How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg?

[Nudz]

Long story short; SoW Gettysburg ran horribly on my then very powerful computer, even in tiny, brigade-sized scenarios. Then an expansion was released, (Chancellorsville, perhaps?), where the performance was improved to a ridiculous degree. I mean to recall the reason being that they had changed or optimized the way they rendered foliage, or something of the sort.

I'm sure you can guess my question - how does Waterloo run, compared to Gettysburg? I'm not comfortable with buying before I feel reasonably secure that it hasn't somehow reverted back to the bad, old days.


My Computer.

Two "NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z"s in SLI.
32GB RAM.
"Intel Core i7-3960X".
64-BIT "Windows 7 Ultimate".
Two SSDs; one regular hard-drive.

[Harag]

Long story short; SoW Gettysburg ran horribly on my then very powerful computer, even in tiny, brigade-sized scenarios. Then an expansion was released, (Chancellorsville, perhaps?), where the performance was improved to a ridiculous degree. I mean to recall the reason being that they had changed or optimized the way they rendered foliage, or something of the sort.

I'm sure you can guess my question - how does Waterloo run, compared to Gettysburg? I'm not comfortable with buying before I feel reasonably secure that it hasn't somehow reverted back to the bad, old days.


My Computer.

Two "NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z"s in SLI.
32GB RAM.
"Intel Core i7-3960X".
64-BIT "Windows 7 Ultimate".
Two SSDs; one regular hard-drive.

You're telling me that that Gettysburg ran badly on the above PC? really. I'm surprised as the PC is better than mine and I had no problems running gettysburg. I only have a 770 gtx card.

If you're concerned then I think a better question is - "Is there a DEMO version we can download, if not, when?"

Sort of Try before you buy type of thing.

[Holdit]

It all depends on your settings, I suppose, but I'm having no trouble with it on my Q6600 2.4Ghz 4GB Wind 64 1GB vNividia 6-series card. I can't see your rig having any trouble with it.

I did find the default camera move speed slow and jerky, until I realised you could speed them up :woohoo: . I can run the full battle, not smooth as silk, but perfectly acceptable, without dialling down any of the graphics settings.

I'd say performance is just as good as Gettysburg.

[sifis172]

i think that it runs just about the same.
you won't have any problem with a pc of that kind.
i'm having a fairly good pc, nothing compared to yours,
and i run it on full army ratio and full dead bodies and
maximum settings, with no lag at all.

just speed up the camera as holdit says.

[voltigeur]

With the amount of bugs with sli I would be cautious running with both gpus enabled. Waterloo runs very smoothly for me so far, very playable. (780 ti)

[Nudz]

You're telling me that that Gettysburg ran badly on the above PC? really. I'm surprised as the PC is better than mine and I had no problems running gettysburg.

No, I had a different PC at the time. But it was about as powerful by the standards of the time as the one I have, now.

I'd say performance is just as good as Gettysburg.

Which for me would be awful, then. Did you ever try the expansion I mentioned? If so, did you notice any difference in FPS?

i think that it runs just about the same.
you won't have any problem with a pc of that kind.
i'm having a fairly good pc, nothing compared to yours,
and i run it on full army ratio and full dead bodies and
maximum settings, with no lag at all.

Actually, I think the problem is precisely that my PC is so powerful. I mean to recall having a conversation with the developer, where he essentially said that the game simply isn't optimized for newer computers. ("Gettysburg", that is.)

[AP514]

Game is on Clock Cycles(CPU)---video card is secondary...........

[Guest]

I wouldn't define 200.000 DirectX 9 API calls per frame to show 5.000 sprites exactly secondary...
But maybe you've profiled it much more extensively than me. :whistle:

[Holdit]

Which for me would be awful, then. Did you ever try the expansion I mentioned? If so, did you notice any difference in FPS?

No I only have Gettysburg. I only bought it about two months ago, though, so maybe I downloaded a more up-to-date version?

[Nudz]

Moderator : Please watch your language or you will receive a forum ban. Maybe try asking for help before flying off the handle.

I took a chance and bought the game, and by God - the performance text removed horrid.

It takes me all the way back to the days of the original Gettysburg. What happened? Did the guy who did the improved, optimized terrain for the expansion have a some sort of horrible stroke and forget all his competence from the last SoW? All improvements from the expansion are gone, as though they never existed.

I'm using the default graphical settings, (Sprite Ratio - 0; Percent Trees Showing - 100; Max Transparent Tree - 200; Max Terrain Draw Distance - High; Show Map Objects - Best; - Uniform Quality - Best; All draw distance settings at 1500.)

I've done practically all I can to squeeze out as many frames as possible, like fiddling with the SLI-settings and shifting the game over to my SSD-drives, but to no avail. text removed Just like in Gettysburg, the only text removed is to press the T-key until all terrain is hidden. Then the performance takes a massive jump.

Please fix your text removed Do whatever you need to do. You managed in the last SoW, albeit in an expansion we had to purchase.