Stupid things in the source files..

[ShadowDragon]

I just now decided to deal with something that I simply hadn't gotten around to yet and found that the answer was amazingly simple.

If you've ever seen either of the following errors, then I'm sure you were annoyed by what it's saying:

1. Due to insufficient texture memory, the quality of the texture will be lowered.
2. Due to insufficient texture memory, the shadow function will not be applied.

The function that checks your video memory returns a UINT type, but the value is stored in an INT variable before it checks things with it. The actual value is getting chopped down to the max size of an INT. Simply changing the variable to UINT type has fixed it.

Can you believe how amazingly simple that problem is? You'd think the coders that can create such complicated coding in the rest of the source could fix such a simple problem.

Discuss: What other stupid things have you seen in the source files?

 

[Xakzi]

xuzhu.h

#ifndef __XUZHU_H__
#define __XUZHU_H__

#ifndef SUCCESS
#define SUCCESS 1
#endif
#define FAIL -1

#ifdef __XUZHU
extern float _g_fReg[];
#endif


#endif


Like a boss haha

 

[MisterKid]

lol omg i tought my video card was failing... Since the shadow movement in LoL is failing here xD well ty .

1 more stupid thing.
The for loops?

 

[Max98]

Hmmm
I saw that the bloom is bugged
i enabled it from the source but it don't looks good in game

 

[cKenzy]

force__kill

 

[ShadowDragon]

force__kill

ah, good point lol it's like they put that in there, expecting somebody to steal it somehow.

 

[GlaphanKing]

the overall graphics engine is horribly written. I get between 25-30fps and thats on the lowest setting. Trust me when I say its not the machine, its the game. Call me crazy but shouldn't it run at 60?

 

[Mootie]

the overall graphics engine is horribly written. I get between 25-30fps and thats on the lowest setting. Trust me when I say its not the machine, its the game. Call me crazy but shouldn't it run at 60?

Idk, it's not amazing but its not horrid either. I get 50-60fps average on a laptop(1gb ram duo core) that's 3 years old even in populated areas.

 

[xHeinrich]

the overall graphics engine is horribly written. I get between 25-30fps and thats on the lowest setting. Trust me when I say its not the machine, its the game. Call me crazy but shouldn't it run at 60?

Its definitely your machine, I get 62fps running 3 clients Max graphics on a crappy quad core PC

 

[GlaphanKing]

got an 8gb ram, quad 2.8 with a beast of an ati card. Anyway, I think the code was there once to make it look pretty, i.e. blur, bloom, whatever, but as usual was abandoned.

btw, this whole Oct-Tree over Quad Tree is bull. I've seen things look 100x better using quads than octs.

bottomline, the lod, the lighting, and shaders systems need a rewrite.

 

[MisterKid]

... 4gb ram ati radeon hd 5750M intel i5( quad core)60fps.
and my old pentium 4 computer runned flyff at 37 fps .... 1gb ram..

 

[Adler]

I get about 62.51 FPS on a hex core 4.1 ghz CPU on dual AMD Radeon 6990 CFX on any map with maxed settings and object/terrain range modded. Apparently it won't go higher than 63 FPS no matter what map I'm on, even GM island. It doesn't need to anyways. The human eye can only see 60 FPS and below, anything above that and you can't tell the difference. On my crappy laptop I get around the 45 FPS.

 

[MisterKid]

wasnt it 30 and below.
Just a few people can see above 30 fps.

 

[ShadowDragon]

I thought it was 30 FPS, cause I'm pretty sure I saw something in the source limiting it.

I guess not though, cause I'm logged into my server right now. Got 30 people logged in, most of them near me and it's raining. I'm getting 35-50 FPS

 

[GlaphanKing]

would be nice to get a well rounded engine such as Irrlicht or the Ogre engine built into this. That way tweaking it wouldn't be that hard to do and you get good, smooth fps.

 

[ShadowDragon]

I'd love to do something like that, but as I currently have no knowledge related to creating my own 3D game, I can't yet xD

 

[Mootie]

would be nice to get a well rounded engine such as Irrlicht or the Ogre engine built into this. That way tweaking it wouldn't be that hard to do and you get good, smooth fps.

It's not that hard to "tweak" even without adding some crappy open source engine into it lol. I've already improved details of the DX implementation and added anti-aliasing support.

 

[funkynicco]

There's nothing wrong with the graphics engine.
The reason it's slow, is because flyff was designed back when end users most likely did not have dualcore, infact, I myself got my first dualcore in 2007 I think.
And by that reason, the engine was designed to be everything in one thread, which works fine if the game was what it was back in 2003. But now they keep adding improvements that takes longer time to execute on that single thread (or core) which is causing lower FPS due the huge amount of pre-calculations before rendering it on screen.
A game designed for dualcore's or higher, should have atleast 2 threads, which one updates the game content, and the other thread renders it. That's how XNA is built up as from the moment you make a project in it.
Flyff is also based on microsoft's directx class which was made even earlyer than 2003, which is by far designed to be compatible with more than one cores.

Generally the code is not that bad for a game designed for 2003, but their addons on to the game slows it down a lot. If you want less lagg, you should seek into diving it into several threads instead of doing everything in one thread, but that would mean you would need to spend perhaps years recoding the client, and perhaps instead of simple doing that, it would just be easyer completely making the client in a new project (if you really know what your doing, that is).

 

[GlaphanKing]

I've said this before about the code being outdated. Since 6/8 people have a dual core or higher, there should be at least 2 threads going. What you put on those threads is entirely up to the coder.

Also you would think that the GPU would handle graphics and I was told by a few people that it isn't so. Perhaps I'm wrong but if this is true that the CPU handles graphics, it would make a whole lot of sense to move that to GPU as it should be intended.

Also it uses DX9 which is good for many games from early 2000 to now. XNA uses DX9 as does Unity. Both work well with graphics, but since DX11 is out and 12 is on the way, it would make sense to upgrade it. Compared to DX9, 11 handles graphics a little better. I remember seeing a test somewhere on the net that proved this.

There are a number of "improvements" that could be done to the client. And for the record, those two engines I mentioned are not crappy. They are both powerful and one even is close to being up there with the Source engine. Just because its open source does not mean it should be branded crap.

 

[MisterKid]

I've said this before about the code being outdated. Since 6/8 people have a dual core or higher, there should be at least 2 threads going. What you put on those threads is entirely up to the coder.

Also you would think that the GPU would handle graphics and I was told by a few people that it isn't so. Perhaps I'm wrong but if this is true that the CPU handles graphics, it would make a whole lot of sense to move that to GPU as it should be intended.

Also it uses DX9 which is good for many games from early 2000 to now. XNA uses DX9 as does Unity. Both work well with graphics, but since DX11 is out and 12 is on the way, it would make sense to upgrade it. Compared to DX9, 11 handles graphics a little better. I remember seeing a test somewhere on the net that proved this.

There are a number of "improvements" that could be done to the client. And for the record, those two engines I mentioned are not crappy. They are both powerful and one even is close to being up there with the Source engine. Just because its open source does not mean it should be branded crap.

dude if cpu/ram handles graphic then noone will be able to run flyff ? If they do then their gods lol