Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tavichh

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 08/18/1997

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Newark, DE

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

537 profile views
  1. Yes, performance has gotten a lot worse which I know is because of the RTX series which is why I said modern computers won't be able to play CM in a year or two because Nvidia & Intel are doing really crazy things with their products now. I will maybe, just give me until like tomorrow i'm really tired lol.
  2. I expect to run at the same frames or better as people with same spec's as me. And, I mean Command MALB, yes. The fact it doesn't have any 3D rendering means my CPU/RAM/SSD is not the culprit. CM has very little rendering (It uses LOD's) so it's not my graphics card. I'm running the game at 1920x1080 and I have shadows turned off. And Graviteam Tactics uses platoon's so you can have around 1000-2000 units in a single battle. I'm not downgrading my graphics card lol. I've even tried downgrading the OS a few years ago to XP just for this game to see if it was the lack of legacy support for Windows Features (i.e. DirectPlay) I made a helpdesk ticket a few hours ago. Now I wait I guess.
  3. I built my computer so I don't have any bloat on it. It's running off of the 1080 It's nothing on my PC. I've built three PC's and none of them could run Combat Mission. All running i5's, with two having a dedicated card (r9 290 & gtx 1080). I'll make a post on helpdesk but I mean they already have my money lol so I'm not sure if they're going to go the extra distance and help me but I'll check it out. Thanks.
  4. First off, I know the game runs on OpenGL. I don't know why that is but it is. I know the game performs hundreds of calculations for every soldier or whatever. But I play games like Command and Graviteam Tactics/Achtung Panzer and those run perfectly and Command simulates a hell of a lot more than CM. So, I built a PC pretty much specifically for these three games and I can't get it to even work properly. I get maybe 10 frames in a battle and even when I get more than 20 frames the camera lags behind so ****ing much it's unplayable. I have a i5 4690k, 32GB of ram and CM is installed on a SSD and have a GTX 1080. I am literally giving it every chance to run but it doesn't. People get 40fps on giant battles and I can't get 10 on Tiny. Please help. I made a post four years ago with a similar problem but my computer has gotten a lot more powerful since then and performance is a lot worse. I can't be the only person having this issue. At this rate, modern computers may not even be able to play Combat Mission in a year or two. This game needs some serious optimization.
  5. 1) Command from MatrixGames is the one I'm speaking of. IMO its on par with CM in terms of the calculations it's doing. 2) I didn't know it was just one developer. Do you know why isn't he just reaching out for other developers for hire? CM could benefit so much from faster development. 3) Why isn't CM on steam? I have a developer/publisher account on steam and I can tell you the takeaway amount from steam that you hear on the internet is 100% bull****. However, I can't say the exact amount due to NDA but if Combat Mission were to be on steam and at least 100 people buy it; It would be flourishing. 4) I noticed it was OpenGl when I tried recording a video with it then later saw mac versions available on the store. I guess that/you answered that question. 5) I know AMD is **** with OpenGL (bought this card last summer because there was a crazy 50% deal going on as I went from Nvidia to AMD) but I feel as if there is at least some optimization to be had on Battlefront's part. Better garbage collection would be nice regarding CM. Also, due to the popup of Linux and Mac games on steam AMD is just going to release better OpenGL drivers which in turn will nullify the reasoning of any error on AMD's part. But in the mean time; Better optimization would be great from CM where and when it can happen. I know there's probably a thousand posts about this but I don't want to go into 2017 knowing I still cannot run Combat Mission.
  6. Fresh install of windows/cm. Also I don't think its the bus speed since 128bit era games run perfect but its not comparable 100% imo to cm due to cm being much more demanding on calculations than other games so I don't believe that it would be the mobo but yeah thats a bottleneck. Also is there a reason behind the development process of cm? I feel like they are bleeding money with expansions and standalone when they should make a game that will run on computers made within the past five years. I don't get them at all.
  7. Both monitors are 1920x1080 at 23" so playing on a different monitor doesn't have much any different impact So the 4.0 features on the front page are the only additions to CM? Motherboard was switching from AMD AM3+ Asus Sabertooth 990fx to LGA 1150 PC Mate Reason for the switch was alot of games don't run well on AMD as they have poor multi-core support so I went with Intel. I thought CM would be one of those games that would be fixed during my switch of motherboards. It wasn't.
  8. Hello there! So I own SF, BN, and BS and I have the same problem on all of them I can't get a decent framerate to which I feel as ignorance to release games like combat mission in 2010's and have them not run on modern computers. Basically I see people on YouTube with pure **** running as systems and combat mission runs with 60fps with maxed out settings and yet I can't obtain thirty. I've tried everything; Installed it on SSD, overclocked CPU and GPU and absolutely nothing does anything to my frames. So my question is as it says in the title: will upgrading to engine 4.0 increase my frames at all? Also, from a geek's perspective, I can't put my finger on what is causing lag on Combat Mission? All I can bring it down to is poor optimization. Games like Command run perfectly on my system and that game is doing much more behind the scenes than Combat Mission. If anyone wants to help troubleshoot my frame issue; specs are below: GPU: R9 290 CPU: Intel i5 4690k Ram: Kingston 8gb 2133mhz SSD: Kingston HyperX 120gb
  9. I just bought Shock Force due the price and to my knowledge that's the only Combat Mission that offers some unconventional warfare (IED's & Spies) which is really hard to achieve in other Combat Mission Games (Normandy, Red Thunder) but in a game with a fictitious battle with NATO & Ukraine vs RU; I think unconventional warfare would be beneficial. I would hope to see a expansion for militia as the troops currently fighting in Ukraine are either rushed musters or civilians. Ukraine's not winning a head on fight against Russia. Realistically they would adapt to guerrilla tactics such as ambushes. Militia can also be offered for both sides of the fight which in my opinion makes a decent expansion for Black Sea.
  • Create New...