashes on start suggesting a possible version dependency or conflict which doesn't seem to affect the rad player [that we know of yet]. rad dll is v2.8.3.4, whereas latest 2.8.3.9 has been standard for the last 2-3 years or so. i'm all for keeping 3drad/our games updated to support new devices, but due to above issue i'm not sure about loader dll, so if you can let us know if it is really needed for the boost that'd be great. I currently have a gt 610 however in a few months I will be purchasing a new pc with a gtx 970 SC
|
|
|
Post by indiedev on May 11, 2016 10:00:47 GMT
what about loader.dll -do we really need to delete it as well or do you get the same boost just deleting device.dll? i can't test this on my rig as so far it runs full 60fps at 1080p.
|
|
|
Post by commended on May 14, 2016 16:30:35 GMT
what about loader.dll -do we really need to delete it as well or do you get the same boost just deleting device.dll? i can't test this on my rig as so far it runs full 60fps at 1080p. I can't try yet since I am not with my PC (I'm using my chipset laptop and it couldn't open anything no matter what).
|
|
|
Post by indiedev on May 16, 2016 13:07:18 GMT
what chip is that? it should run even on intel HD unless it's ancient [winXP] not that i want u to test this on it, i just think u should be working on your game even when away only 2 installs needed to run rad is: DirectX End-User Runtimes (June 2010) Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) ...oh, and i think your gtx970 upgrade is overkill for rad, so unless you plan on using VR with it, don't bother as a gt950 will smash your gt620 to peices.
|
|
|
Post by commended on May 19, 2016 17:32:52 GMT
what chip is that? it should run even on intel HD unless it's ancient [winXP] not that i want u to test this on it, i just think u should be working on your game even when away only 2 installs needed to run rad is: DirectX End-User Runtimes (June 2010) Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) ...oh, and i think your gtx970 upgrade is overkill for rad, so unless you plan on using VR with it, don't bother as a gt950 will smash your gt620 to peices. I'm not using it just for 3d rad, I will play games aswell, also I have a family chipset. I know I can run it, I was exaggerating but I wouldn't consider it bearable personally.
|
|