[quote="Flugan"]I just got my wrapper spun up. Have not had time to test extensively.
Now I just need to get in touch with DHR.
@Bo3b have you considered adding assembler to asssembler option to 3Dmigoto.
Shouldn't be hard but I recommend talking to me if interested.
Output asm is basically free and HLSL conversion sometimes fails.
I think it would make 3Dmigoto even stronger.[/quote]
I have considered this many times, but so far I've always been able to sweet-talk the Decompiler into doing the right thing.
This AC Unity shader is the first time in 10 games that I've not been able to fairly easily get it to work.
I also kept hoping that [i]you [/i]would drop in on the project and make that an option. ;->
One problem with integration is that I save the binary blob and if compiling from ASM to new blob I pad the shader binary block with the original binary code Before attaching a new hash. As I am unable to restore all binary code from the ASM code I keep most of it the same. To add asm<->asm I would need to store the initial binary package in case it is needed. With no need for refreshing this can be done at once when compiling otherwise later using the mentioned copy.
I'm not claiming this is the best approach but it is the approach I found. You couldd probably throw away some of the binary blocks and still have a working shader.
One problem with integration is that I save the binary blob and if compiling from ASM to new blob I pad the shader binary block with the original binary code Before attaching a new hash. As I am unable to restore all binary code from the ASM code I keep most of it the same. To add asm<->asm I would need to store the initial binary package in case it is needed. With no need for refreshing this can be done at once when compiling otherwise later using the mentioned copy.
I'm not claiming this is the best approach but it is the approach I found. You couldd probably throw away some of the binary blocks and still have a working shader.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
The big issue is this game runs in 3D at 15 fps (no matter what graphics options i select....the fps are the same always).....is unplayable. If i (or anyone i suppose) have to invest time in a game...the game at least have to be playable. Right now i'm waiting a performance patch, otherwise is a waste of time.
Also with the last update, i have crashes time to time..... very good job UBI!!!
The big issue is this game runs in 3D at 15 fps (no matter what graphics options i select....the fps are the same always).....is unplayable. If i (or anyone i suppose) have to invest time in a game...the game at least have to be playable. Right now i'm waiting a performance patch, otherwise is a waste of time.
Also with the last update, i have crashes time to time..... very good job UBI!!!
With a solo GTX580 my fps was 10ish
Now with both cards working in SLI I can reach 50+ in places.
Note that I'm still in the beginning of the game. Sprinting past pedestrians etc.
The game is weird when it comes to performance.
I am basically using lowest geforce experience settings as my computer is less than system requirements. Only 1,5gb vram.
Lowest performance is much more interesting and I havn't explored it.
As an experiment I ran AC:Unity on 320.49 drivers, since those tend to be the best of the recent crop. Old now, but makes WatchDogs smooth for example.
SLI didn't work, but adding the game to FC4 profile worked. Still terrible performance though. 15 fps or so with SLI 760, not sure they were both working properly though of course.
Short story, 320.49 does not immediately improve the scenario.
As an experiment I ran AC:Unity on 320.49 drivers, since those tend to be the best of the recent crop. Old now, but makes WatchDogs smooth for example.
SLI didn't work, but adding the game to FC4 profile worked. Still terrible performance though. 15 fps or so with SLI 760, not sure they were both working properly though of course.
Short story, 320.49 does not immediately improve the scenario.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Results are all over the map, SLI and non-SLI GTX 580 gives < 15fps.
When fake-3D is used instead a single GTX 580 can run at 30-40 fps in the same Place.
This should be very similar to 2D performance.
Results are all over the map, SLI and non-SLI GTX 580 gives < 15fps.
When fake-3D is used instead a single GTX 580 can run at 30-40 fps in the same Place.
This should be very similar to 2D performance.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
Would it be better to wait for the patch according to Guru 3D the patch is 6.7 GB in size. All the fixing and testing may not work once the patch is applied.
Here is a link
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/assassins-creed-unity-patch-4-is-6-7-gb-in-size.html
Would it be better to wait for the patch according to Guru 3D the patch is 6.7 GB in size. All the fixing and testing may not work once the patch is applied.
Wouldn't they have to re-write the engine and severely cut down on the eye candy to be able to bring any meaningful improvements to the game?
Anything they have done will likely only be a band-aid... mostly only earning a 20% improvement.
After game launch, I doubt they will want to fundamentally re-write the game and engine code; the investment would never be reaped back in sales at this point, even if the performance was increased significantly, in my humble opinion... much the same as creed 3 never really gained in performance.
Sure, they will mostly fix the scripting to make it less buggy. On the performance side, I'm not expecting much...
Games have always been trending this way I think... none of the masses really understand frame rate - they only care about how good the graphics are. The trade-off has been acceptable in recent years, but now its at a stage where game companies design game performance to be the absolute minimum they can get away with against the Joe public, and amp the eye candy instead- As that's the only thing that shows on reviews and glossy magazines, and ultimately going to be one of the biggest selling points.
Ever heard of any game selling heavily due to good performance? No, neither have I. Ever heard of a game selling due to good graphics? Yeah, practically all games...
I believe they took this decision at the very start of development. They aimed for low fps as a sacrifice to the better graphics. It's not bugs which are causing the slowdown - it's by design, and no amount of patching will likely fix it to any meaningful state.
Just my 2 pennies...
Wouldn't they have to re-write the engine and severely cut down on the eye candy to be able to bring any meaningful improvements to the game?
Anything they have done will likely only be a band-aid... mostly only earning a 20% improvement.
After game launch, I doubt they will want to fundamentally re-write the game and engine code; the investment would never be reaped back in sales at this point, even if the performance was increased significantly, in my humble opinion... much the same as creed 3 never really gained in performance.
Sure, they will mostly fix the scripting to make it less buggy. On the performance side, I'm not expecting much...
Games have always been trending this way I think... none of the masses really understand frame rate - they only care about how good the graphics are. The trade-off has been acceptable in recent years, but now its at a stage where game companies design game performance to be the absolute minimum they can get away with against the Joe public, and amp the eye candy instead- As that's the only thing that shows on reviews and glossy magazines, and ultimately going to be one of the biggest selling points.
Ever heard of any game selling heavily due to good performance? No, neither have I. Ever heard of a game selling due to good graphics? Yeah, practically all games...
I believe they took this decision at the very start of development. They aimed for low fps as a sacrifice to the better graphics. It's not bugs which are causing the slowdown - it's by design, and no amount of patching will likely fix it to any meaningful state.
Just my 2 pennies...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
From what they've been saying, they've basically optimised the entire Paris map.
This is speculation, but I'd imagine this likely involves improving occlusion culling, removing hidden geometry, perhaps baking in more of the lighting, stuff like that. I've seen some reports of smoother framerates (on consoles), and other reports of little improvement.
From what they've been saying, they've basically optimised the entire Paris map.
This is speculation, but I'd imagine this likely involves improving occlusion culling, removing hidden geometry, perhaps baking in more of the lighting, stuff like that. I've seen some reports of smoother framerates (on consoles), and other reports of little improvement.
It really depends upon whether they did much performance analysis before. Since the game was clearly a rush job, and performance is job 2.0, I seriously doubt they did anything significant in terms of looking for performance wins.
If that's true, then it's not unreasonable to expect giant gains. From a lot of experience of fixing bugs just like this- you can often find one or two spots that are the culprits for serious problems. If you haven't fixed the top three performance problems yet, you can get great wins. No idea whether that's true here or not, but like I say, clearly a rush job and when you are pinning down game breaking crashes, performance isn't even on the list.
It really depends upon whether they did much performance analysis before. Since the game was clearly a rush job, and performance is job 2.0, I seriously doubt they did anything significant in terms of looking for performance wins.
If that's true, then it's not unreasonable to expect giant gains. From a lot of experience of fixing bugs just like this- you can often find one or two spots that are the culprits for serious problems. If you haven't fixed the top three performance problems yet, you can get great wins. No idea whether that's true here or not, but like I say, clearly a rush job and when you are pinning down game breaking crashes, performance isn't even on the list.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I have considered this many times, but so far I've always been able to sweet-talk the Decompiler into doing the right thing.
This AC Unity shader is the first time in 10 games that I've not been able to fairly easily get it to work.
I also kept hoping that you would drop in on the project and make that an option. ;->
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I'm not claiming this is the best approach but it is the approach I found. You couldd probably throw away some of the binary blocks and still have a working shader.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
Also with the last update, i have crashes time to time..... very good job UBI!!!
MY WEB
Helix Mod - Making 3D Better
My 3D Screenshot Gallery
Like my fixes? you can donate to Paypal: dhr.donation@gmail.com
Now with both cards working in SLI I can reach 50+ in places.
Note that I'm still in the beginning of the game. Sprinting past pedestrians etc.
The game is weird when it comes to performance.
I am basically using lowest geforce experience settings as my computer is less than system requirements. Only 1,5gb vram.
Lowest performance is much more interesting and I havn't explored it.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/chtiblue/album/530b52d4cb85770d6e000049/3Dvision with 49" Philips 49PUS7100 interlieved 3D (3840x2160) overide mode, GTX 1080 GFA2 EXOC, core i5 @4.3GHz, 16Gb@2130, windows 7&10 64bit, Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 Marantz 6010 AVR
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
SLI didn't work, but adding the game to FC4 profile worked. Still terrible performance though. 15 fps or so with SLI 760, not sure they were both working properly though of course.
Short story, 320.49 does not immediately improve the scenario.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
When fake-3D is used instead a single GTX 580 can run at 30-40 fps in the same Place.
This should be very similar to 2D performance.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
Here is a link
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/assassins-creed-unity-patch-4-is-6-7-gb-in-size.html
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55
Anything they have done will likely only be a band-aid... mostly only earning a 20% improvement.
After game launch, I doubt they will want to fundamentally re-write the game and engine code; the investment would never be reaped back in sales at this point, even if the performance was increased significantly, in my humble opinion... much the same as creed 3 never really gained in performance.
Sure, they will mostly fix the scripting to make it less buggy. On the performance side, I'm not expecting much...
Games have always been trending this way I think... none of the masses really understand frame rate - they only care about how good the graphics are. The trade-off has been acceptable in recent years, but now its at a stage where game companies design game performance to be the absolute minimum they can get away with against the Joe public, and amp the eye candy instead- As that's the only thing that shows on reviews and glossy magazines, and ultimately going to be one of the biggest selling points.
Ever heard of any game selling heavily due to good performance? No, neither have I. Ever heard of a game selling due to good graphics? Yeah, practically all games...
I believe they took this decision at the very start of development. They aimed for low fps as a sacrifice to the better graphics. It's not bugs which are causing the slowdown - it's by design, and no amount of patching will likely fix it to any meaningful state.
Just my 2 pennies...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
This is speculation, but I'd imagine this likely involves improving occlusion culling, removing hidden geometry, perhaps baking in more of the lighting, stuff like that. I've seen some reports of smoother framerates (on consoles), and other reports of little improvement.
If that's true, then it's not unreasonable to expect giant gains. From a lot of experience of fixing bugs just like this- you can often find one or two spots that are the culprits for serious problems. If you haven't fixed the top three performance problems yet, you can get great wins. No idea whether that's true here or not, but like I say, clearly a rush job and when you are pinning down game breaking crashes, performance isn't even on the list.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers