Search results for query: *

My theory is the fps increase because it's reducing the rate at which all fixed calculations happen first. Usually physics in Unity, probably more stuff like (morphs?) in VaM. If they are tied to a short timer (1 sec / 72 Hz fixed rate = 13,88 milliseconds max per fixed frame) and MUST be...

Added hijku's idea to disable renderers as experimental toggle here. Concerning hands there is an atom 'VRController' that I've excluded - sounds like it could be related to the "VR hands".

Good balanced choice at that price point. Based on passmark numbers a 1.94x increase in GPU performance. Also seems impossible to get 12 GB from Nvidia for that price and their 8 GB choices seem a little dated to me in 2023. Friendly reminder to check the power supply can support it. Power draw...

@hijku Have not tested your script because I do not need it - but that idea I find super smart! Why hide things by color when you can just straight up disable rendering it. Should then render faster too.(y)

Except for that anomaly - exactly the results I'd expect. Any idea what the hardware DRAM cache capacity is on your SDD and HDD? Initially I thought if that cache is bigger on the HDD that could explain the anomaly and why it could 'burst read' better in some cases. Then I looked up typical...

@SlimerJSpud Yeah I know what you mean and could not agree more. It's bad practice and lower quality compared to a proper dark skin texture. Maybe should have added that. :unsure:

concerning skins only: Technically 'white' skins / bright texture do have one advantage that makes them usable more universal: You can always make a bright texture darker with the 'Skin Color'-picker in the [Skin Materials 1]-tab. But you cannot do the opposite. Edit: Avoid this method btw...

Have not looked deep into this. The installation tracking sound like the dumbest :poop: ever. Exploitable in so many ways. Reminds me of the 'Spore' copy protection that had limited installs. Also caused big backlash. Hope that backfires hard for Unity. Assuming the worst case scenario where...

It's normal. It's the most CPU- / physics-heavy scene. There is one single thread on the CPU maxed out. GPU has to wait for CPU more. If you check Task Manager CPU performance with graph set to show "Logical processors" during baseline 3 it is visible. With it's default settings you cannot see...

Had VAM running from a server-grade SATA HDD is the past and did some measurements against SATA SSDs with and without DRAM cache. Measured the VAM load times on a bloated installation. I do not have the numbers anymore, but they ranked like this: SATA SSD with DRAM cache, fastest but within...

FSR 1.0 and DLSS 1.x where really not that good to say it politely. For FSR 2.0 Direct X 12 source code is public on Github. VAM 1.x is Direct X 11. For FSR 2.0 Direct X 11 AMD decided to keep the source code behind closed doors: To even have a chance to properly(!) mod / implement FSR 2.0...

Ryzen 5600X + RTX 3060 (12 GB version) comparable system gave avg. 73 fps 1080p: https://hub.virtamate.com/threads/benchmark-result-discussion.13131/post-36162 Perfect combo for 1080p desktop. VR? Not so much due to higher resolutions.

Yes, that's it. To make thing more complicated, you need the right version of it. If I remember correctly VAM uses smoothing on the mesh, even with it disabled in preferences. But don't quote me on that.

Yes, but testing on 1080p to isolate the CPU performance assumes there is no artificial limit. 12900K and 13900K ran into the limit on Baseline 1, ClothSim, Baseline 2 and HairSim. All 309,3 @ 1% max. Yes, I am nitpicky about the results. It's a flaw that I want to point out because everybody...

Unfortunately the problem with that is, hardware got so fast - it runs into the engine FPS-limit(*) at a low resolution. Your and @trety results for example are affected. * = verify the limit: load VAM in a low resolution, disable Vsync, load an empty scene, no matter what FPS counter your...

This test result is the prime example for the VAM software FPS limit. 6/7 Tests run into the 300 FPS VAM / Engine Limit. Only Baseline 3 is not limited. We need an updated benchmark that removes the limit. @MacGruber Otherwise all the results posted with the new hardware generation are pointless...

Played around with five different AI face generators sites. They all had problems: low 512x512 (including facemorph.me unless I missed something) or 1024x1024 pixels maximum resolution no control over what's generated paywall with insane high prices 1024x1024 is just not enough in my opinion...

Closest we had on the forum is two 7900X benchmark results. There is not enough "sample data" yet to jump to any conclusions. The fastest 1080p-run (low res. to measure CPU speed) came from HiddenSign here. I honestly expected more, but the faster the CPU get, the more likely the benchmark is...

Was surprised how good it was too. I love how there are so many memes referencing the music or 'before' and 'after' watching Edgerunners with people in tears. 😄 The style reminded me a lot of the original 1995 "Ghost in the Shell" movie. (Which spawned the idea for 1999 Matrix) The very first...

Found 29516 multi- and 2041 single-core for Cinebench R23 here. A bit higher but within margin of error. *meh* Looks like it was just VAM related then. 🙂