| 00:00.15 | Zehra | How would quality changes affect performance on the Pi? |
| 00:00.26 | blast007 | doesn't change much |
| 00:03.41 | Zehra | Could you provide a bit of an overview on reducing MaxFrameTime vs removing performance checks? |
| 00:05.04 | Zehra | I'm not familiar with the precise effects of both of them. |
| 00:06.35 | blast007 | MaxFrameTime currently is set to 0.05 seconds, or about 20 FPS. So the game generates a scene (which consists of just a single wall to look at, so... VERY basic) to test performance of with various graphics settings. |
| 00:07.11 | blast007 | if it can draw a frame with whatever settings in less than MaxFrameTime seconds, it will keep those settings |
| 00:07.55 | blast007 | if not, it turns some stuff off/down and tries drawing another frame, until it draws a frame quick enough or it goes to the lowest settings |
| 00:08.02 | blast007 | or it gets to* |
| 00:08.06 | *** join/#bzflag ahs3- (~ahs3@cpe-2606-A000-1101-54D-398F-D047-3302-2568.dyn6.twc.com) |
| 00:18.09 | Zehra | The purpose is similar, although the way the work and the direction they lead towards is very different. |
| 00:19.11 | Zehra | The first option seems like a gradual increase, the appears to be more rapid, in terms of increasing the performance. |
| 00:19.27 | Zehra | requirements.* |
| 00:21.13 | Zehra | I'm thinking this will depend a lot on the future plans and requirements for BZ. |
| 00:22.32 | blast007 | "the appears to be more rapid" <-- not sure I understand that part |
| 00:23.18 | blast007 | if we just always use "modern" settings, they could turn down the settings themselves |
| 00:25.04 | Zehra | I was slightly concerned about that factor, if it were going to be removed, in which settings could not be set. |
| 00:25.38 | Zehra | In terms of appearing to be more rapid, it kind of seems to me, and I'm making an assumption here. |
| 00:26.35 | blast007 | not sure what you mean |
| 00:26.40 | Zehra | That the goal would be to increase the targeting/support to more modern platforms, since previously much older and even dated platforms have been supported.... |
| 00:26.44 | blast007 | I'm not removing settings |
| 00:28.08 | blast007 | my wording above was probably misleading. I mean that instead of doing a performance check, it just always pick the "modern" settings from the start |
| 00:28.28 | blast007 | the user could still go in and adjust the same settings |
| 00:29.37 | Zehra | I probably should have reworded my phrasing a bit better and asked about it too... |
| 00:30.15 | Zehra | Will there be any changes in terms of platforms/requirements which will be changing? |
| 00:31.36 | blast007 | no |
| 00:32.09 | blast007 | I'm specifically talking about the first-time run of the game where, currently, it does a really basic performance check to try to figure out what graphics settings to use |
| 00:34.46 | Zehra | I'm probably going to sound stupid with this, since for me this seems to indicate a bit of the future plans of the game, in terms of requirements/platforms and how it will be handled... since it was only until quite recently where Windows XP support was dropped.... |
| 00:35.14 | Zehra | If much older platforms are going to dropped faster, maybe the second option would be best. |
| 00:35.26 | blast007 | it also seems flawed since a Pi 2 *without* the desktop OpenGL driver loaded only turned shadows down one level and was okay with the settings, even though it was getting like 0.2 FPS in the menu after that :P |
| 00:36.53 | Zehra | That logic feels weird. :s |
| 00:38.11 | blast007 | yeah, it's not a good set of tests :) |
| 00:38.22 | blast007 | it's SUPER old logic from the days of software rendering |
| 00:39.47 | Zehra | hehe, it actually reminds me a lot of a museum in a ways. |
| 00:40.59 | Zehra | Both new and old at the same time. |
| 00:42.10 | blast007 | the performance check actually pre-dates the open-source version of the game, so it's over 19 years old. :) |
| 00:46.19 | Zehra | It probably is one of the oldest lines of code within the game. |
| 00:46.49 | Zehra | Quick question, is Windows Vista support planning to be dropped? |
| 00:47.01 | Zehra | planned* |
| 00:48.13 | blast007 | it's not something that gets tested |
| 00:48.42 | blast007 | so, it may work, but it's not actively "supported" |
| 00:49.54 | Zehra | Ah okay. |
| 00:50.35 | Zehra | Would be good if it did, at least in the install scripts if possible, thus outdated platforms would not be able to install the game. |
| 00:51.09 | blast007 | Windows Vista has not had support by Microsoft for a good while |
| 00:52.38 | blast007 | "Support for Google Chrome on Windows XP and Windows Vista ended in April 2016." |
| 00:53.28 | Zehra | "Extended support ended on April 11, 2017" -Microsoft on Windows Vista |
| 00:53.37 | blast007 | "In April 2017, users of Firefox 52.0.2 on Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 who had automatic updates enabled were migrated to Firefox 52 ESR. The support was projected to end for these operating systems with the last release in June 2018." |
| 00:53.59 | blast007 | so, Vista's a dead platform |
| 00:54.18 | blast007 | Windows 7's extended support ends the beginning of 2020 |
| 00:57.34 | Zehra | Might be a good idea for security to keep BZ running only on supported versions. |
| 00:58.48 | Zehra | Isn't there a time activated function or feature within BZ? |
| 00:59.14 | Zehra | I think I remember seeing the source for it or it might have been another game. |
| 00:59.48 | blast007 | there is a timebomb feature that should just get removed |
| 01:00.49 | Zehra | Would a pull request for that be accepted? |
| 01:02.27 | blast007 | sure |
| 01:03.27 | blast007 | also, regarding that server-side player thing - that was fixed in master. I haven't yet decided if I'd backport the fix or just leave it how it is in 2.4, given that SSPs can't really do much in 2.4 |
| 01:05.39 | Zehra | If left, a slight note on it would be good. |
| 01:07.42 | Zehra | Additionally, I don't think anyone is running anything with server-side-players these days. |
| 01:08.22 | blast007 | the only instance I know of is bzfscron |
| 01:11.11 | Zehra | I haven't seen anyone use bzfscron these days, from what I'm aware of. |
| 06:14.59 | macsforme | I don't think it's a good test... I say nuke it for now |
| 06:17.36 | macsforme | in the future, if we have more intensive graphical effects, we could redo it with a more relevant test scene... maybe like one frame out of a big tournament recording, where there is plenty going on |
| 08:16.43 | *** join/#bzflag fanta7531 (~fanta7531@p200300F76BC1C600496FF34863C458E9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 10:18.54 | blast007 | k |
| 14:44.15 | *** join/#bzflag fanta7531 (~fanta7531@p200300F76BC1C600496FF34863C458E9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 16:17.01 | *** join/#bzflag fanta7531 (~fanta7531@p200300F76BC1C600496FF34863C458E9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 18:36.49 | *** join/#bzflag Peridot (~Peridot@47.185.225.32) |
| 21:57.32 | *** join/#bzflag Peridot1 (~Peridot@47.185.225.32) |
| 22:24.39 | *** join/#bzflag Peridot (~Peridot@47.185.225.32) |
| 22:40.34 | *** join/#bzflag Peridot1 (~Peridot@47.185.225.32) |
| 22:44.49 | *** join/#bzflag Sgeo_ (~Sgeo@ool-18b98dd9.dyn.optonline.net) |
| 22:47.24 | *** join/#bzflag Peridot (~Peridot@47.185.225.32) |
| 23:01.19 | *** join/#bzflag Peridot1 (~Peridot@47.185.225.32) |
| 23:57.58 | *** join/#bzflag disco- (~disco@unaffiliated/disco-) |