Author Topic: findRED's Huge Overview & Rant on the Latest Changes to Wreckfest  (Read 1133 times)

findRED

  • *
  • Posts: 304
findRED's Overview of Wreckfest
-June Update, Hotfix 3


UI
At first it looks quite sleek and nice.  Then you start navigating, and it takes a little just to get use to the new system.  Pros:  It appears fresh, gives the game a whole new feel initially.
But, when you add mod parts in you notice there's not a lot of room for the names of parts, and if a name is too long, it just runs into other part names.  This is amplified if a few similar parts all have longer names.
In addition to that, I cannot just click 'start race' with my mouse?  Must I always use the enter key to start a race?  This game is primarily a PC game, make it usable with mouse and keyboard without being clunky!  (though it seems ok for a controller)
And lastly, the exit game bug...  I have to open task manager and kill wreckfest manually, as exiting game using a LMB click or the enter key just leaves it "stuck".

Physics

The tire physics seem improved, more accurate, and locking the brakes before turning makes the car want to plow straight forward adding more realism.
Overall, not much has changed drastically, and as such it still feels relatively great with all it's quirks.
Though, the cpu load has not changed at all, if even slightly worsening

System Performance (Huge Performance Issues!)

I am running an FX 8320 overclocked to 4.4Ghz on Air!  It's not enough, the single-threaded performance of this game limits me to play with only myself on some tracks, and I can never get a stable 30fps with all 24 cars present and graphics settings manually set to their lowest/off positions.  I can't even appreciate the power of my GPU because WF performance is soo bad on my cpu!

Bugbear, if you plan on dropping support for my cpu, please let people know NOW!  I can't enjoy WF much with the cpu bottle-necking everything like this!
(I will be able to test WF on a i5 2400 soon, as I built a pc for my bro, so I'll see how that can handle WF)

AI
I can't comment on ai changes because of performance issues.

Online

I can't comment on online play because of performance issues.
I can't even play online and enjoy it due to performance issues.

Tracks

Anything I wanted to say has already been said by Purple44.

Otherwise, it seems you missed the sun glare texture on the old "sunset" weather preset.  I exclusively used that preset since like build 6, and I miss not seeing the sun glare in my eyes on some tracks.  Instead I get a couple of translucent/transparent purple box shapes where the glare should be.

Visual Upgrades

Yes! Yes! Yes! ... Except for that weird Japanese exhaust choice.
But really, all the visuals, and eventually they'll have weight associated with them!  That's sweet...
Except it plays with exhaust upgrades which brings me to the real big discussion

Engines and Parts (The Real Big Discussion)

The one thing I hate about video games is when they give you a "stock-street-sport-race" upgrade system without any other explanation, description, or support other than "closer to race = more power"!  This is why I make my mod.  This is why the engine & engine parts are a big deal for me.  This is also where we get into the fundamentals of the upgrade system, and engine/power curve system.  I want you to elaborate on your systems!  What's a street exhaust system?  A standard stock one? A stainless steel cat back system?  What's a sport ignition system?  A full msd ignition system?  Just putting better spark plugs and wires on?

First let's get what's bugging me the most as I redo my mod with the new system:
Valves/Ignition/Fuel_System

Valves? ... Valves!?  Why did you choose to make valves a category?  The 3 ways to upgrade valves would be with a good 3-angle job, get lightweight valves, and get larger valves.  All three of these are related to cylinder head work, and would need machine work to do.  Why then did you not call the category "Cylinder Heads"?!  For one:  It would make much more sense in the "stock-sport-race" upgrade paths you use.  Secondly, it would actually increase power by a great deal more per each upgrade value.  And Third, it would acually be a worthwhile investment ingame for players.
Maybe valves means valves and valve springs?  Even then, it still makes a whole lot more sense to just call it cylinder heads.
Now, if changing valves category into a cylinder head category makes sense, that brings up a restriction (or Flaw!) with the upgrade system:
The base curve is already set in the engine, and cannot be shifted, moved, or otherwise independently changed in relation to the engine rpms.  It can only be increased or decreased by adding parts that help or hurt it.
This system could have been so much better!  Parts should have been given a range they helped improve, or even better, given them 3 areas to improve/unimprove within.  Like so:

A. The bottom end
B. The mid-range
C. The top end

Ideally each part could have been fine-tuned for each engine to better reflect realism.  You want an RV-style cam?  That will help low-end mostly, mid-range some, but cripple your top-end (with this system the rpms would be adjustable for the low-mid border and mid-high border so you could create said part).
Or, using the slightly simpler "range" idea, the RV-style cam would help 0-4000 rpm on engine X.  You want a top-end cam?  That would help 2500 to 6500 rpm on engine X (and would either not boost 0-2500 rpm, or would hurt it).

AS you can see, the two ideas are very similar and accomplish the same function.  It could have been done for this update.  You could still do it for a future update.  This system would allow for cylinder heads to actually greatly affect the powerband and usable rpm range, thus making cylinder heads an even more important category than "valves" (and also make Cams an extremely important category as well.)  With a system like that, the player could make some poor choice to put the ultimate race cam into their stock 350 and it wouldn't magically make their HP skyrocket all over the place.  It would spike top end, but make the bottom end power so weak, the engine would be best used on the ovals singing near redline at all times (and thus, not very usable for a demo derby.)

Ignition.  The lonely category that is cheap(ish?) to upgrade to race, but also doesn't upgrade your HP much.  At least this category works with the 3 stage "stock-sport-race" upgrade path... sorta.  Using Ford as a puppet example: go from 60s era points system to 70s-80s duaspark 2, then to modern/aftermarket ignition like coil packs and efi, full msd ignition solutions and hei stuff.  But that doesn't make sense for some of the more modern Banger cars.  The more modern ones would skip the first and possibly second steps.  And, again, What is a "sport ignition" part?  What is the "Street Ignition" part?

Fuel_System
  Is not a bad category.  No, it's great... If I can also restrict certain carbs to intakes again!  You disabled the turbo system, I get it, it's not finished, you need to do some work.  But you took away the main feature I used in it as a mod author - The ability to restrict certain carbs to their respective intakes!  Currently I could change the intake all I wanted from a 2-bbl to dual 4-bbl to EFI and the same carb part would work for them all!  What is this?  An arcade game like modern need for speeds?

Now, with those 3 big thing that are bugging me out of the way...  I love the idea of more customization, when it is done right.  I really do, but you get problems when you get overlapping categories.

Exhaust as an engine part makes sense, but it doesn't match the exhaust customization part.  This makes the "stock-sport-race" even more questionable.  ELABORATE on it!  What's a stock exhaust vs a street exhaust?  This is why for now I will refer to the quality of the pipes with the exhaust engine part in my mod.  Then it makes some sense, and doesn't overlap descriptions with the visual customization parts.

Cooling affecting performance?  For the most part this is only true when you need more cooling to sufficiently keep an engine from overheating.  I feel like this should be used more for "durability" values.  Better cooling should give more durable engines, and help the engine take more damage in demo derbies and races.  That would be a nice game mechanic.

And lastly, when are we going to get the power curves back (when upgrading the engine)?  Even thought the rpm scale didn't match, I liked having a general idea of what the engine curve looked like in-game.  It could help players by showing them engine x has a high-end curve with torque peak at 4000 and hp peak at 6200, and that engine y is possibly better in demo derbies than engine x because engine y has similar power, but the torque peak is 2300 and the hp peak is 4800.

This giant block of writing has taken almost a week to type out, (due to time restraints, my revising of it, etc).  I hope you take this criticism seriously.  I know it's a lot to go through, but I needed to get my thoughts and opinions on the current iteration of the game out.

TL,DR:  I had to give my thoughts about the current build, but seriously, read it if you want to know them.

-findRED out
Laptop:
i7 3630QM 4core 2.4GHz
GT 645M 2GB
6GB RAM


“I created a theme song for the door.” -Unknown Game Composer



MM2 Mods

sam223

  • *
  • Posts: 2802
You make some good points red,especially regarding parts. The current system seems so overly complicated for something which does absolutely nothing other than improve bhp. All these parts options and even duplicates like tailpipes and exhausts that all just add a % to engine efficiency.

Id much prefer actual options e.g diff ratio a,b or c rather than slow parts>faster parts>fastest parts.

Maybe they are just placeholders for now.
Dell U2515H 25",  i5-4690k @4.0ghz, 8gb ram, MSI GTX 1060 6GB, 120gb SSD, 1tb HHD, win 7, G25/Ps3 pad
Online Bangers:Wreckfest - https://goo.gl/AjDHU2

Purple44

  • *
  • Posts: 7301


System Performance (Huge Performance Issues!)

I am running an FX 8320 overclocked to 4.4Ghz on Air!  It's not enough, the single-threaded performance of this game limits me to play with only myself on some tracks, and I can never get a stable 30fps with all 24 cars present and graphics settings manually set to their lowest/off positions.  I can't even appreciate the power of my GPU because WF performance is soo bad on my cpu!

Bugbear, if you plan on dropping support for my cpu, please let people know NOW!  I can't enjoy WF much with the cpu bottle-necking everything like this!
(I will be able to test WF on a i5 2400 soon, as I built a pc for my bro, so I'll see how that can handle WF)



Red, in your signature it show a i7 3630QM and a GT 645m video card. But you posted you have a  FX 8320 CPU and video card ??. Is this a different computer than the laptop you show in sig?

Laptop:
i7 3630QM 4core 2.4GHz
GT 645M 2GB
6GB RAM


My now 5 year old i5 2500 with old 660 2GB ( and now 960 ) could handle 24 cars with medium graphic settings and 1152x864 and keep FPS above 30 FPS on most tracks. The old gravel track was tough on FPS. Could see FPS dip into 20s at start of gravel track race if car start in the back and the dust is flying.

Can now max graphic settings ( MSAA 2x ) and use 1600x1200 and keep FPS above 40 FPS with the 960 4GB.


So I'm thinking the i5 2400 should do a good enough job if pair with a good video card.
Flatout Joint, where the mods were.

i5 2500, 8GB, Nvidia 660 960, SB Recon, Win 10 or Win7 64bit, DFGT Wheel

findRED

  • *
  • Posts: 304
My sig is outdated, but it does contain a sig pic with my main gaming rig on it... I should try to update it as I have an RX480 now.

And due to my habit of trying different overclocks on everything, I never re-did my sig.

AS of today, I am still using an FX 8320 8core overclocked to 4.4Ghz and my RX 480 is overclocked to 1410 Mhz core with 2250 Mhz memory clock.
Laptop:
i7 3630QM 4core 2.4GHz
GT 645M 2GB
6GB RAM


“I created a theme song for the door.” -Unknown Game Composer



MM2 Mods

Purple44

  • *
  • Posts: 7301
My sig is outdated, but it does contain a sig pic with my main gaming rig on it... I should try to update it as I have an RX480 now.

And due to my habit of trying different overclocks on everything, I never re-did my sig.

AS of today, I am still using an FX 8320 8core overclocked to 4.4Ghz and my RX 480 is overclocked to 1410 Mhz core with 2250 Mhz memory clock.


This guy got Wreckfest running good after getting video drivers properly install for his RX 480:

Finally got the 64-bit version working. I uninstalled the Radeon drivers (16.7.3), Swapped the 6870 back into the system, installed the drivers for for the card, launched the game = no problem. Uninstalled 6870 drivers, swapped the RX 480 into the system, installed the Radeon 16.7.3 drivers, launched the game = no problem. So I guess I should have completely removed the video drivers and re-installed them. Probably didn't need to reinstall the 6870.

Game looks pretty good. Hitting 50-80 fps with everything on max, MSAA set to 4x and doing 24 car races. Haven't tried multiplayer yet.



Looking at the DIRT Rally chart here, the RX 480 get better FPS than my 960.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Review-Polaris-Promise/Dirt-Rally

Looking here, my i5 2500 does a little better than the 8320, but not a lot better. Would not think the FX 8320 would be holding back the RX 480 as bad as you are seeing in Wreckfest.

http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1143&pid2=630&compare=fx-8320-vs-core-i5-2500k-3-3ghz


Would it be worth trying these Radeon 16.7.3 drivers to see if Wreckfest will run better?
Flatout Joint, where the mods were.

i5 2500, 8GB, Nvidia 660 960, SB Recon, Win 10 or Win7 64bit, DFGT Wheel

Tonza

  • *
  • Posts: 289
I've got every setting on medium/ high (except anti-aliasing off, if I play without glasses I won't see a difference lol) and I rarely go below 60 fps. I've got an nvidia gtx 760, intel i5-4460, 8 gb ram and 1tb 7200rpm hard drive. windows 7 home 64bit

St. Jimmy

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Yeah there is something likely wrong in your system.

If you can't solve it before your brother gets the new PC, what GPU will he have? Also you could try to throw your RX480 in his system and see his performance. That i5 2400 shouldn't perform better than your FX 8320 @4,4GHz.
Join WreckFest Discord!

Contribute to the WreckFest wiki!


i7 2600K @ 4,7GHz
GTX 1070 8GB
16GB CL9 2133 MHz
750W PSU
Win7 Ultimate 64-bit
Fanatec CSR

findRED

  • *
  • Posts: 304
I think everyone is underestimating how much WF relies on single threaded performance, which is the weak point of an FX cpu.
Even my overclocked FX series has worse single threaded performance than any second gen i5 or newer.

I get a single core that never gets lower than 80% usage whenever playing WF.  This is the main game core with all the physics calculations.  There's a rendering core that throws all the graphics data thorught the cpu to the gpu, and I've never seen it any higher than about 55% with all 24 cars on screen (but last time I was watching it I don't think I tried to max out graphics quality).

Here's some vid showing gameplay with an i5 2500k vs fx8350 with both clocked at 4.0ghz.  Spoiler Alert:  The i5 crushed the FX for gaming due to the single threaded performance (which is what most games rely on.)



Here's an old post I made about the performance issue:
I may be slightly wrong, as last time I tested Wreckfest so thoroughly was in January when decided to compare my 7950 performance with my brand new 480.  At that time Wreckfest didn't make much difference between the cards with same drivers and settings.  All the low fps points were the same too, so I concluded WF was choked by my cpu.  Maybe that's changed a little, but I don't think it's changed by a lot.

...sniped...

I did turn the graphics settings down to their lowest/off positions (lower than low preset) and I was able to run a single car quite well.  But with 24 cars I still saw low fps hicups when the screen had most of the cars in view, which leads me to still call it a cpu bottleneck.  (And the 1st core still seemed to like 80% usage)

I stress test OCs with Prime95 overnight for 8+ hours to ensure stability.  It's rock solid.  No throttling, no errors.

Either way, I have changed some of my graphics settings so I can still race a car on most tracks with around 30 fps or better (and I try to ignore the stuttering when its happens).

If any graphics settings need optimization, it's probably the shadows and grass.  Those seem to have the greatest fps impact.

EDIT:
The thing is that threading in our engine is currently set up in such a way that there's a main thread, rendering thread, audio thread and so on. Now since the server doesn't use rendering or audio there's not much performance gains to be had since almost all the load will be on one core and if it can't keep up there will be hosting problems. Of course if you're running for example four servers on the same system each will use it's own resources, so with multiple physical cores (for example four in this case) the performance will be better.


So my 80%+ thread is the main, and the second one which rarely gets up to 50% is probably the rendering thread.
It's not the "pushing graphics thorught cpu to gpu" that's the bottleneck, it's the main thread which probably has the physics, but even then, in some tracks there's a section (or sections) that I always drop frames in, so would it be partially gpu related then?  If that's the case, there needs to be optimization on the graphics side if a 480 can't keep 30 fps on Low settings with a Single car.


I don't want to downgrade my drivers.  When I did the comparison between my old 7950 and the new 480, I believe it was on some 16.x drivers.  I am currently running the 17.6.2 drivers, as I need the latest drivers for Neir Automata to work.  When I had the HD 7950 in my system (since I built my pc til about Christmas)  I could only run about the same gpu settings I am running now.  When I did the comparisons between gpus on Wreckfest, they got eerily similar results with the 480 edging out better maxes.

My brother's pc is now up and running, so I will try to benchmark Wreckfest on his i5 2400 and old HD 7950.  I gave him the gpu, as I couldn't get him an rx 480/580 (to make his pc VR ready) due to the insane pricing caused by mining.
Laptop:
i7 3630QM 4core 2.4GHz
GT 645M 2GB
6GB RAM


“I created a theme song for the door.” -Unknown Game Composer



MM2 Mods

findRED

  • *
  • Posts: 304
Follow-Up Regarding Performance

What I knew is true.  My brother's computer with:
i5 2400 (4 core 4 thread (no hyper threading) 3.1 Ghz base, 3.4 Ghz Turbo)
2x8GB RAM 1600 (non-gaming, so no special XMP profiles or anything)
Radeon HD 7950 3GB with slight overclock (955 Mhz on the core, 1300 Mhz on the memory)

Can easily run Wreckfest better than My gaming pc with:
FX 8320 (8 'core' 8* thread at 4.4 Ghz)
4x4GB G.Skill RAM 1866 with active XMP profile
RX 480 8GB with heavy overclock (1410 Mhz core, and 2250 Mhz on the memory)

I observed overall much higher fps on my brother's computer with higher gpu settings (He's also running the same 17.6.2 drivers I am)

The worst I saw was 37fps with high settings when I had a single car on Tarmac 2 and that only happened right in front of the grandstands before the start/finish line.  I otherwise got over 60 fps very playable with a single car, with some unnoticeable dips into the low 50s.

On my FX system, I struggle to maintain a consistent 30ish fps on the same track with the same car, and low graphics settings.

On the Tarmac 2 track with Ultra settings (msaa disabled and fxaa enabled as smoke makes stuff transparent with amd gpus when msaa is on), with a full 24 car race, on my brother's i5 I was able to actually race with only that same spot dipping into the 30s, the rest of the race was high 40s or better.

On Mixed 1 with a single car, a track my FX system can run with almost no dips to the 30s, my brother's i5 was able to sustain 60+ up to mid 80s!

On cpu usage:
I was not able to view the cpu usage live on the i5, as it is only hooked up to 1 screen, I did use HWinfo64 to record it on my pc.  It seems like the i5 mostly hovers in the mid 50% usage range on at least 3 of the 4 cores, with a few instances of 80%+ on all the cores, though I don't know if the 80% was just a race start, a loading screen, or actual usage in the 24 car race.

TL;DR
My FX cpu is not strong enough in single threaded performance to keep Wreckfest running smoothly, especially compared to my brother's i5 2400.

*Edited: corrected my mistake, its 8 core 8 thread, not sure why I typed 16 thread...
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 09:52:32 PM by findRED »
Laptop:
i7 3630QM 4core 2.4GHz
GT 645M 2GB
6GB RAM


“I created a theme song for the door.” -Unknown Game Composer



MM2 Mods

Purple44

  • *
  • Posts: 7301
Thanks for the update Red.

Bugbear should take note and anybody wanting to run an online server with this AMD CPU.

Do we know if newer AMD CPUs have the same problem, anybody?
Flatout Joint, where the mods were.

i5 2500, 8GB, Nvidia 660 960, SB Recon, Win 10 or Win7 64bit, DFGT Wheel

happyrichie

  • Posts: 61
i went from the 8320e oc'ed 2 4.4 on air, ye its just good enough to play, slight dips bellow 30, its ok u can multi task your ass off cause of all the threads wreckfest dosent use which is a problem that wreckfest is gona reach when they start thinking about the consoles so pretty sure its gona see some improvement sooner or later.

got the 1600 now and at normal clocks 58fps minimums, oc'ed your looking around 90-120, gives some nice breathing room, any of the ryzen chips are gona do wreckfest fine.

RickyB

  • Posts: 606
Found a list with benchmark points for singlethread performance for almost every CPU it seems.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

From that list

Intel i7 3820 has 1943
AMD Ryzen5 1600 has 1831
Intel i5-2400 has 1742   
AMD FX 3820 has 1397

St. Jimmy

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Thanks for the update Red.

Bugbear should take note and anybody wanting to run an online server with this AMD CPU.

Do we know if newer AMD CPUs have the same problem, anybody?
The new AMD CPUs are good. Bit behind in single thfead performance but not too much. The FX series was pretty trash in gaming when it came. Though I still have hard to believe it's really that bad that it loses so much to same generation Intel that's clocked 1.0GHz lower :P
Join WreckFest Discord!

Contribute to the WreckFest wiki!


i7 2600K @ 4,7GHz
GTX 1070 8GB
16GB CL9 2133 MHz
750W PSU
Win7 Ultimate 64-bit
Fanatec CSR

Tonza

  • *
  • Posts: 289
Thanks for the update Red.

Bugbear should take note and anybody wanting to run an online server with this AMD CPU.

Do we know if newer AMD CPUs have the same problem, anybody?
The new AMD CPUs are good. Bit behind in single thfead performance but not too much. The FX series was pretty trash in gaming when it came. Though I still have hard to believe it's really that bad that it loses so much to same generation Intel that's clocked 1.0GHz lower :P
FX processors are the epitome of big numbers, low results