Jump to content
jkh0208

Why not sell Shock Force 1 as well as Shock Force 2?

Recommended Posts

Having tried the demo for both SF1 and SF2, the first game runs significantly better on my laptop than the second.  The engine 4 games run horribly on my laptop in general, so I won’t be purchasing any until I’m able to upgrade to a better computer (which won’t be anytime soon since this is my primary work computer as well).  However, I would gladly have purchased the first game, and was ready to do so right before it was pulled from the store.  What is the reasoning it was pulled?  That would be like Valve pulling Half Life 1 as soon as Half Life 2 was released.  I’m now a willing customer who is unable to purchase a product that worked perfectly for me.  If it’s about money, Battlefront isn’t making any money from me if they are have a product I’m willing to purchase but refuse to sell it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What graphics card does your laptop have? There are a few threads on optimizing Nvidia settings. It doesn't make technical sense that v1 would be significantly better than v2 in fact there would be reason to think v2 would perform better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanL said:

What graphics card does your laptop have? There are a few threads on optimizing Nvidia settings. It doesn't make technical sense that v1 would be significantly better than v2 in fact there would be reason to think v2 would perform better.

I have an Intel HD 520 in the laptop I'm using.  It's not a gaming machine by any stretch.  I don't know why I'm seeing such performance differences between both games regardless of display settings or resolution, perhaps the demo isn't optimized.  Both demos run fine on my desktop with a NVIDIA GTX 1070.  The problem is, I'm rarely home and want to be able to play on the go on my work laptop.  Since the Shock Force 1 demo works so well on the laptop, I really wish the option to purchase it was still available.  I just don't get why it was removed altogether. 

Edited by jkh0208

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a lot of issues optimizing CMSF2 but it runs very fine now.

Some tips...

-Make sure threaded optimization is OFF on your Nvidia control panel.

-One of the biggest issue's I had is with tree foilage. Do you notice any performance difference between say Passage at Wilcox (loads of tree's) & Day at the Beach (only a few palm tree's)? Does performance significantly improve for you if you turn the "tree-trunks" only option on (Alt-T)?

-Model Quality is probably the biggest resource hog... Have you made sure to set it to balanced, fast or fastest? You can change the Model Quality via the options screen AND change it in-game with Shift+[ & Shift+].

-Consider "boosting" your system & optimizing it for CM with a 3rd-party program. I use an older version of Razer Cortex...

https://game-booster.soft32.com/old-version/

-I'd also check out this excellent post by DeutschRitter...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have run a benchmark of CMSF1 and 2 with same settings and CMSF2 runs a good 10-20% faster.  You must be doing something wrong.  And this is on a Surface Book 2 i7.  Its an i7, but not a screamer.  I used Wadi scouts as the benchmark.

 

I'm not saying any CM game runs fast on the machine, but CMSF2 appears far more optimized.  Especially if even a hint of smoke is present in CMSF1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

I have run a benchmark of CMSF1 and 2 with same settings and CMSF2 runs a good 10-20% faster.  You must be doing something wrong.  And this is on a Surface Book 2 i7.  Its an i7, but not a screamer.  I used Wadi scouts as the benchmark.

 

I'm not saying any CM game runs fast on the machine, but CMSF2 appears far more optimized.  Especially if even a hint of smoke is present in CMSF1.

I'm not sure what I could be doing wrong.  I've tried every combination of graphic settings and get similar results.  CM: Normandy runs fine on this laptop, as do games like Skyrim (in 1280x720 and a few settings turned down), Dark Souls 1 and 2, RotTK 13, Nobunaga's Ambition Sphere of Influence, and GTA 5 in low settings.  Even when both are set to equivalent settings, I'm getting higher framerate out of CMSF1 than CMSF2.  I'm getting steady 55-60fps on CMSF1, but CMSF2 is literally capping at 30fps with dips to 15-20fps.  Again, this is the demo version of both, so I don't know if the demos are different than the final full releases with regards to optimization. The odd thing is, I get opposite results on my desktop with the GTX 1070, with CMSF2 demo running better than CMSF1 at 1920x1080.  It's only on my laptop with the Intel HD 520 and no dedicated GPU that I'm getting worse performance out of CMSF2.  I just want to know why CMSF1 isn't available for purchase anymore.

Edited by jkh0208

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jkh0208 said:

 

.  I just want to know why CMSF1 isn't available for purchase anymore.

Because there is an extreme discount for owners of cmsf1 for CMSF2. It is possible BF could set a standard that any purchase of cmsf1 after CMSF2 was released would be ineligible but that would require tracking which they aren’t likely prepared to do right now. Possible that could change in the future but I am not sure I would bet on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC specifically says that running on any Intel HD graphics is problematic, CM1 and CM2.  So using that as your benchmark is problematic to begin with.  Even than, if you are only running demos, I am not sure what you should expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, jkh0208 said:

  I just want to know why CMSF1 isn't available for purchase anymore.

Because of the CMSF2 discount.

I, again, repeat that I too had issue's getting CMSF2 to run smoothly... on a PC which was running CMA, CMRT & all the other Demo's fine.

I too played around with loads of settings & got nowhere.

CMSF2 now runs fast & smooth for me.

So my suggestion is we try & work out what we can do to improve your CMSF2 experience. For that we need info.

Which is why I asked you several questions.

 

BTW

"Capping" at 30 fps sounds similiar to what happens on an Nvidia card with the adaptive V-sync (half refresh rate) setting on. For Nvidia, it's designed to cap like that & is meant to help avoid stuttering at low fps... presumbaly your intel card is trying to do something similiar.

Edited by 37mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Setting the issues with intel's graphics cards aside - cause we know they suck for CM.

19 hours ago, jkh0208 said:

I'm getting steady 55-60fps on CMSF1, but CMSF2 is literally capping at 30fps with dips to 15-20fps. 

Wait is that bad? I have my Nvidia settings set to keep to 30fps and routinely play (larger) games at 20fps and lower. And I never look at the fps numbers and worry. I just play. The camera controls moves well or tolerable for the larger scenarios. And I have a good time. If you are upset just because the fps numbers are giving you heart burn then turn them off and play.

Or if there are actual control issues then that's different.

 

Quote

Again, this is the demo version of both, so I don't know if the demos are different than the final full releases with regards to optimization.

I would expect them to be roughly the same. For example the CMSF2 demo is just the code that was released as GA with some tweaks (for demoness) and resources removed.

Edited by IanL
typeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, IanL said:

Setting the issues with intel's graphics cards aside - cause we know they suck for CM.

Wait is that bad? I have my Nvidia settings set to keep to 30fps and routinely play (larger) games at 20fps and lower. And I never look at the fps numbers and worry. I just play. The camera controls moves well or tolerable for the lager scenarios. And I have a good time. If you are upset just because the fps numbers are giving you heart burn then turn them off and play.

Or if there are actual control issues then that's different.

 

I would expect them to be roughly the same. For example the CMSF2 demo is just the code that was released as GA with some tweaks (for demoness) and resources removed.

No wonder he wants to buy CMSF 1 ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

No wonder he wants to buy CMSF 1 ;).

LOL spell check doesn't work well when you type a valid word but not the one you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more question on the note of engine 3 vs engine 4 games.  Normandy runs fine because I'm running engine 3.  If I do the upgrade to engine 4, will I likely experience the same issue as I do with Shock Force 2, and if I do, will I be able to downgrade back to engine 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jkh0208 said:

One more question on the note of engine 3 vs engine 4 games.  Normandy runs fine because I'm running engine 3.  If I do the upgrade to engine 4, will I likely experience the same issue as I do with Shock Force 2, and if I do, will I be able to downgrade back to engine 3?

Nope - there is no engine 3 for Shock Force 2 but my understanding (and I could be wrong) is that Shock Force 2 is the first of the games to have all of the behaviours that will be fixed in the upcoming patch for the remainder of the engine 4 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, jkh0208 said:

One more question on the note of engine 3 vs engine 4 games.  Normandy runs fine because I'm running engine 3.  If I do the upgrade to engine 4, will I likely experience the same issue as I do with Shock Force 2, and if I do, will I be able to downgrade back to engine 3?

Difficult to say, as we've yet to determine if you even have an issue.

You've spoken of CMSF2 running "horribly" yet have only given reasonable frame rates.

You say you've compared the two demo's but, seeing as how both demo's feature different battles & maps, that seems unlikely.

You've spoken of a "capping" effect (at a very reasonable 30 fps) which sounds like it must be a vsync/graphics card "issue" & not a demo issue.

You've spoken of "trying every combination" of settings (which, again, seems unlikely) but have provided no specific details... even when offered advice & queried.

Again, if you want help... we need info.

Edited by 37mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 37mm said:

Difficult to say, as we've yet to determine if you even have an issue.

You've spoken of CMSF2 running "horribly" yet have only given reasonable frame rates.

You say you've compared the two demo's but seeing as how both demo's feature different battles & maps that seems unlikely.

You've spoken of a "capping" effect (at a very reasonable 30 fps) which sounds like it must be a vsync/graphics card "issue" & not a demo issue.

You've spoken of "trying every combination" of settings (which, again, seems unlikely) but have provided no specific details... even when offered advice & queried.

Again, if you want help... we need info.

"if you even have an issue"  "which, again, seems unlikely"

Roger that, if this is the sort of skepticism shown towards people interested in this series by the community, then I have enough of an answer needed to make an informed decision.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jkh0208 said:

"if you even have an issue"  "which, again, seems unlikely"

Roger that, if this is the sort of skepticism shown towards people interested in this series by the community, then I have enough of an answer needed to make an informed decision.  Thanks.

Skepticism... if someone tells me their intel laptop runs a game better than my Desktop & that it's "horrible" then yes I get skeptical.

I had downloaded both demo's to help you out & compared the closest scenarios (Die Festung & Alamo).

For me CMSF2 appears to be better optimized whilst looking better generally.

CMSF1 Balanced

CMSF1 Best

CMSF2 Balanced

CMSF2 Excellent (the equivalent of CMSF1 Best)

All pics are from vanilla demo's with no mods or effects, a 1920x1080 resolution, no graphics card profile, AA & Vsync on, Best Texture quality (I should have downgraded that for CMSF2), shadows on & shaders off, turn-based & Iron.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jkh0208 said:

"if you even have an issue"  "which, again, seems unlikely"

Roger that, if this is the sort of skepticism shown towards people interested in this series by the community, then I have enough of an answer needed to make an informed decision.  Thanks.

not the best of wording for sure, but there are a lot of folks here with some very good info on different options on graphic performance.  Endeavour to persevere man, it has only been a week. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The engine 4 games run horribly on my laptop in general, so I won’t be purchasing any until I’m able to upgrade to a better computer

Quote

The odd thing is, I get opposite results on my desktop with the GTX 1070, with CMSF2 demo running better than CMSF1 at 1920x1080.

Quote

One more question on the note of engine 3 vs engine 4 games.  Normandy runs fine because I'm running engine 3. 

Interesting conundrum, can anyone figure out how these sentances make sense in the same universe?

He won't buy something that generally is rubbish until he buys the better computer he already owns which may or may not be already running the games fine at version 4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jkh0208 said:

One more question on the note of engine 3 vs engine 4 games.  Normandy runs fine because I'm running engine 3.  If I do the upgrade to engine 4, will I likely experience the same issue as I do with Shock Force 2, and if I do, will I be able to downgrade back to engine 3?

Oy! Let me take a stab.

Summary:

CMBN 3 working fine on your desktop and working OK on your Intel graphics card laptop

CMSF 2 working fine on your desktop and not working well on your Intel graphics card laptop

You want to know if you will see a similar profile if you upgrade to CMBN 4. I am not sure because the behaviour of those Intel graphics cards suck but if you made me guess I would guess that yes CMBN 4 would also perform poorly on that laptop. I am frankly surprised there is such a difference between CMSF 1 and 2 but CMSF 2 and CMBN 4 have way more in common in terms of graphics that CMSF 1 has with anything else.

As for "can you downgrade back to CMBN 3". Hell yeah. You can uninstall CMBN 4 and then reinstall CMBN 3 or better yet when you buy the upgrade download the full installer for CMBN 4 and install it in a separate directory so you have both CMBN 3 and CMBN 4 running on your computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IanL said:

I am frankly surprised there is such a difference between CMSF 1 and 2

Instead of waiting for answers to questions you'll never recieve you might be interested to check out what an optimized CMSF2 can do.

This is my current CMSF2 running on Balanced... you'll notice it looks far better than CMSF2 (vanilla) on excellent & yet is 5fps quicker.

This is my current CMSF2 running on Fast... you'll notice it still looks loads better than CMSF2 (vanilla) Balanced & yet is almost as quick.

Like you, I also use adaptive half refresh rate & so it all plays very smooth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 37mm said:

This is my current CMSF2 running on Balanced... you'll notice it looks far better than CMSF2 (vanilla) on excellent & yet is 5fps quicker.

This is my current CMSF2 running on Fast... you'll notice it still looks loads better than CMSF2 (vanilla) Balanced & yet is almost as quick.

Check your pictures - they seem to have text that I suspect is meaningful but I cannot read any of it because the resolutions is so low.

 

3 minutes ago, 37mm said:

Like you, I also use adaptive half refresh rate & so it all plays very smooth.

Yes, if you are using an nVidia card there is a lot you can do to make things better. Highly recommend doing that - same as you. But for those crappy intel cards you are screwed. They either work or not and if they do they either perform poorly or intolerably :D

The OP's root problem is they are trying to find a happy path that includes a machine with one of those crappy intel graphics cards. So they are kinda stuck with what they get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IanL said:

Check your pictures - they seem to have text that I suspect is meaningful but I cannot read any of it because the resolutions is so low.

Hmmm... is there no option to "load the full resolution"?

Either way, you can download the image too (there's a button below & just to the right ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×