4.5 - Camera Mode Issues

[rocketvaultgames]

You have two FX layers on top of a 100 megapixel map. Turn off the Cloud and Adjust Colors layers and you should see the performance at an acceptable level.

Thank you for looking at this.

Even with the FX layers, performance was at an acceptable level. It stopped when I tested out the Camera and Token Views (which were both still at an acceptable performance level), but going back to 2d, it became beyond unusable.

You are correct... turning off the FX instantly solved the performance issue... I guess the problem is: There wasn't a problem with these FX on in 4.4 or 4.5 until I went into the 3d modes and then went back to 2d.

[pindercarl]

Thank you for looking at this.

Even with the FX layers, performance was at an acceptable level. It stopped when I tested out the Camera and Token Views (which were both still at an acceptable performance level), but going back to 2d, it became beyond unusable.

You are correct... turning off the FX instantly solved the performance issue... I guess the problem is: There wasn't a problem with these FX on in 4.4 or 4.5 until I went into the 3d modes and then went back to 2d.

I'll take a look to make sure that all of the FX work for the 3D views turn off when switching back to the 2D.

[rocketvaultgames]

I'll take a look to make sure that all of the FX work for the 3D views turn off when switching back to the 2D.

Going through a few more maps... without ever going into 3D... it seems that FX (at least Clouds/Adjust Color (which I'm using a lot in Avernus)) seem to have a much larger resource hit than they did in 4.4. The smaller the map, the less it seems to matter... even with 0 Blur (which I believe is still the biggest resource hit).

[pindercarl]

Going through a few more maps... without ever going into 3D... it seems that FX (at least Clouds/Adjust Color (which I'm using a lot in Avernus)) seem to have a much larger resource hit than they did in 4.4. The smaller the map, the less it seems to matter... even with 0 Blur (which I believe is still the biggest resource hit).

The FX mask blur is now baked in so there should no longer be a run-time cost. I can take a closer look at the FX cost but a casual look at your campaign shows that most of the images are at, above, or far above the recommended dimensions.

[rocketvaultgames]

The FX mask blur is now baked in so there should no longer be a run-time cost. I can take a closer look at the FX cost but a casual look at your campaign shows that most of the images are at, above, or far above the recommended dimensions.

A fair assessment on image size. Is there any cost to large images sitting in the campaign if they are not opened?

Basically, I don't want to spend the time to resize maps that are unlikely to be used again soon, but there is always the chance that I'll need them on the fly.

If there is no cost while running FGU if they remain in the campaign but unopened, I'm inclined to leave them there, but if there is a processing cost somehow, I should devote the time to go through everything.

Thanks very much for all of your input on this.

[LordEntrails]

If you browse the assets folder that contains the campaign files, then the large images will impact how long it takes for those thumbnails to be created and loaded. I do not know when that memory gets released.

[pindercarl]

A fair assessment on image size. Is there any cost to large images sitting in the campaign if they are not opened?

Basically, I don't want to spend the time to resize maps that are unlikely to be used again soon, but there is always the chance that I'll need them on the fly.

If there is no cost while running FGU if they remain in the campaign but unopened, I'm inclined to leave them there, but if there is a processing cost somehow, I should devote the time to go through everything.

Thanks very much for all of your input on this.

If you open the folder containing the images in the Asset Window, it will need to generate a thumbnail. If you have shared the image, then it will need to be sent to new players. There shouldn't be any other ongoing costs that I can think of for unused images.

[Laerun]

The FX mask blur is now baked in so there should no longer be a run-time cost. I can take a closer look at the FX cost but a casual look at your campaign shows that most of the images are at, above, or far above the recommended dimensions.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post706072

[rocketvaultgames]

The FX mask blur is now baked in so there should no longer be a run-time cost. I can take a closer look at the FX cost but a casual look at your campaign shows that most of the images are at, above, or far above the recommended dimensions.

I've been going through more and more maps. Very large maps that used to perform flawlessly in 4.4 take a huge performance hit now for each FX added. 1 is bad, 2 is nigh-unusable depending on map size.

[pindercarl]

I've been going through more and more maps. Very large maps that used to perform flawlessly in 4.4 take a huge performance hit now for each FX added. 1 is bad, 2 is nigh-unusable depending on map size.

Thanks. I was able to find an issue with the FX layers and committed a fix. This should be addressed in the next updated.