How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg?

[Xreos1]

I guess there are people that only rate a game on FPS.

My computer is no where as good as most. My frame rate is low, but graphic performance improvement is lower down on the list.

I bought the game to recreate battles from history. Realistic maps and terrain, uniforms, units, leaders, a good AI, being surprised when my orders aren't followed properly.

In these areas, this game as a first step into the Napoleonic Era is good. As SOW Gettysburg showed progress and development potential is exciting.

Why not turn off the FPS counter and take the rest of the game out for a spin.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Nudz, the quality of your vocabulary speaks volumes.

[Holdit]

Agreed. I have a pretty low-spec PC and while performance could be better, it's still definitely playable. I don't understand how these guys with much more powerful rigs are experiencing such awful performance. Maybe it;s the screen resolution or something. I run mine at 1650x1080, which is my monitor's native resolution. When I move the camera (which I've also sped up), it moves in lots of (quick!) steps rather than a smooth sweep, but that's hardly the end of the world.

Regarding FPS counters, one thing I've learned from years of FSX is that the best way to use an FPS counter is to turn it off.

[Pawsy_bear]

everything maxed out 760gtx i5 and 8 Gig RAM runs very smoothly no issues whatsoever

[con20or]

Nudz - what sort of FPS are you seeing. We have reports of very Poor FPS and Lag due to a conflict with some AV software, such as Webroot. Did you check the technical section before posting this?

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/nuts-a ... -antivirus

Please watch your language on the forums.

[Nudz]

I guess there are people that only rate a game on FPS.

What a genuinely shocking thing to say. (I would use a stronger word, here, but y'know - minding my language.)

I have no understanding for someone who can see a game chug along at 5 FPS and enjoy their experience. The lack of standards is mind-boggling.

My computer is no where as good as most. My frame rate is low, but graphic performance improvement is lower down on the list.

See what I said about a lack of standards.

I bought the game to recreate battles from history. Realistic maps and terrain, uniforms, units, leaders, a good AI, being surprised when my orders aren't followed properly.

All of which I'm sure would be enjoyable, if the game didn't run like a Powerpoint-slideshow.

Why not turn off the FPS counter and take the rest of the game out for a spin.

Right.

It worries me that I have to point this out to you, but I frankly assumed it would be self-evident, purely from context, that the extent of the game's performance issues goes somewhat above "occasionally slips below 120 FPS when there's a million sprites on-screen". I'm talking about how the game routinely drops into the early teens and below if enough trees and grass is on-screen. I can play a large scenario with multiple divisions moving and fighting that will run pleasantly with foliage disabled, but grinds to a halt as soon as those extra trees and bushes show up. Just like in SoW: Gettysburg. We're not talking "slightly low FPS", here - we're talking about a slideshow.

Nudz, the quality of your vocabulary speaks volumes.

Thanks. I'm quite proud of it, myself.

I don't understand how these guys with much more powerful rigs are experiencing such awful performance.

Again - I suspect insufficient or incompetent optimization. That certainly was the case the last time around, with the developer's own admission.

Nudz - what sort of FPS are you seeing. We have reports of very Poor FPS and Lag due to a conflict with some AV software, such as Webroot. Did you check the technical section before posting this?

Again - I'm not complaining about slight slowdowns, here - I'm talking grinding slideshows. With enough foliage on, screen, it looks like someone's incompetently flipping the pages of a flip book - again; just like in SoW: Gettysburg. It's nauseating; not some mild annoyance.

From what I understand, "Webroot" is a some kind of antivirus. I do not have it on my computer. I'm using AVAST, which I've tried disabling to see if it helped performance. It didn't. In either case, the thread you linked to refers to "lag in cycles". This is no such thing - just bona fide crap FPS.

[Saddletank]

You didn't answer the question. What is your FPS exactly? Subjective phrases like "slideshow" and "powerpoint presentation" are not useful. People can't help you unless we begin to deal in specifics.

The foliage is just very simple 2D sprites generated from a few large texture sheets. There is no way it should affect performance.

My computer is 5 years old and has only been upgraded by some extra RAM a couple of years ago and a new PSU when the old one burned out. From a recent DXDiag check:

AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 645 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.1GHz
4096MB RAM
DirectX 11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE
Display Memory: 2515 MB
Dedicated Memory: 723 MB
Shared Memory: 1791 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz) (SoW runs full screen at 1650 x 1050)

I have all the graphic options set to best and the object and sprite draw distances are all 1500yds.

With this I get 12 to 20 fps in corps level battles which to me is great.

When I toggle vegetation on or off I get no change whatsoever in fps. I suspect something is wrong with your PC if these simple textures and 2D sprites are hurting game performance so much. It clearly isn't the game as my evidence proves.

[roy64]

I'm getting between 3-9 FPS at army level battles which is much lower than Gettysburg, this is with all the settings set to the highest, which is still playable just. If I set the sprite ratio to 2, I get an increase of FPS between 4-10, set to 3, I get an increase of FPS between 6-12, at 4 it's about 10-16 FPS.

Any advice to improve the FPS would be appreciated.


DXDiag check:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz (12 CPUs), ~3.3GHz
Memory: 12288MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570
Display Memory: 4048 MB
Dedicated Memory: 1232 MB
Shared Memory: 2815 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

[Xreos1]

My computer is no where as good as most. My frame rate is low, but graphic performance improvement is lower down on the list.

See what I said about a lack of standards.

[/quote]

You seem to confuse standards with financial ability to purchase the best quality equipment.

I admit I do not have the resources to buy better equipment.

As to 'lack of standards'

In 1968, during the height of the Vietnam war, I volunteered for the US Navy. Today I am on a VA disability that pays 1% above poverty level. Knowing what I do today, I would still answer my country's call. Those are my standards.

In future please don't confuse the two.

[Holdit]

Your spec and mine aren't all that different, apart from the processor - mine weighs in at 2.4Ghz.

I just fired up Fraps to have a look at what FPS I'm getting - not that I care, because I'm happy with how the game performs. Lesson #2 from FSX, concentrate on smoothness and the experience, rather than the FPS number. Neverthless, this discussion has made me curious.

Anyway, Fraps shows FPS of between 10 and 14 before the battle gets going, but as you'll see from these videos, the experience is still pretty good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7InKQN ... e=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D78Rp- ... e=youtu.be


I also did another quick test of how long to move the camera from Papelotte/La Haye to Pire's division at rooftop height, and back at max camera height. Results 27 and 35 seconds respectively. That includes direction changes and brief pauses to check that I was going in the right direction.

Paul