launching FGU and opening windows (performance)

[Copernicus219]

So I know performance was supposed to be addressed at some point, but I thought I'd ask if this is what I should still be experiencing:

FGU consistently takes around 3mins 20sec to open once launched. This is a really long time, FGC only takes 22 secs to load
Once Launched, almost all windows have significant lag times when opening, anywhere from 5 to 20 secs or more. Once these are opened in a session, they generally reopen fairly quickly.
When using the search function experience long wait times, 20secs or more.
Dragging some windows is choppy, not smooth.
Opening character sheets as well as clicking on tabs has at least 5-10sec load times
General random lag when just rolling things like attacks.
I don't know if this is normal Unity app behavior, but when lagging, a lot of times I'll get the spinning wheel cursor, at the top of the game window it will say Not Responding, and in a lot of cases, the entire window will turn a hazy white color.
And overall lag just at random times when not seeming to be doing anything in particular just during play like combat and moving tokens lasting anywhere from a couple secs to 30 secs.

I'm sure there are other performance items I'm forgetting atm.

My system specs:
Windows 10 Version 10.0.18362 Build 18362
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6500U CPU @ 2.50GHz, 2601 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)
16GB Ram 1600MHz
SSD Only Model PM951 NVMe SAMSUNG 512GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M w/ 2GB Ram - laptop Screen and second monitor. Both Resolution@ 1920 x 1080 x 60 hertz
Intel HD Graphics 520
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter : https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/d/5ddbbde4-6e9c-4a2c-b9aa-4c622dfc167b

[viresanimi]

Unless something has changed since I last looked, Smiteworks insists on loading ALL assests every time you load FG. Which I don't understand. Great. Unity solves the "less than 4 gb of ram" problem. But if you fill up your ram with stuff that 99% of the time won't be used... I fail to see the gain.

I am probably stupid. But my guess is, that this is the issue.

[Zacchaeus]

I'm not seeing such long load times. I agree FGC takes about 20 seconds or so but Unity takes less than a minute to open in my tests. Windows open in a second or two; I'm not seeing any choppiness. My processor is 4GHz so that might mean things go faster.

@viresanimi everything isn't loaded into memory; it is thumbnailed and thus memory management is a lot better in Unity than in Classic.

[Copernicus219]

I'm not seeing such long load times. I agree FGC takes about 20 seconds or so but Unity takes less than a minute to open in my tests. Windows open in a second or two; I'm not seeing any choppiness. My processor is 4GHz so that might mean things go faster.

@viresanimi everything isn't loaded into memory; it is thumbnailed and thus memory management is a lot better in Unity than in Classic.

I mean, I know my laptop is a little on the older side, but it still handles a lot of actual games really well and the specs aren't terrible even by today's standards. Not sure why we would need to have a PC that is better than what I have to not experience lag. Guarantee you there are loads of people who use FG that have worse specs. Also, the performance was supposed to be better with FGU, not worse than FGC, and FGC is really fast and responsive on my computer.

[Zacchaeus]

I don't think FGU has been fully optimized yet so it may well not be great right now.

The performance gains for FGU over FGC are that the memory limits of a 32 bit application are lifted and with newer methods of networking the need to port forward is negated. I don't think it was ever claimed that FGU would be faster than FGC.

[Copernicus219]

I don't think FGU has been fully optimized yet so it may well not be great right now.

The performance gains for FGU over FGC are that the memory limits of a 32 bit application are lifted and with newer methods of networking the need to port forward is negated. I don't think it was ever claimed that FGU would be faster than FGC.

That was kind of my point with the post. Nearing the end of Q1 and wondering if people are having the same lag and performance issues. I know it was mentioned that networking was optimized, and I did notice a slight increase in performance when opening windows, but it's still pretty slow on my end. Maybe they are waiting to the very last week to optimize? And if not, they should know people are still having performance issues.

[notrealdan]

Just to be sure, are you testing performance with a brand new, empty campaign, or with a campaign with existing content, extensions, and/or modules open? I just tested with a fresh 5e campaign. FGU fully launched in 75 seconds and windows open instantly. Not as good as FGC, but reasonable considering this is on a basic laptop with a 2.7 GHz Core i5 and Intel GPU, so far from a powerhouse. Loading modules and other things probably slows things down, but that's a guess.

[Copernicus219]

Just to be sure, are you testing performance with a brand new, empty campaign, or with a campaign with existing content, extensions, and/or modules open? I just tested with a fresh 5e campaign. FGU fully launched in 75 seconds and windows open instantly. Not as good as FGC, but reasonable considering this is on a basic laptop with a 2.7 GHz Core i5 and Intel GPU, so far from a powerhouse. Loading modules and other things probably slows things down, but that's a guess.

Well, it's a new campaign for FGU, but its recreated from FGC manually. So i created new data, we created new characters and such all within FGU. So There are a few maps, and story information and characters. I also have probably 8 or more pathfinder module rulesets as well as a few other modules that are loaded. I'm sure it makes sense for it to load faster when no data is in it, but I wouldn't even consider that I have that much data aside from modules and even then I don't have all the bestiarys or extended rulesets. Do we really care how fast a new game loads? Most of the time people are going to be working with an existing campaign.

[notrealdan]

Do we really care how fast a new game loads? Most of the time people are going to be working with an existing campaign.

True, and I'm sure they'll be working hard to improve that. But for the sake of testing, it's useful to have a common baseline point, which is why I brought up an empty campaign. Our existing campaigns will all be pretty different and could complicate things for the purpose of figuring out what needs optimization. Maybe the sample campaign is a better choice for that baseline than an empty campaign?

[notrealdan]

The 5e sample campaign loads for me on that laptop in about 70 seconds. Most windows open immediately, but both NPCs and Items took longer, especially Items which took about 5 seconds.

[ddavison]

Thanks for the report.

[Moon Wizard]

We have not started optimization in full yet. We still have our hands full trying to nail down core workflow items, but we plan to do a round of optimizations in the near future.

Regards,
JPG

[Copernicus219]

We have not started optimization in full yet. We still have our hands full trying to nail down core workflow items, but we plan to do a round of optimizations in the near future.

Regards,
JPG

Np, I wasn't sure what the schedule was for it so thought I'd just throw in what I've experienced thus far. Thanks.