Question about performance

[Gudadantza]

I´ve discovered the most performance affecting graphic option is "trees". The difference in performance having trees 100 per cent and 0 percent is dramatic. Playable but the lag causes a lot of mind tireness.

The loss in immersion is high without trees, and I should play with options on high with no problem.

My specs are i core 2300m 2.10 ghz
4gb ram
1gb ram radeon hd6470M

I guess I have the requeriments to have good performance at high settings. Is it normal?

Greetings.

[born2see]

I'm not an expert here but a lot depends on the size of the battle and what you consider acceptable performance.

Can you give us an example of where you're seeing issues?

B

[Gudadantza]

I'm not an expert here but a lot depends on the size of the battle and what you consider acceptable performance.

Can you give us an example of where you're seeing issues?

B

Low framerate on he standard vanilla maps of gettysburg. Ok, I know gettin options lower all is smoother, but what comp needs the game? Is not my comp above the specs? no idea just ask the question.

I guess a decent aceptable performance is the perfermance expected in my specs comparing to official specs. I ask the question about if it is normal or not considering the performance from other users.

Greetings

[Gudadantza]

My consult is for those with similar specs like me. Are you guys having less framerates than expected at high? I must confirm if it is my fault or so...

Greetings.

[Davinci]

This game is different from a lot of other games, meaning that I doubt that anyone is getting 40 fps .

I get roughly 8 - 12 , but that depends on the movements of the troops, such as both armies marching at the same time.

Anything above ten is acceptable, and I can't notice any slow-downs as far as the game, or the movements are concerned.

Basically, if you can scroll the camera around without having any pauses, that is great.

As mentioned above, the trees, marching, and the amount of men in both armies, are the biggest hits on the frames-per-second.

Well, also the viewing distance, but you would have had to increase that yourself, so I doubt that that would be the problem.

You may try lowering the amount of men in both armies, and try to find an acceptable balance there, after that just try to play the game with that many troops per battle.

I can only play the game with roughly thirty-thousand troops per side, anymore than that, well...I'm watching a slow-motion-slide-show.

davinci

[Gudadantza]

This game is different from a lot of other games, meaning that I doubt that anyone is getting 40 fps .

I get roughly 8 - 12 , but that depends on the movements of the troops, such as both armies marching at the same time.

Anything above ten is acceptable, and I can't notice any slow-downs as far as the game, or the movements are concerned.

Basically, if you can scroll the camera around without having any pauses, that is great.

As mentioned above, the trees, marching, and the amount of men in both armies, are the biggest hits on the frames-per-second.

Well, also the viewing distance, but you would have had to increase that yourself, so I doubt that that would be the problem.

You may try to lower the amount of men in both armies, and try to find an acceptable balance there, after that just try to play the game with that many troops per battle.

davinci

I dont expect framerates like in a fps, I am not a technofreak... I know this game is more tolerable on low framerates than others, I know. So I can have my question answered.

The game is playable, I get slow camera movement that are faster when I eliminate trees. Because they are the only framerate performance hit to me. Nor smoke nor number or soldiers, nor view distance. Only trees.

So I would be happy with less detailed trees because, comparing, it appears that my performance is not so bad when all high...

But as I say,I have a bit of mind tireness playing around 20 minutes due to the lack of smoothness...And affects a bit on immersion, i know in every moment I am interactuating with an interface...

Greetings

Another question, I am thinking about purchasing Antietam. there Are a lot of woods, aren´t it? I´ll think about it...

[Little Powell]

Another question, I am thinking about purchasing Antietam. there Are a lot of woods, aren´t it? I´ll think about it...

Quite a bit of woods, but the Antietam maps are actually easy on FPS, especially in Sandbox play (depending on the size of the OOB of course). Some of the Scenarios are pretty memory intensive and will be slow on even the fastest machines, but not all of them, and the ones that are, you can adjust your graphics accordingly. The South Mountain scenarios all perform great.

[Gudadantza]

Another question, I am thinking about purchasing Antietam. there Are a lot of woods, aren´t it? I´ll think about it...

Quite a bit of woods, but the Antietam maps are actually easy on FPS, especially in Sandbox play (depending on the size of the OOB of course). Some of the Scenarios are pretty memory intensive and will be slow on even the fastest machines, but not all of them, and the ones that are, you can adjust your graphics accordingly. The South Mountain scenarios all perform great.

Sold. well... it was easy... :laugh:

Do perform well the south mountain scenarios? :dry: I remember SM Antietam and in the South mountain battles I couldn´t see my troops due to the forest... :unsure: In any case I´m glad to hear that.

Greetings.

[norb]

We write the game to be a bit ahead of what's out there performance wise. Because we constantly create new content in map packs and patches, we figure that we can stretch things a little. Very few machines can play on full settings with all options on the highest, on a 7.5 mile map with a full army OOB. We also constantly strive to improve performance. Our last patch re-made all of our sprites, and there are quite a lot of them. We found a way to increase performance and save memory with our high res sprites. So we did it. But also with every bit of performance increase, comes larger performance intensive maps and scenarios. That's why we offer all the options, so that everyone can set the game to a point that they consider playable.

[Gudadantza]

We write the game to be a bit ahead of what's out there performance wise. Because we constantly create new content in map packs and patches, we figure that we can stretch things a little. Very few machines can play on full settings with all options on the highest, on a 7.5 mile map with a full army OOB. We also constantly strive to improve performance. Our last patch re-made all of our sprites, and there are quite a lot of them. We found a way to increase performance and save memory with our high res sprites. So we did it. But also with every bit of performance increase, comes larger performance intensive maps and scenarios. That's why we offer all the options, so that everyone can set the game to a point that they consider playable.

When you say last patch are you refering to last beta 1.4026 or just 1.4? Are future optimitations expected? Sorry for being so monothematic.

-------------------

I could not hold and I have contributed for the payments of your future retirements getting Antietam.
Guys, Great Job. Considering the replayability of the game I have battles for years.

I hope Gettysburg continue being the sandbox for a long series of addons, payables and why not, some of them free... yes... on Christmas... why not...