Found out why Oblivion slowed down

This is a discussion on Found out why Oblivion slowed down within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; When I first bought Oblivion it ran very well on my machine. Later I installed Shivering Isles and another expansion ...

  1. #1
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590

    Found out why Oblivion slowed down

    When I first bought Oblivion it ran very well on my machine. Later I installed Shivering Isles and another expansion pack. Since then I noticed huge slow downs.

    However I must have also done some Direct3D programming in between installing the packs and installing the game. Found out that all of my Direct3D settings were set to use the debug runtime with shader debugging and validation enabled. Debug output slider was set to about half. Debug runtimes were being used for every component of DirectX.

    I guess using your gaming computer for game dev is not such a good idea.

  2. #2
    Supermassive black hole cboard_member's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    I had something similar happen the last time I installed the DirectX dev stuff. Sucks. Are these DirectX debug settings you speak of in dxdiag or somewhere else?
    Good class architecture is not like a Swiss Army Knife; it should be more like a well balanced throwing knife.

    - Mike McShaffry

  3. #3
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,434
    This is something I've actually been looking for - debug runtimes - especially for DirectShow. But I couldn't find them.
    I guess you got the debug from the latest DX SDK?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    DirectShow used to be available in the old Platform SDK. However I believe it was nixed in the new Windows SDK which is just a Microsoft way of saying their new flaming pile of poo SDK for their latest and worst ever operating system: Vista.

  5. #5
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,434
    Just our luck with Microsoft.
    Old, useless things stay, and useful things disappear and a slew of other crap shows up, and out of that, 70% fails, and what remains may not be what one wants.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    I should be nicer because Microsoft is by no means full of idiots. It just seems to me they took a giant leap backwards this time. I'm also not keen on them trying to hype their C# baby by attempting to force game designers to move to C# via XNA. If C# can really do retail level games then great but did they really have to invent C# to gain cross-platform ability with the XBox? Somehow I think not.

    I'm just dissatisfied with the new directions they are taking. Probably doesn't matter since my opinion does not count for much in the grand scheme of things.

  7. #7
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    I'm just dissatisfied with the new directions they are taking. Probably doesn't matter since my opinion does not count for much in the grand scheme of things.
    I can't help but agree...
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #8
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    If C# can really do retail level games then great but did they really have to invent C# to gain cross-platform ability with the XBox? Somehow I think not.
    In a way yes, because .Net was introduced as a cross-platform framework that could span across any number of platforms, being this how it was sold to us some 8 years ago during the beta stages. Ah!

    What I doubt however is that XNA can compete on those platforms where there are already alternatives and a long standing game development culture, like in Windows. I also sincerely doubt XNA/C# capability to compete on what really matters, performance.

    You know what really, really, annoyed me about XNA? When I learned it could only support C#. It may not seem much at first glance, but this puts an end to yet another marketing ploy about .net; that VB.Net and C# only differed in syntax. Both languages used the same interpreter and could be used without any gain or loss of functionality. Obviously, this is not true.

    And I also doubt .Net in general on what comes to... why? Why exactly we need it? In my view, we really don't. There is absolutely nothing in .net that can't be achieved by other means without having to install a monolith framework. But that's just my opinion.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #9
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    And I also doubt .Net in general on what comes to... why? Why exactly we need it? In my view, we really don't. There is absolutely nothing in .net that can't be achieved by other means without having to install a monolith framework. But that's just my opinion.
    I agree 110%, I think that Microsoft are really trying to pioneer the way -- through brute force, hoping to get a break sooner or later. I've got nothing against them (they provide millions of jobs -- often indirectly), it just seems far less "black and white" as it used to be.

  10. #10
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7 View Post
    I agree 110&#37;, I think that Microsoft are really trying to pioneer the way -- through brute force, hoping to get a break sooner or later.
    I have no doubts the .Net framework spawns of the willingness of Microsoft to stop supporting Java. And I think it is exactly Java, that Microsoft is answering. After all what is .Net that Java isn't? Nothing! Please someone tell me otherwise.

    This framework has been under development for almost 20 years now. But Java predates that. So it isn't even a matter of Microsoft pioneering anything.

    The framework alone is a good thing. I cannot deny that. Offering an alternative to old and always badly designed MFC is a good move in my book. But that's a framework like so many others (Java's included). What I hold a grunge is the fact they turned it into a purely business decision by diluting even more the world of windows programming with the addition of new unnecessary programming languages and at the same time barred access to the framework from outside languages. It really annoyed me

    Microsoft has an uncanny ability to make incredibly good business decisions (for them and them only) that only a blind shareholder can't throw a party on. Net is exactly one of those decisions. I have to take my hat. I can only imagine the gloating look on their faces as they realize they have a credible Java alternative and at the same time can draw into the platform C++ companies and their programmers with the completely irrelevant and redundant C# programming language.

    Why is this successful? Because quiet frankly many companies can't tell a monitor from a computer, the media loves hype, and there's a breed of sharks called consultants that breed like rabbits.

    [/rant]
    Last edited by Mario F.; 05-17-2008 at 08:51 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #11
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,434
    Indeed. One thing that dotNet may be better than Java is interoperability, I guess.
    Several languages can communicate via the framework, but I guess that point is kindof moot because the only thing that differs between the languages is how the syntax is done. They all share the same functionality in the framework.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #12
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Java can be compiled into machine code. Can C# do that too?
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  13. #13
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,434
    No, any managed language is strictly interpreted, but compiled into machine code on-the-fly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #14
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    No, any managed language is strictly interpreted, but compiled into machine code on-the-fly.
    On-the-fly means it's not compiled then. It simply means it is basically a processor emulator.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  15. #15
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,434
    Yep.
    Microsoft likes to claim that managed code is faster than native because it's compiled into machine code dynamically as it's executed. They claim that since it's dynamic, it can generate code that is most efficient to the client machine it runs on.
    However. I don't agree. It's interpreted and will therefore never be as fast as native languages. Plus the overhead of the library which isn't little.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Another syntax error
    By caldeira in forum C Programming
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-05-2008, 01:01 AM
  2. Quantum Random Bit Generator
    By shawnt in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 06-18-2008, 10:17 AM
  3. Puzzled.
    By silhoutte75 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 04:17 PM
  4. Request for comments
    By Prelude in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 09:33 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21