Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance: reduce log spam #18

Open
JonnyOThan opened this issue Oct 15, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Performance: reduce log spam #18

JonnyOThan opened this issue Oct 15, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@JonnyOThan
Copy link
Contributor

Shabby currently emits a log line every time it does a shader replacement. We should make those conditionally compiled for performance.

@Rodg88
Copy link

Rodg88 commented Oct 22, 2024

It also logs each time it fails due to shaders not being found, which currently happens a fair bit if someone has a mod using Resurfaced without Resurfaced installed.

This particular case might be better taken care of with MM conditional patching instead though, as you probably want errors to still show in the log for actual troubleshooting?

So for eg instead of what BDB currently does (just adding the SHABBY_MATERIAL_REPLACE block into each part cfg without MM patching/conditionals), we could just add a :NEEDS[Resurfaced] to the SHABBY_MATERIAL_REPLACE. Would this be faster in terms of load times?

Afaik, it was set up to only have SHABBY_MATERIAL_REPLACE without any MM handling for 'simplicity', but it's not really much more complicated to add a NEEDS in there, esp if it speeds loading in some cases.

@JonnyOThan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, emitting an error when something goes wrong is fine; but Shabby is currently emitting log messages for every single successful replacement too.

@drewcassidy
Copy link
Member

yup, not worried about performance when something is broken anyways

It should be faster now, not sure how I would measure this for it to be anything more than statistical noise

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants