The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
Moderator: The Shadowscythe
- dilanski
- Now with added tractor fetish
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
- Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
- Contact:
The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
I decided to stress test LDD, basically I'd like to answer the question of how big can we go.
Test 1-13,000 Bricks in scene (1 Inexorable Dreadnought/ 7.5 Deity Dreadnoughts/ 26 Heathen or Emperor Battleships)
Loading <30 seconds
Navigation is good
Loading single block is good
Placing single block is good
Loading 500 bricks is good
Placing 500 bricks is acceptable
Loading 13,000 bricks is poor
Placing 13,000 bricks is very poor
Test 2-26,000 Bricks in scene (2 Inexorable Dreadnoughts/ 15 Deity Dreadnoughts/ 52 Heathen or Emperor Battleships)
Loading >30 seconds
Navigation is good
Loading single block is good
Placing single block is good
Loading 500 bricks is acceptable
Placing 500 bricks is poor
Loading 13,000 bricks crashes LDD
Placing 13,000 bricks is impossible
Test 3-26,00 Bricks in scene - For this test I added 500 bricks, until it crashed at 30,000.
Test 4-Adding a fewer number of bricks at a time, I was able to get up to 35,000 bricks, until the system became unresponsive.
From this I can make the following conclusions.
If you have large duplication's, or imported sections, place them early in the build to keep the program stable, and give yourself best loading and placement times
Keep the part number down through any means, part number seems to be the main bottleneck.
Final touches to super large models should be done with only a few dozen pieces being moved simultaneously
Placing a single brick is generally stable at ridiculous part counts
Importing/copying large sections and placing them gets exponentially more cumbersome with part count
For the purposes of SHIP creating, if part count is kept low, and the design is kept generally thin, then thousands of studs in length seems obtainable without too much hassle.
Test 1-13,000 Bricks in scene (1 Inexorable Dreadnought/ 7.5 Deity Dreadnoughts/ 26 Heathen or Emperor Battleships)
Loading <30 seconds
Navigation is good
Loading single block is good
Placing single block is good
Loading 500 bricks is good
Placing 500 bricks is acceptable
Loading 13,000 bricks is poor
Placing 13,000 bricks is very poor
Test 2-26,000 Bricks in scene (2 Inexorable Dreadnoughts/ 15 Deity Dreadnoughts/ 52 Heathen or Emperor Battleships)
Loading >30 seconds
Navigation is good
Loading single block is good
Placing single block is good
Loading 500 bricks is acceptable
Placing 500 bricks is poor
Loading 13,000 bricks crashes LDD
Placing 13,000 bricks is impossible
Test 3-26,00 Bricks in scene - For this test I added 500 bricks, until it crashed at 30,000.
Test 4-Adding a fewer number of bricks at a time, I was able to get up to 35,000 bricks, until the system became unresponsive.
From this I can make the following conclusions.
If you have large duplication's, or imported sections, place them early in the build to keep the program stable, and give yourself best loading and placement times
Keep the part number down through any means, part number seems to be the main bottleneck.
Final touches to super large models should be done with only a few dozen pieces being moved simultaneously
Placing a single brick is generally stable at ridiculous part counts
Importing/copying large sections and placing them gets exponentially more cumbersome with part count
For the purposes of SHIP creating, if part count is kept low, and the design is kept generally thin, then thousands of studs in length seems obtainable without too much hassle.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED
-
- Nice Dubs
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 7:29 am
- Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, The Universe.
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
An Excellent and worthy question to find an answer too, I salute you sir!
Brik World: see what it is like in The Third World. Brik Wars get's taken to strange new places, where there is more to war than just the fighting. Ask me about it some time...
- The Shadowscythe
- Touch my cloud song and I will fuck you up
- Posts: 2351
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:22 am
- Location: Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales, U.K, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Universe.
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
As of yesterday morning i have a brand spanking new pc, expect this to be . . . Tested dilanski.
-- WARNINK -- LINK BELOW IZ KNOWN TO CAUZE HEMMORAGE --
I WARNED YOU, DIDN'T I WARN YOU?! BLAME RAYHAWK DAMNIT.
Spoiler
Show
I WARNED YOU, DIDN'T I WARN YOU?! BLAME RAYHAWK DAMNIT.
- dilanski
- Now with added tractor fetish
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
- Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
- Contact:
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
Could we have specs please? Processor, Disk Speed, Ram and GPU.The Shadowscythe wrote:As of yesterday morning i have a brand spanking new pc, expect this to be . . . Tested dilanski.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED
- The Shadowscythe
- Touch my cloud song and I will fuck you up
- Posts: 2351
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:22 am
- Location: Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales, U.K, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Universe.
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
Intel I5 3.2 Ghz quad coredilanski wrote:Could we have specs please? Processor, Disk Speed, Ram and GPU.The Shadowscythe wrote:As of yesterday morning i have a brand spanking new pc, expect this to be . . . Tested dilanski.
Corsair gaming ram (1333hz) 8gb (planning to move up to 16gb at the end of the month)
1 Tb 7200 RPM Sata HDD
1 Gb Nvidia GT620 Graphics Card
Thats pretty much what I can pull off the top of my head, I may install a SSD as the primary drive at some point but that is in the pipeline with my other projects.
-- WARNINK -- LINK BELOW IZ KNOWN TO CAUZE HEMMORAGE --
I WARNED YOU, DIDN'T I WARN YOU?! BLAME RAYHAWK DAMNIT.
Spoiler
Show
I WARNED YOU, DIDN'T I WARN YOU?! BLAME RAYHAWK DAMNIT.
- Tzan
- Has anyone ever used those holes before?
- Posts: 4799
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:41 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
Unless you are doing something crazy I don't think you need over 8gb.
If you are doing it for LDD only, you should really check where the bottle neck is.
I would suspect that its the memory on the graphics card not the main ram.
You should ask an expert, unless you already know and I'm totally wrong.
Which is possible.
If you are doing it for LDD only, you should really check where the bottle neck is.
I would suspect that its the memory on the graphics card not the main ram.
You should ask an expert, unless you already know and I'm totally wrong.
Which is possible.
- The Shadowscythe
- Touch my cloud song and I will fuck you up
- Posts: 2351
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:22 am
- Location: Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales, U.K, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Universe.
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
Planning to move up to 16gb for my recording stuff (letsplays and live action now i have both the people and the equiptment) and 3d work (say, along the lines of a trailer for the scythian shorts).Tzan wrote:Unless you are doing something crazy I don't think you need over 8gb.
If you are doing it for LDD only, you should really check where the bottle neck is.
I would suspect that its the memory on the graphics card not the main ram.
You should ask an expert, unless you already know and I'm totally wrong.
Which is possible.
Plus it will never hurt, maybe in a years time i will up the graphics and then the cpu., but as i said, many projects to do and i kinda need to prioritise.
-- WARNINK -- LINK BELOW IZ KNOWN TO CAUZE HEMMORAGE --
I WARNED YOU, DIDN'T I WARN YOU?! BLAME RAYHAWK DAMNIT.
Spoiler
Show
I WARNED YOU, DIDN'T I WARN YOU?! BLAME RAYHAWK DAMNIT.
- dilanski
- Now with added tractor fetish
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
- Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
- Contact:
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
It does seem odd to have 16GB ram on a gaming computer, but only have a GT 620, which from what I understand is outpaced by the Radeon HD 77XX's or GTX 650, you could probably get a 7750 over the GT 620 for the price of the upgrade.The Shadowscythe wrote:Planning to move up to 16gb for my recording stuff (letsplays and live action now i have both the people and the equiptment) and 3d work (say, along the lines of a trailer for the scythian shorts).Tzan wrote:Unless you are doing something crazy I don't think you need over 8gb.
If you are doing it for LDD only, you should really check where the bottle neck is.
I would suspect that its the memory on the graphics card not the main ram.
You should ask an expert, unless you already know and I'm totally wrong.
Which is possible.
Plus it will never hurt, maybe in a years time i will up the graphics and then the cpu., but as i said, many projects to do and i kinda need to prioritise.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED
- dilanski
- Now with added tractor fetish
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
- Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
- Contact:
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
After a bit more testing, and looking at CPU and RAM usage. I think Tzan is right. I was finding more display driver errors than anything else, as It stood my CPU usage flattened out at about 30%, and RAM usage of LDD never even hit a GB. I think LDD does like powerful GPU's, as it stands I'm running 1GB GDDR5, whether LDD is even programmed to use more, I don't know. I've been looking between the R9 280X and GTX 770 for gaming recently anyway, with 3 GB and 2 GB respectively, so they could provide the boost needed for stable performance at high part counts.Tzan wrote:Unless you are doing something crazy I don't think you need over 8gb.
If you are doing it for LDD only, you should really check where the bottle neck is.
I would suspect that its the memory on the graphics card not the main ram.
You should ask an expert, unless you already know and I'm totally wrong.
Which is possible.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED
- transformerj
- Officer
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:34 am
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
I think size is the bigger killer then part count.
I just made a 32x32x80 cube using 1x1 plates
It's 81,920 parts
I'm going to continue to see if i can get 100,000 parts
currently sitting at 122,960 parts
going for 150,000 parts
made it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that's 1875 columns of 80 studs
I just made a 32x32x80 cube using 1x1 plates
It's 81,920 parts
I'm going to continue to see if i can get 100,000 parts
currently sitting at 122,960 parts
going for 150,000 parts
made it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that's 1875 columns of 80 studs
- dilanski
- Now with added tractor fetish
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
- Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
- Contact:
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
I had a new theory that may explain why you're colums are working, although I didn't plan on testing it.
Essentially all 3D models are made up of polygons, the more of these that need to be rendered, the more stress you have, especially in LDD which has proven to be an unthreaded CPU based task, and the CPU isn't optimised for parallel processing, which is what our part limit is determined by, how much grunt a single core of your CPU has, and how many polygons you want to render, now this does lead to an interesting observation, which may support this theory. LDD doesn't render covered studs at all, if you clip through bricks, you wont find a single stud, does this mean that at some point the LDD development team caught onto this, and implemented this to earn extra performance, anyone who was around when the first version of LDD was released a decade ago (Like this poor sod) know how well LDD performed back then, especially on low end machines, so it isn't too far flung to think the software team knew this.
Importantly for us, this would mean our solution is to cover our studs up.
Essentially all 3D models are made up of polygons, the more of these that need to be rendered, the more stress you have, especially in LDD which has proven to be an unthreaded CPU based task, and the CPU isn't optimised for parallel processing, which is what our part limit is determined by, how much grunt a single core of your CPU has, and how many polygons you want to render, now this does lead to an interesting observation, which may support this theory. LDD doesn't render covered studs at all, if you clip through bricks, you wont find a single stud, does this mean that at some point the LDD development team caught onto this, and implemented this to earn extra performance, anyone who was around when the first version of LDD was released a decade ago (Like this poor sod) know how well LDD performed back then, especially on low end machines, so it isn't too far flung to think the software team knew this.
Importantly for us, this would mean our solution is to cover our studs up.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED
- Quantumsurfer
- Thank god for Kool-Aid™
- Posts: 2532
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
That makes a lot of sense. That's why I can load and do things with multi thousand part ships built with SNOT but I sometimes have a difficult time with my forum battle layout, which is very little but exposed plates and baseplates. Changes the way I'll approach interior layout design.
- transformerj
- Officer
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:34 am
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
did another test using 8x16 plates
no stacking
1728 parts
221,184 studs showing
tried to add another 4x??? number of plates and then it crashed
8x16 flat plates
no stacking
currently at 3500 parts ( got bored and stopped)
equivalent of 448,000 studs^2
no stacking
1728 parts
221,184 studs showing
tried to add another 4x??? number of plates and then it crashed
8x16 flat plates
no stacking
currently at 3500 parts ( got bored and stopped)
equivalent of 448,000 studs^2
Last edited by transformerj on Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Catastrophe Magnet
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:04 pm
- Location: This Forum
Re: The subject of 'Bigger' - AKA Killing Computers
Getting scientific about LDD I suppose?
- Quantumsurfer
- Thank god for Kool-Aid™
- Posts: 2532
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm