Jump to content

Hpt. Lisse

Members
  • Posts

    459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hpt. Lisse

  1. Yes, it's an offical bug... http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118147-stug-iii-bug-commanders-opening-up-at-point-blank-range/
  2. ASL vet - though it's hard to say what level of production they were up to in the fall of '45, the new JS III's were beastly tanks. It would be interesting to see a squad of each go at it... It certainly would have pushed the Super Pershing into mass production... Agreed Sublime, no doubt Allied tatics adapted and TOE's improved. There were outstanding troops of the 82nd & 101st AB, veterans in the Big Red One, and heroic individuals everywhere. But the majority of our troops A) suffered from poor leadership at the Company & Battalion level, and wouldn't move forward without massive artillery assistance. BTW, the Brits were in the exact same boat. And I'm talking about pre-Bulge here, not after it was clear that Germany was beat. Again, I found Hastings Overlord and Armageddon (which shines a focused spotlight on this topic) to be just as insightful & balanced (perhaps more so) than even Ambrose's missives.
  3. I think most of these scenarios would be focused on a Stalin push West. An Allied push East was simply unthinkable at the time, Patton's enthusiasm notwithstanding. Though Churchill knew what was developing as the Red Army progressed, the Allied high command was driven by soldiers, not politicians. Neither the Yanks or the Brits would have suffered those losses on the ground, though the previously mentioned air superiority (for the Allies) would be a big factor. I don't even want to analyze the use of atomic weapons on Soviet strong points, which would have (even if outwardly subdued) created a nation of terrorists for the West to contend with. Great read - both Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, and then the follow-up Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 1945, by Max Hastings. Summary for this topic would be - A) Germans had the best professional army (obvious, I know), The Soviets had a vengeful horde driven by a leader who didn't give two farts for casualty counts, and C) the Allies had soldiers who were products of basically ethical democracies. The progress of Allied troops through Europe, and especially Germany, was much slower than expected, even as resistance crumbled, driven by cautious commanders and GI's who wanted to make it home alive. Did we have manpower reserves after VE day? Yep. Were they low-value green troops? Yep. Was that already a HUGE issue with our current frontline troops? Yep. A co got it - we didn't have the will to mount a war against the Soviets after VE day. Nor am I saying that (in a conventional war) the Soviets would have done better against us in August of '45. Defensively, the Allies (along with every willing German POW, which would have been many) would have easily stopped Stalin in his tracks, esp. with air superiority. That's why he didn't do it.
  4. Gents, With the v 3.0 engine in place, I was starting a FI/GL battle & noticed that there were no SdKfz 251 mods in place. I looked in the Repository & GAJ but didn't see any FI/GL-specific 251 stuff... I'm I missing it? If I use the ones I have from BN, will they work? Many Thanks!
  5. Unless you're working at 4K (or three monitors), 2GB of VRAM should be okay...
  6. Sell your card, man - NewEgg is running a promo on the EVGA GTX 770 card I just bought (of course, 'cause I just bought one a couple days ago.)
  7. Whole rig is on the first post in this thread ('New Tower'), with the exception of the GPU change from AMD 7870 2 GB over to the Nvidia GTX 770 2 GB. Frame rate is pretty steady at 30, using the "Vertical Sync - Adaptive (half refresh rate)" in the Nvidia control panel.
  8. Phil Coulton commenting in the "Problem with shadows" thread in Tech Support (p.5) - " ...We actually use entirely different shaders for ATI/AMD cards, because we can't rely on them to follow the specs that work for Nvidia and Intel..." The culprit perhaps?
  9. I'll post something in Tech Support. Future drivers may change this. By the way, Tanks a Lot, I'm a huge fan of your semi-transparent tree mod. I think BF should make it standard-issue for CMx2 - have the option to cycle between no trees, just the trunks, semi-transparent (preferably user adjustable), and full foliage.
  10. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. I used Driver Fusion to uninstall all the AND/ATI stuff, and installed the latest Nvidia drivers. The new GTX 770 2GB loaded 'Test 1' (best/best) in 0:56 seconds. That's a direct comparison with an AMD 7870 2GB (latest drivers) loading at 3:25; the new Nvidia card & drivers are almost 4x faster at loading times. Beats the i7-4700QM/Nvidia G750M laptop by some 17 seconds (1:13 sec) as it should. More tomorrow,as warrants.
  11. Yeah, hedging my bet that I'll be playing at 1080p for awhile yet... it was either a GTX 760 with 4 GB or a 770 w/2 GB video RAM... I sorted through the usual benchmarks and the step up to the 770 GPU seems to be significant, so that's where I landed. I also have had good experiences w/EVGA hardware in the past, before I moved to ATI/AMD...
  12. One new Nvidia GTX 770 on the way. Happy birthday to me. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130921 I'll report back in a couple days.
  13. Yeah man, I cannot claim this to be a double-blind test with 50 separate systems, but we're getting down to GPU's and/or drivers; or Win 7 vs Win 8.1 factors, at least in my case. Tanks a Lot's example is just as indicative, it seems... The AMD 7870 does fairly well in-game, not flawless but with x16 AF and 8xAA on, pretty good.
  14. Good to know... normally, if I commit to something like this, I'll try to get something sorta future-proof (4K CMx3 capable - maybe a GTX 770 4GB). After all, the whole point was to build the fastest CM machine possible... Still would like to post on AMD forums to see what they have to say for themselves; on Marthas Vineyard for a couple days vacation ("va-ca-tion - traveling to some other desirable location only to mind your children as opposed to doing it at home.") so it may have to wait. Could order the 770 from here, tho... tell the wife it's a, a microwave part...
  15. Tough call. I have no problem 'returning' to Nvidia, mind you, but my options are... A) GTX 760 for $240 - no slouch, but a sidestep over from the AMD 7870 GTX 770, a nice upgrade, but carries a $320 price point. What I'd really like to do is borrow a friends' card and see if that works or not... suppose I could buy one and return it if all fails. Of course, it doesn't answer the 'why' part, but...
  16. Yeah, highly suspect. While both the Laptop & New Tower's GPU's sport 2 GB of dedicated memory, the AMD 7870 is a much more powerful unit than the GT750M, as demonstrated with the 3DMark11 scores. Is it the manner in which OpenGL drivers are being handled by AMD? That's why I was curious to know - without giving up any trade secrets - what's being loaded at 28%. It may provide a clue to what's going on here... Tanks a lot - which video cards did you move from/to?
  17. UPDATE: One Samsung 850 Pro later - Test 1 loads at 3:25, a negligible difference over the Evo. So that ain't it. I'd love to know what game element is getting loaded at 28%, a fair amount of the loading time is spent there...
  18. There is some evidence out there that, under certain conditions, Evo drives can slow up considerably. Pulled the trigger on a Samsung 850 this morning, so when I'm cloned over to this SSD, I'll report back.
  19. I can't believe the complaints concerning T-34/85's versus Panthers. Why, just have a gander at my fine panzers after the battle... I had all four ready & waiting at about 1200m when the unruly Cossack mob arrived - the very first 85mm AP round gun-damaged one Panther. It went downhill from there pretty quickly. Iron Cross (and battle-saver) goes to these fellows... There's nothing like ripping up the enemy using their own gear.
  20. Buzz et al: I'll throw another piece of evidence into the pile - I kept this out earlier as to not confuse things... When I initially set up the New Tower, I was using the AsusMedia SATA port to do so - the four Intel SATA ports wouldn't recognize the SSD. Predictably, the Magician benchmark was pretty bad - so viola, right? That's why Test Battle #1 was loading so slow (3:37). Turns out, the mobo CD (Asus Z97 Pro) didn't load a current driver for the Intel SATA ports. Great - find driver, manually install it (kinda archaic for 2014/Win 8.1 era, but...) and sure enough, our SSD benchmarks connected to the Intel port is up to snuff. Sequential Read (MB/sec) rises from 314 to 505; Random Read (IOPS) similarly jumps from 53314 to about 97000. But that only dropped the loading time by 5 seconds (3:32). Yes, I understand that programs like Samsung Magician are synthetic benchmarks, and may not directly correlate to how fast a saved RT battle loads... but this is just damn peculiar now. Either there is some major differences on how a Samsung 840 & 840 Evo run data queue depths; the manner SSD's are handled between Win 7 and Win 8.1 is different; or some mobo setting in the tower is off. I will get to the bottom of this. One of my brothers has offered to buy the Evo off of me if I want to get a brand-new Samsung 850 Pro, but that's a $400 experiment (minus whatever he'd pony up for the Evo...) We still have a huge (3:32 vs. 1:13) loading disparity between Tower of Power and its lesser laptop brethren. There has to some reason for it.
  21. So, 3DMark 11 rates my laptop at P2880 and my New Tower at P8600 (performance test, at 720p). Individual scores were (graphics - physics - combined) as follows: Laptop 2629 - 7691 - 2361 New Tower 8254 - 11316 - 8233 I wonder if, being that the laptop SSD is plugged directly into the mobo affects anything (but it still goes through an SATA controller, right? Same as the tower through a cable & SATA port?) Haven't posted at Samsung today, but will later...
  22. Yep, confusing stuff - the only difference I see is New Tower SSD is a Sammy Evo and Win 8.1 64; the Laptop an 840 and Win 7 64. The tower outclocks it by a full GHz, to say nothing of its full-featured Asus Z97 Pro mobo, faster RAM, etc. I'll throw a 3DMark 06 at both after I feed the ankle-biters here, and post it... and may try to post this stuff in a Samsung forum to see if anyone bites...
  23. Hey all – may get moved to tech support, but wanted as much exposure/input as I could get, so perhaps Phil will leave this out in the main section for a couple days… I purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad Y410P laptop last year, and was really encouraged by its Combat Mission load speeds; so I built my new tower this year around the latest Intel components to emulate the performance. But I’ve been surprised by the numbers. So - 3 different computer systems, tested for loading times of an RT action turn during WEGO vs. computer play. Test #1: Myth of Invincibility (13.2 MB) mid-battle. (I originally kept this turn to show my brother an SU-76 getting KO-ed by another SU-76 cooking off.) Test #2: Augustow Plague Boil (26.2 MB) action turn, done after Old Tower was converted to New Tower. Mods folder (a ton of Aris & other mods) is standardized across all three platforms. All 3 use the same ESET NOD32 antivirus software. All units were freshly booted for a couple minutes before starting CM:RT. Samsung Magician SSD software in play (optimized for max speed) with HD over-provisioning in place for the Sammy SSD’s. Old Tower: Phenom II 965 BE, stock 3.4 GHz/OC 3.7 GHz, Mushkin Chronos 240 GB SSD, 8 GB 1866 DDR 3, AMD 7870HD GPU 2GB, Win 7 Pro 64, 1080p. Laptop: Intel i7 4700QM, 3.4 GHz stock, Samsung 840 256 GB SSD, 8 GB 1600 DDR3, Nvidia G750M GPU 2 GB, Win 7 Home 64. Single screen mode via HDMI to 1080p monitor. New Tower: Intel 4790K, 4.0 GHz stock/OC 4.4 GHz, Samsung Evo 500 GB SSD, 16 GB 2400 DDR3, AMD 7870HD GPU 2GB, Win 8.1 64, 1080p. Load Times: Unit ----- Test #1/Best Balanced Test #2/Best Balanced Old Tower - 5:07 1:39 N/A N/A Laptop - 1:13 0:28 0:52 0:25 New Tower - 3:32 1:05 2:06 0:43 Of Note: Removing the entire Mods folder from each of the builds only gains you 4-5% loading time. I thought it would be more. So, my new 2nd-gen Haswell tower, which I was planning on using to assume control of the Free World, gets absolutely spanked in scenario load times by a 1st-gen Haswell (mobile) laptop. Now, once in the 3-D environment, the New Tower shines – the 4790K combined with a more powerful 7870 video card clearly renders out the battlefield faster, no question. I am aware that (the last time I checked) OpenGL favors Win 7 over Win 8 by a noticeable margin. But the difference in load times, while better than the previous Tower, is massive. Comments? Could the Samsung 840 (non-Pro, mind you) really be doing something that the Evo isn’t? Using the Magician bench mark, the 840 does have better read scores, but only somewhat (say 10%). Look, it was time to refresh the tower anyway, and I’ll get a new video card at some point – I’m not disappointed with the overall performance. But this scenario load-time thing is really mystifying. Build notes: The Lenovo’s original Win 8 1 TB HDD was not clone-able (proprietary format); so it was re-built with the Samsung 840 SSD & Win 7 64-bit from scratch. Using Magician’s RAPID mode only nets you 4-5 sec. on a fresh load.
  24. This spring, I read the autobiography of German tank ace Otto Carius, "Tigers in the Mud". It's a great read, I highly recommend it - but man, that guy was constantly getting out of his tank to reconnoiter/communicate. It made a big impression on me as far as radio usage...
  25. Yep, tough times for us AMD fans - I still use a Phenom II 965 BE (mildly OC'ed from 3.4 to 3.7 GHz) in my tower. GPU is an AMD 7870HD, and it's still okay-ish for CMx2 battles. I held onto the promise that AMD was gonna release Kaveri (or some Steamroller-based CPU) on the AM3+ socket. But that didn't happen... I got a new laptop last year, a Haswell-core i7 4700MQ with an Nvidia 750M GPU (not as good as the tower's 7870, mind you) - even the mobile-version of the Intel proc spanks my tower when playing CM. (both machines outputting 1080p, both have SSD hard drives & have the same Aris-laden mods, etc.) So now I have an Intel i7 4790K on pre-order, a 500GB Samsung Evo SSD & Corsair H50 cooler sitting here, and deciding on some Intel Z97-chipset motherboard this weekend... all to crush CM:RT (and the other CM titles) as best as I can. It's really the only game I play now. It will be the first Intel processor in my tower in over 14 years. Useful Suggestion - Can someone create a 60-second CM test that could yield a 'score' for how your system is rendering the game? Or some such standardized, 3DMark ripoff where we can temporarily remove our Mods folder, run it & get a sense of what's what? Not a hardware pride-fest, guys, just a helpful measuring stick...
×
×
  • Create New...