Performance Optimization

[IICptMillerII]

Hi all. I was wondering how to go about getting the best performance out of CMRT. Currently I can run CMSF on full settings without issue, but in some of the larger scenarios in CMRT my computer really chugs along, and in some cases the framerate drops down to 1-5 range. I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to get a bit more performance out of the game. I did a Google search before making this post and I came across a suggestion that says to go into the Nvidia control panel and set "vertical sync" to the setting "adaptive (half refresh rate)" Some were reporting a large FPS increase by doing this. I tried but it did not help me out much. Anyone have more tips?

 

My system is running:

GPU: Nvidia GeForce 660 TI

CPU Intel i5-2390T 

RAM: 8 Gb

 

Thanks for the help in advance, and if I posted this in the wrong forum section, please feel free to move it to the correct one.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Are you running Windows? If so, which version and is it 32 or 64 bit?

 

These are the Nvidia settings I use. I don't guarantee these are optimal, but I can run large maps with frame rates in the 20s and I have a rather weak GPU (260M).

 

[IICptMillerII]

I'm running Windows 7 Home Premium in 64 bit.

 

Thanks for the imput! I'll try out those settings on the Nvidia control panel and see what I get. What are your in game options set to?

 

Also, from what I have heard and observed, CM games seem to use the CPU a lot more than they do the GR|PU. Is there any way that I can get the game to put more of a load on the GPU and take the burden off of the CPU? My CPU is a big bottleneck, and unfortunately many games that I like tend to be CPU intensive, so I run into this problem a lot. I'm looking to upgrade, but it's not really in the cards for me at the moment. I'm hoping there is some kind of workaround in the meantime. If not that's ok.

 

Thanks again for your imput. Frames in the 20s is perfect. I'm not looking for a solid 60 FPS or anything like that

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thanks for the imput! I'll try out those settings on the Nvidia control panel and see what I get. What are your in game options set to?

Display size: Desktop

V-Synch: ON

3D Model Quality: Improved

3D Texture Quality: Best

Antialias/Multisample: ON

High Priority Process: ON

Tree Detail: High

Shaders: ON

Is there any way that I can get the game to put more of a load on the GPU and take the burden off of the CPU?

Not that I am aware of.

[whitehot78]

Yup, CMx2 engine is heavily CPU-bound. In fact, fiddling around with the graphic driver settings would not change fps, at least in my case.

 

You can test this by changing the "3d model quality" setting (basically, it varies the number of polygons used in the 3d models, and their LODs). Putting it at the maximum will severely hamper the fps throughput.

 

Since there is an option in the game to run it in high priority, there COULD be some improvement in altering that value to an even higher priority number.

This could be done only with windows task explorer (at least in windows 7), or with utilities like Process Explorer.

 

Remember, though, that giving a process a too high priority access to the cpu can hamper the functioning of other programs running in background, and in some cases, the operating system as well.

 

All in all, I think that not being a game requiring extreme smoothness to be "playable" I'm satisfied with the fps I get with my build - even if sometimes it gets 15ish or something.

[Sgt Joch]

In my experience, the "3d model quality" setting is the one that has the biggest impact on FPS.

 

You have to experiment with different settings to find the sweet spot. All the settings from "Balanced" to "Best" use the same LODs, the only difference is the distance at which it draws them.

 

 

[Hister]

Anything below 20 FPS in this game suck big time for me.

Vanir, I'm buffled about your card managing to produce decent fps at such settings. :-o

[highlandcharge]

I found that the vsync settings of adaptive and then half refresh rate worked wonders for my FPS...

Edited February 26, 2015 by highlandcharge

[IICptMillerII]

Thanks for all of the input so far. 

 

I would like to add some context as far as my performance goes. I notice that I run the game very well without having to reduce my settings that much at all. For me the problem is happening with the first mission in the "Thunder over Ponyri" campaign that I downloaded. I've heard great things about the campaign and from what I have played of the first mission it is a lot of fun and well put together. My issue occurs when the combat starts. I've noticed that I suffer a significant FPS drop when artillery is striking, and that this happens regardless of whether or not I am looking at the actual impacts or away from them. 

 

Could this possibly just be a scenario optimization issue? Perhaps the scenario is simply too large? If this may be the case, is there a limit to the size of the scenarios that the game engine can handle?For instance, if I had some kind of super computer and I built a very large battle, would the game still lag simply because it over taxes the game engine? Hypothetical I know but it would help to establish an upper limit to what is possible regardless of the individual computer power. 

[highlandcharge]

Are you running any sound mods?

I found that with the 5.1 sound mod the first time a sound was used, especially arty, there was a very small pause in the game....

BTW the first mission in the German campaign is slow on my PC as well, I think its a bit of a system hogger :-)

Edited February 27, 2015 by highlandcharge

[IICptMillerII]

Bit of an update:

 

So I just learned that playing the game WEGO as opposed to real time makes it extremely more playable in the larger scenarios. In fact I'm currently playing the largest mission I have as a sort of test, and its running flawlessly. The only real wait is during the turn time calculation, and that isn't all that bad either, clocking in at under a minute each turn.

 

If this was common knowledge, I apologize. I'm relatively new to Combat Mission as a whole, and was unaware that playing the game WEGO is better performance wise (at least for me it is)

 

Thanks for all of the input and feedback. I hope that if a new Combat Mission player is having similar issues then s/he will be able to find this and use it as a resource that could help them out. Thanks again!

[Hister]

Vanir, I set my nvidia settings to what your screenshot shows. I get visuals which don't suit my demanding taste. Namely lots of shimmering caused by Antialiasing transparency set to Multisample and jaggines due to Anisotropic filtering set to off which having 8xCSAA can't fix.

It indeed launches ones frames high but it's the visual fidelity out of it that doesn't fit my needs.

Doing these recent nvidia control panel changes and testing them I'm now certain it's not my CPU giving me below 20 frames in hedge and forest heavy maps when shadows and shaders are set to on but rather my old GPU not being able to churn out decent frames for visual fidelity I want.

There were lots of debates how some people claim they get fabolous frames but they forget to mention how their nvidia settings are set. The above graphical settings I talk about are not application controlled and are set by quality preference in the nvidia panel or set manually in it separately.

Bottom line is each gives tremendous visual quality difference between low and high options. One can have the ingame settings set to high but if he/she has these two nvidia panes settings set to low visuals are still crap while frames are high.

That's the disparity I was seeing here I think.

Am more confident now that getting new gpu will allow me to have crisp enough visuals with for me playable frames (above 25).

As for wego and realtime differences I personally haven't noticed any.