Bad performance in editor - Printable Version +- Obi Official Forum (https://obi.virtualmethodstudio.com/forum) +-- Forum: Obi Users Category (https://obi.virtualmethodstudio.com/forum/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: Obi Rope (https://obi.virtualmethodstudio.com/forum/forum-4.html) +--- Thread: Bad performance in editor (/thread-3118.html) |
Bad performance in editor - linkinb - 04-10-2021 Hi, I'm trying to create a realistic rope with multiple dynamic rigidbody attachments, but there seems to be horrible performance in the editor. It works fine on build. Target device is Android/iOS. Blueprint Thickness = 0.1 resolution = 0.5 Pooled Particles = 100 solver [attachment=1125] [attachment=1126] rope [attachment=1124] These are the stats I see With Single rope - [attachment=1128] With 4 ropes [attachment=1127] I'm able to simulate them in an android build just fine, but testing the game in editor is a nightmare at 2fps. What do I do to improve editor performance? RE: Bad performance in editor - josemendez - 04-10-2021 (04-10-2021, 04:51 AM)linkinb Wrote: Hi, I'm trying to create a realistic rope with multiple dynamic rigidbody attachments, but there seems to be horrible performance in the editor. Hi, Quoting the manual here: http://obi.virtualmethodstudio.com/manual/6.2/backends.html Quote:Note that for normal performance when using the Burst backend in-editor, you must enable Burst compilation and disable safety checks, the jobs debugger and job leak detection. When using the Burst compiler in-editor, the jobs debugger, safety checks and other options will drop your performance to around 20-30% of normal levels. Couple this with the fact that Obi runs in the physics loop by default (Fixed Update) and is hence susceptible to death spiraling == performance can easily drop to 2-3 fps at Unity's default max timestep setting of 0.33 ms. Also make sure you're not using deep profiling, and other obvious in-editor performance hogs. RE: Bad performance in editor - linkinb - 04-10-2021 (04-10-2021, 07:26 AM)josemendez Wrote: Hi, Thank you, that worked perfectly! |