Performance - Godot engine Stable 2.0 vs self-build engine - What I am doing wrong?

:information_source: Attention Topic was automatically imported from the old Question2Answer platform.
:bust_in_silhouette: Asked By yedi
:warning: Old Version Published before Godot 3 was released.

Yesterday, I have managed build the Godot engine for Windows. It was easy, just follow the “Compiling” instruction.
I have a project with large number of animation objects (around 800) and this project running absolutely fine on stable 2.0 version. The frame rate around 125 FPS.
I ran the same project on my build engine and performance was very bad. The frame rate around 5-6 FPS.

For build I used:
Engine source GitHub - godotengine/godot: Godot Engine – Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine , (I have downloaded yesterday night and use AS IS)
Visual studio 2013
Window 7.0
And build with command lines (I built 3 times)
scons platform=windows
scons platform=windows bits=default/32/64
scons platform=windows bits=64

Questions:
What I am doing wrong? and why performance so different?

Have you build godot’s templates as well? Using new, just compiled Godot engine with older templates can cause many problems.

Freeman | 2016-02-29 00:29

May be I missed something. Are you talking about export templates?
No I didn’t and I didn’t export the project ether.
I follow this instruction Compiling for Windows — Godot Engine (latest) documentation in English

I just compiled the engine, then open the project with new compiled engine, and then run the project.

What steps I have missed? are they not in instruction?

yedi | 2016-02-29 01:29

:bust_in_silhouette: Reply From: KelinciFX

That’s the problem if you dont specify the optimized target. So, use this and your problem gone :

scons -j [number of processor] p=windows tools=yes target=release_debug bits=64

Replace [number of processor] by something like 2 or 4 or 8, based on your machine have. My machine has 4 core, so I use :

scons -j 4 p=windows tools=yes target=release_debug bits=64

Good Luck,

KelinciFX

KelinciFX,
Thank you
This is work
Thank you again
Yedi

yedi | 2016-02-29 03:54

Thanks for your information! :smiley:

Khairul | 2016-02-29 06:57