Dirtweasle Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Originally posted by rune: Dirtweasle, No problem, glad you are in the game and playing. For a true test, send me your email, will send you a scenario to make your system cry. Rune Thanks but no thanks at least right now. I did not have time to play out the scenario last night, and to be honest was just getting the game installed and patched up in preparation for v 1.03, the pathfinding deal is too frustrating for me right now to do much with CMSF beside fool around with the map maker. I'll thoroughly test the performance of my rig then, but how do you measure exact frame rates in CMSF? Do you have to run a debug version or somefink? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andro Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 No, low FPS is one thing, unplayable on low graphis settings with a nearly high end PC is an other. Apples to oranges. The Geforce 7 is faster (in the monent) than the 8, so there is a BUG. So he is not false to want a workaround, to let us play the last scenarios. Till the bug is identified. I mean we can´t play the last campaing missions on a fullprice PC Game, even with absolute low settings. Imagine that. Every other product expect games I would bring back to grap a working one. We have to wait, and HOPE (here at my local store i cant get my money back, because of the opened case. So it isnt´t possible even if I would.) [ August 29, 2007, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Andro ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 That is the oddest thing about software, even when it wont work right your stuck with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 @ Andro: Absolute agree. Obviously something is very wrong with certain Geforce 8800 setups, that is causing a major hit in game performance. I was just pointing out that players should not assume that, once the problem is fixed, they will see that same or better fps in CMx2, as they see in current cutting edge First-Person shooters, like Bioshock. CM has always been a VERY resource hungry game, especially w/ larger scenarios & large numbers of units. I'm sure that BFC will fix the bug, eventually. Problem is, right now, they're having a hard time replicating in on their own 8800 system. They can't squash it until they find it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 To YankeeDog: My system runs Theater of War maxed out at 1920x1200 at over 35fps consistent, even with tons of action on screen, and it looks at least 3 times better than Shock Force. Further, it runs armed assault with max settings, including view distance, at ~30 fps. So like I said, fewer excuses and rationalizations. If the statement from battlefront is that 25-30 is the best fps one can get with current gen hardware (read 8800 gtx, decent processor and 2 mb ram), even in the largest of scenarios in this game, then that is simply poor programming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper5 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 To peleprodigy I don't think this program has performance problems, it's just hungry like FSX (30fps is excellent). Try this setup model= improved texture=best Vsync=off AA=off I'm getting between 39 and 60fps with this setup. My system is nForce(nvidia)680i motherboard Geforce 8800 GTX 768MB Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 @ 3.25GHz 2GHz Corsair RAM @ 800MHz What I hate are the LOS problems, people shoot me through the ground but I can't get a clear at an enemy that is seemingly in front of me.Maybe 1.03 will fix this. [ August 29, 2007, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Trooper5 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Trooper5 Is 39 FPS your minimum frame rate on the most demanding map sizes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper5 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 No. It can go down to about 10 but not for long.In Alahs Fist it starts at 10 then increases as you get closer to Phaseline Charlie, it also depends what I'm looking at I can still get 50fps even on this map and think its the worst. I think the problem is with the 8800 is the Antialiasing. Same mission off=32fps on=13 thats turned on at the card not the game. There is a beta driver available now that has no switchs for AA. I'll try that. NOPE! the current driver is best. [ August 29, 2007, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Trooper5 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: Can I just mention something that might be useful here. I just played the Al R'Lyeh Mosque Scenario and was getting VERY acceptable frame-rates in the 20s and 30s. There was a whole Stryker company on the attack in that scenario, and lots of built up areas, so I think the polygon count must be comparable to many scenarios. However, the map is quite a lot smaller than the ones in most scenarios. I am beginning to think the graphics issue is a red herring and it is a LOS calculation issue. Smaller maps equal substantially better frame-rates. If you are getting very low frame-rates, try this scenario with FRAPS running and see what you get. Steiner I thought so, too. Then I downloaded the "Violet Road" map that a user created (1808 x 480 meters). Using fraps in 3-d view mode in the editor, the FPS stunk as well. There aren't even any units in the mission yet. Certain views dropped my frame rate down to about 7-8. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper5 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 I tried the Al R'Lyeh Mosque scenario and got ammazing fps. Locked my view on a stryker and rotated with the mouse my fps was 34 to 165!!!Averaged 65fps during the fight. What's with that! Probably MAP SIZE not demanding graphics. [ August 29, 2007, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Trooper5 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Once again , there absolutely no reason other than poor programming why this game shouldn't give above 30 fps no matter the map size. There is quite simply not enough 'pretty stuff' on display. in fact, the visuals are quite drab. Check out a game called theater of war, also a battlefront product. it has tons more detail, equally large maps, and runs like a dream. Further, look at Arma, also several times more graphically demanding, and physically larger map and viewing distance (and it actually has a horizon other than some freakin 2d background for pete's sake!!!) than shock force AND it runs like a champ. I am not saying that I don't like shock force. To the contrary, I cant wait to play it (and get my $65 worth). I just cannot stand the nonsensical arguments in favor of mediocrity that I am getting about this game. if 25-30 fps is all the programmers can muster on top end hardware, well that is a very poor effort and a 4.5 review is quite appropriate. put a disclaimer on your product next time. [ August 29, 2007, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper5 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I have top end hardware and I'm getting an average of 50 to 60 fps on all the scenarios. Where did you get this 20 to 30 fps for high end systems? You are obviously mistaken. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 i have the exact same hardware (6600 v. 6700) except: you have the settings turned down, so i guess you are compromising. i submit that you shouldn't have to with these graphics. further, send your config info to battlefront please, because if you are getting 39-50 with those meduim settings then i may be able to eke out 30 with ideal settings [ August 29, 2007, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper5 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Easy Buddy, my 6700 is OC to 3.25GHz not the same as your 6600. I have no complaints about performance, everything runs great for me. If you did have the exact same hardware you'd be very happy aswell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 yeah, i am overclocked to 3.26 (362 fsb * 9 multi;1450 QDR) which is ironically a tad higher. Buddy. 2 gb gskill ram is at 900 mhz, 4,4,4,12 timings. and before all the anti-overclockers chime in, dont worry i tried the game at stock too. only thing not overclocked is my 8800gtx. could do it but usually don't need to. [ August 29, 2007, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Trooper5: I have top end hardware and I'm getting an average of 50 to 60 fps on all the scenarios. Where did you get this 20 to 30 fps for high end systems? You are obviously mistaken. please read my other post, but also, i got the 20-30 from the developers in this very thread. they said something along the lines of 20-30 being the ideal. battlefront, page 3 of this thread : "20-30 fps is what we consider ideal framerate for CM:SF" [ August 29, 2007, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper5 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Hey Buddy, Im not making this up. Why don't you get the same fps. You should. I guess thats what this thread is about, to try to figure out why some do and some don't. I posted my specs and performance results in this thread in order to help Battlefront. Actually, 20 to 30 fps in this game is ideal it runs very smoothly at that rate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 we are getting near the same page. i am just making sure we all don't settle for mediocrity. i might add i am playing (or i guess not playing) at 1920X12000. [ August 29, 2007, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law&Order Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 i might add i am playing (or i guess not playing) at 1920X12000. Well Sir, I think I spotted your problem then, 12000 is a wee bit much 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andro Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 *lol* But pls stop this "my is greater than yours" flaming. Post your rig, IF you have LOW frames. Other sxxx would help the devs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 How do you measure the framerate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Law&Order: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />i might add i am playing (or i guess not playing) at 1920X12000. Well Sir, I think I spotted your problem then, 12000 is a wee bit much </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Originally posted by Andro: *lol* But pls stop this "my is greater than yours" flaming. Post your rig, IF you have LOW frames. Other sxxx would help the devs. all i am doing is trying to get this community to realize that there is nothing on display in combat mission that should mean anything lowers than 30 fps NO MATTER WHAT DIRECTION YOU ARE LOOKING. when I look across the desert in the Allahs First scenario,and there is nothing there but sand and a 2d background, and the frame rate plummets, I KNOW there is a problem with the game. I play alot of games, and I know better than to accept any excuse other than either a bug or poor programming. And if anyomne comes in and says ' those games are directx, this game is opengl' I say then why did you use opengl? because it is obvioulsy substandard in the way you have applied it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Right, so something's hosed up, and hence the reason for this thread. Do you have any new data or are you just going to keep on with this circle-jerk? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 You should know by now that I will not let this rest until the problem is fixed, or at least until people quit defending the mediocrity. From this point, as long as no one comes in and says that the poor performance is because this game is very graphically demanding, I will stay out of it. I am fine with people recognize there is a problem, like the first part of your post. Though the second part of your post reveals you for a bit of a potty mouth schoolboy. do you always feel the need to go to the gutter? [ August 30, 2007, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: peleprodigy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.