Surprisingly I couldn't find any meaty info about this, so here I am.
I understand that 1 unit in the editor = 1 meter, but does large worlds affect performance? I mean, they obviously do in sandbox games and other games packed with content. But what if it's mostly empty? My current project is a 2D Gravity Wars clone game with moving planets. Should I make it as small and condensed as possible, or is there room to scale things up?
Basically, do large distances in a mostly empty world affect in-game performance?
Simple answer ... No.
The only thing you lose with big numbers when we are talking about float based vectors is precision.
So the real question becomes ... how accurate do you want your logic to be?
I tend to build stuff placing verts on round value points then scale for size rather than space vertex info at scaled points ... if that makes sense / helps?
Related
I have this simple domino scene where you can click a domino and apply a force to knock it.
At first I had this dominoes in a scale of (x=0.1), (y=0.6), (z=0.3) 1 is supposed to be 1 meter, they fell without a problem but too slow. According to unity documentation on Rigidbody this made total sense.
Use the right size.
The size of the your GameObject’s mesh is much more important than the mass of the Rigidbody. If you find that your Rigidbody is not behaving exactly how you expect - it moves slowly, floats, or doesn’t collide correctly - consider adjusting the scale of your mesh asset. Unity’s default unit scale is 1 unit = 1 meter, so the scale of your imported mesh is maintained, and applied to physics calculations. For example, a crumbling skyscraper is going to fall apart very differently than a tower made of toy blocks, so objects of different sizes should be modeled to accurate scale.
So I just re sized the dominoes to (x=0.01), (y=0.06), (z=0.03), this time they fell to the desired speed but for some reason they stop falling and don't knock the next domino.
example GIF
I don't know why this is happening but i can guess that this is because at the time of calculating physics the engine doesn't waste so much resources in calculating small objects that are probably not even going to be seen by the user.
Modifying mass doesn't seem to do anything, also draw and angular draw are both 0 and already tried every collision detection mode.
Is there any solution or workaround for this?
In my experience, Unity physics doesn't like too small objects since it introduces rounding errors. A game simulation usually does not need the same accuracy as when you try to land on Mars. Therefore, I usually avoid scales less than 0.1f.
In your case, I would keep the scales at 1.0f and instead experiment with either increasing the world gravitation, changing it from the default -9.81f to -98.1f (Edit - Project Settings - Physics). Or changing the default Time Scale from 1f to 5f (Edit - Project Settings - Time).
Try not to make too big changes in the beginning since it might introduce strange effects on other parts of the gameplay.
Other questions like this one indicate that Unity tries to enforce a metric system, meaning that one unit should roughly equate to one meter. However, in VR specifically absolute size really does matter, because you may want things to be a certain size relative to you.
TLDR: is 1 unit in game space a meter in real space? If not, does there exist some realistic approximation?
I confirmed what mattnewport said in the comments: 1 distance unit in Unity is one meter.
How can I scale up the size of my world/level to include more gameobjects without causing lag for the player?
I am creating an asset for the asset store. It is a random procedural world generator. There is only one major problem: world size.
I can't figure out how to scale up the worlds to have more objects/tiles.
I have generated worlds up to 2000x500 tiles, but it lags very badly.
The maximum sized world that will not affect the speed of the game is
around 500x200 tiles.
I have generated worlds of the same size with smaller blocks: 1/4th the size (it doesn't affect how many tiles you can spawn)
I would like to create a world at least the size of 4200x1200 blocks without lag spikes.
I have looked at object pooling (it doesn't seem like it can help me
that much)
I have looked at LoadLevelAsync (don't really know how to use this,
and rumor is that you need Unity Pro which I do not have)
I have tried setting chunks Active or Deactive based on player
position (This caused more lag than just leaving the blocks alone).
Additional Information:
The terrain is split up into chunks. It is 2d, and I have box colliders on all solid tiles/blocks. Players can dig/place blocks. I am not worried about the amount of time it takes for the level to load initially, but rather about the smoothness of the game while playing it -no lag spikes while playing.
question on Unity Forums
If you're storing each tile as an individual GameObject, don't. Use a texture atlas and 'tile data' to generate the look of each chunk whenever it is dug into or a tile placed on it.
Also make sure to disable, potentially even delete any chunks not within the visible range of the player. Object pooling will help significantly here if you can work out the maximum number of chunks that will ever be needed at once, and just recycle chunks as they go off the screen.
DETAILS:
There is a lot to talk about for the optimal generation, so I'm going to post this link (http://studentgamedev.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/unity-voxel-tutorial-part-1-generating.html) It shows you how to do it in a 3D space, but the principales are essentially the same if not a little easier for 2D space. The following is just a rough outline of what might be involved, and going down this path will result in huge benefits, but will require a lot of work to get there. I've included all the benefits at the bottom of the answer.
Each tile can be made to be a simple struct with fields like int id, vector2d texturePos, bool visible in it's simplest form. You can then store these tiles in a 2 dimensional array within each chunk, though to make them even more memory efficient you could store the texturePos once elsewhere in the program and write a method to get a texturePos by id.
When you make changes to this 2 dimensional array which represents either the addition or removal of a tile, you update the chunk, which is the actual GameObject used to represent the tiles. By iterating over the tile data stored in the chunk, it will be possible to generate a mesh of vertices based on the position of each tile in the 2 dimensional array. If visible is false, simply don't generate any vertices for it.
This mesh alone could be used as a collider, but won't look like anything. It will also be necessary to generate UV co-ords which happen to be the texturePos. When Unity then displays the mesh, it will display specific points of the texture atlas as defined by the UV co-ords of the mesh.
This has the benefit of resulting in significantly fewer GameObjects, better texture batching for Unity, less memory usage, faster random access for any tile as it's not got any MonoBehaviour overhead, and a genuine plethora of additional benefits.
I'm currently in the process of coding a procedural terrain generator for a game. For that purpose, I divide my world into chunks of equal size and generate them one by one as the player strolls along. So far, nothing special.
Now, I specifically don't want the world to be persistent, i.e. if a chunk gets unloaded (maybe because the player moved too far away) and later loaded again, it should not be the same as before.
From my understanding, implicit approaches like treating 3D Simplex Noise as a density function input for Marching Cubes don't suit my problem. That is because I would need to reseed the generator to obtain different return values for the same point in space, leading to discontinuities along chunk borders.
I also looked into Midpoint Displacement / Diamond-Square. By seeding each chunk's heightmap with values from the borders of adjacent chunks and randomizing the chunk corners that don't have any other chunks nearby, I was able to generate a tileable terrain that exhibits the desired behavior. Still, the results look rather dull. Specifically, since this method relies on heightmaps, it lacks overhangs and the like. Moreover, even with the corner randomization, terrain features tend to be confined to small areas, i.e. there are no multiple-chunk hills or similar landmarks.
Now I was wondering if there are other approaches to this that I haven't heard of/thought about yet. Any help is highly appreciated! :)
Cheers!
Post process!
After you do the heightmaps, run back through adding features.
This is how Minecraft does it to get the various caverns and cliff overhangs.
I'm working on an iPhone App that relies heavily on OpenGL. Right now it runs a bit slow on the iPhone 3G, but looks snappy on the new 32G iPod Touch. I assume this is hardware related. Anyway, I want to get the iPhone performance to resemble the iPod Touch performance. I believe I'm doing a lot of things sub-optimally in OpenGL and I'd like advice on what improvements will give me the most bang for the buck.
My scene rendering goes something like this:
Repeat 35 times
glPushMatrix
glLoadIdentity
glTranslate
Repeat 7 times
glBindTexture
glVertexPointer
glNormalPointer
glTexCoordPointer
glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, ...)
glPopMatrix
My Vertex, Normal and Texture Coords are already interleaved.
So, what steps should I take to speed this up? What step would you try first?
My first thought is to eliminate all those glBindTexture() calls by using a Texture Atlas.
What about some more efficient matrix operations? I understand the gl*() versions aren't too efficient.
What about VBOs?
Update
There are 8260 triangles.
Texture sizes are 64x64 pngs. There are 58 different textures.
I have not run instruments.
Update 2
After running the OpenGL ES Instrument on the iPhone 3G I found that my Tiler Utilization is in the 90-100% range, and my Render Utilization is in the 30% range.
Update 3
Texture Atlasing had no noticeable affect on the problem. Utilization ranges are still as noted above.
Update 4
Converting my Vertex and Normal pointers to GL_SHORT seemed to improve FPS, but the Tiler Utilization is still in the 90% range a lot of the time. I'm still using GL_FLOAT for my texture coordinates. I suppose I could knock those down to GL_SHORT and save four more bytes per vertex.
Update 5
Converting my texture coordinates to GL_SHORT yielded another performance increase. I'm now consistently getting >30 FPS. Tiler Utilization is still around 90%, but frequently drops down in the the 70-80% range. The Renderer Utilization is hovering around 50%. I suppose this might have something to do with scaling the texture coordinates from GL_TEXTURE Matrix Mode.
I'm still seeking additional improvements. I'd like to get closer to 40 FPS, as that's what my iPod Touch gets and it's silky smooth there. If anyone is still paying attention, what other low-hanging fruit can I pick?
With a tiler utilization still above 90%, you’re likely still vertex throughput-bound. Your renderer utilization is higher because the GPU is rendering more frames. If your primary focus is improving performance on older devices, then the key is still to cut down on the amount of vertex data needed per triangle. There are two sides to this:
Reducing the amount of data per vertex: Now that all of your vertex attributes are already GL_SHORTs, the next thing to pursue is finding a way to do what you want using fewer attributes or components. For example, if you can live without specular highlights, using DOT3 lighting instead of OpenGL ES fixed-function lighting would replace your 3 shorts (+ 1 short of padding) for normals with 2 shorts for an extra texture coordinate. As an additional bonus, you’d be able to light your models per-pixel.
Reducing the number of vertices needed per triangle: When drawing with indexed triangles, you should make sure that your indices are sorted for maximum reuse. Running your geometry through Imagination Technologies’ PVRTTriStrip tool would probably be your best bet here.
If you only have 58 different 64x64 textures, a texture atlas seems like a good idea, since they'd all fit in a single 512x512 texture... if you don't rely on texture wrap modes, I'd certainly at least try this.
What format are your textures in? You might try using a compressed PVRTC texture; I think that's less load on the Tiler, and I've been pleasantly surprised by the image quality even for 2-bit-per-pixel textures. (Good for natural images, not good if you're doing something that looks like an 8-bit video game)
The first thing I would do is run Instruments profiling on the hardware device that is slow. It should show you pretty quickly where the bottlenecks are for your particular case.
Update after instruments results:
This question has a similar result in Instruments to you, perhaps the advice is also applicable in your case (basically reducing number vertex data)
The biggest win in graphics programming comes down to this:
Batch, Batch, Batch
TextureAtlasing will make a bigger difference than most anything else you can do. Switching textures is like stopping a speeding train to let on new passengers every time.
Combine all those textures into an atlas and cut your draw calls down a lot.
This web-based tool may be helpful: http://zwoptex.zwopple.com/
Have you looked over the "OpenGL ES Programming Guide for iPhone OS" in the dev center? There are sections on Best Practices for Vertex Data and Texture Data.
Is your data formatted to be able to use triangle strips?
In terms of least effort, the modification sequence for you would probably be:
Reducing vertex attribute size
VBOs
Note that when you do these, you need to make sure that components are aligned on their native alignment, i.e. the floats or full ints are on 4-byte boundaries, the shorts are on 2-byte boundaries. If you don't do this it will tank your performance. It might be helpful to mentally map it by typing out your attribute ordering as a struct definition so you can sanity check your layout and alignment.
making sure your data is stripped to share vertices
using a texture atlas to reduce texture swaps
To try converting your textures to 16-bit RGB565 format, see this code in Apple's venerable Texture2D.m, search for kTexture2DPixelFormat_RGB565
http://code.google.com/p/cocos2d-iphone/source/browse/branches/branch-0.1/OpenGLSupport/Texture2D.m
(this code loads PNGs and converts them to RGB565 at texture creation time; I don't know if there's an RGB565 file format as such)
For more information on PVRTC compressed textures (which looked way better than I expected when I used them, even at 2 bits per pixel) see Apple's PVRTextureLoader sample:
http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/samplecode/PVRTextureLoader/index.html
it has both the code for loading PVRTC textures in your app and also instructions for using the texturetool to convert your .png files into .pvr files.