graphics issues any1 ?

[liquidcactus]

i have a very fast high end computer, ive put the graphics on high and after launching game the graphics look like your on a martian planet - anyone else have this problem ?

- having said this, the default graphics work fine.

i may have to play the waiting game 4 the 1st patch me thinx

[bodkin]

Martian landscape? Have you got a screenshot? What are you saying, that there is no vegetation?

[Marc Anton]

Mars has a beautiful landscape but this game ..... no words.

Honestly guys its 2010 and this is not working anymore.

Jesus please dont let CM-N looks like this crap

[Erwin]

get the trees and bushes mod from repository.

[Gryphonne]

Is there a way to make the terrain on which the map is hovering just black? the repetitive dirt is annoying and besides i have a feeling that it affects fps.. also the engine is so friggin choppy. People say that the game utilises a lot of CPU power, but even with one unit and some buildings and bushes it's just slow..

I hope Normandy looks different or at the very least is a lot more efficient.

[MikeyD]

A lot of speed issues have to do with how you've set up your graphics card options. If you've got all your computer's filtering and antialiasing and whatnot turned up to max things will slow down. There's optimal settings for taking pretty screenshots and there's optimal settings for sending a full infantry company into combat in realtime.

[Gryphonne]

Of course, but still, there is games that render a whole lot more and they do it a whole lot more smoothly, FSAA & AA or not. We're not living in the early 00's anymore, gfx rendering cards are a lot more powerful than say, when CMSF was released, and the problems with CMSF have persisted through time.

[MarkEzra]

We all want to improve the graphics but not at the expense of number crunching. That is why it's always futile to compare the graphics of any CM game with Game X-Y or Z. Maybe we just need to call it an ugly balance of priorities

(But The green trees is a snoball choice...I suggest the Mod be used) (CM-N is 100% BFC)

[Thomm]

We all want to improve the graphics but not at the expense of number crunching.

Number crunching should be less of an issue when watching WeGo movies.

Since I use WeGo only for generic tests, I cannot state this with certainty, though.

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

That is why it's always futile to compare the graphics of...

Remember, those games that render a whole lot more are doing a whole lot less under-the-hood so they can give you pretty pictures. Tracking individual bullet trajectories of 2-300 soldiers at once takes priority over... trees.

[Gryphonne]

Number crunching should be less of an issue when watching WeGo movies.

Since I use WeGo only for generic tests, I cannot state this with certainty, though.

Best regards,

Thomm

The issue is that even when nothing is actually crunched the fps are still low. Making a map (without units) such as the one in the 3rd mission of the CMA campaign drops the fps to 10 on a high end system at best settings for both 3d model and textures. This is with just 2x AA and 4x AF. My machine can handle the vast open spaces of ARMA II even better than it can CMSF/A; and CM, in all honesty, is not a beauty queen.

Don't get me wrong, I _love_ the CM series and have been playing them since the very first days of CMBO, but the new engine just seems so inefficient at what it does graphically, and I don't understand why. I thought a high end system would cure my woes, but alas, it's still the same.

Also I dislike the current LOD system a lot with things popping in and out of existence like mad when you scroll around, and of course the extremely low res textures that pop into existence right next to a high res texture; it's just very unelegant. In my humble opinion, the terrain in CMx1 "felt" a lot smoother and far less artificial in the old days, even despite the high amount of abstractions.

EDIT: Adding to the above, I feel that the terrain in TOW looks far better for example, and plays smoother in my opinion.

[Moon]

Marc's screenshot looks to me like the video settings are turned way up too high, and CMSF has to do a lot of work to try to downgrade a lot of the textures and models to keep framerates workable. I would start with lower quality settings and then increase.

[Moon]

This is with just 2x AA and 4x AF.

Have you actually tried to change some of the settings and see if it improves? I have a very old PC here and my quality is much better than e.g. Marc's screen. You can see for yourself when you look at e.g. the CMA trailers which I made on this old PC AND running FRAPS capture at the same time.

I seem to recall vaguely something about AA and AF settings and how certain settings can slow things down a LOT. You may want to play with your video card settings somewhat and test the results.

[Marc Anton]

I dont talk about frames by the way, they are not that important to me as i play with WEGO since CMBO.

I talk about the image quality - look at those ugly trees+colors, the crapy shadows, the lowres textures on those mountains and even the hindukush-mountain-backround-wallpaper is lowres with a crack in the middle .... seriously guys this is not up to date anymore.

But i guess we will hear always the same from BF about the whole calculations that must be done "under the hood" which prevend the game from looking good ...

Maybe thats the reason why we dont get any seriously screenies from CM:N ?

But as long as this 10 years old game looks good enough i dont care about CMxxx :-)

Super Sampling AA for the win

[Erwin]

Very nice. What mods do you use?

[AslakH]

I have CM:A turned up on the high end of the settings, no problems for me. Even with hundreds of troops firing at each other.

Only FPS drops come around when: 600+ infantry shooting all over the place, two batteries of heavy artillery firing (one airburst, one general munitions) AND two Hinds using their cannon. All these elements make for low FPS. Though, only until the Hinds go away. Stop moaning about the graphics, enjoy it for what it is.

[Gryphonne]

Yeah, it's very nice and dandy that it works for you, however, i only get 20 fps with everything turned to lowest running at 1024x786 on a system with HD5770. Tbh, that is just plain stupid. There is so much discrepancy with performance between various computers that one does not know where to look for the problem.

[liquidcactus]

Ok update, i only had hardcore graphic problems due to launching CMA through steam, this was an attempt at advertising it to my freinds so they would see me playing it & say " hey man, whats combat mission afghanistan?".. anyway, well im happy ive started this interesting debate with the post..

i havent had a alot of experience with CM series apart from playing CMBO 6 years ago and played a little bit of CMSF, CMBO blew my mind at the possiblities of strat games as i have always loved RTS/stratergy games.. however, after falling in love with TOW2 kursk in recent times, its defenetley hard to be impressed by anything else, that game has unreal emmersion, u feel like u are in a war movie set in the ost front.

Now i have only played about 1 hr of CMA and it seems incredible but like some the others above have said, considering the size of the maps " under the hood " the graphics are still very primative,the camera VERY sluggish(so hard to get nice close inf shots), but yet still an awesome game none the less... i would like some of you to give me an oppinion on my next rambling (bearing in mind what i said b 4 about only having played 2 CM games) Now, Having played both TOW2 games and CM

can anyone tell me if they feel there is really any much difference at all in the gameplay exp, in terms of depth? by this i mean the way CM plays, does it seem a more "wholesome" experience with the outcome of events, the AI behaviour, etc everything overall compared with TOW(2)?.. what im getting at is, does it seem to you guys that CM games has that much more "under the hood" than TOW games, that they really have to sacrifice the graphics to such a dramatic extent, for a game experience that stands out alot more from TOW games? i know CM games are defenetley more realistic on the inf lvl in terms of comms etc but is the graphical sacrifice worthy in the long run ?

ps - i cant beleive that screen shot is of CMBO ! amazing ! i thought it was CM:N for sure at 1st

[AslakH]

I also like the ToW-series, but after playing them since the first installment... no immersion. The infantry A.I is no better than CMSF, but in CMSF you can tell the A.I to do general things in the editor (I hate the ToW editor). But, if I wanted to play tanks vs. tanks, I'd play ToW.

CMA is awesome, and I like the "analog" feel of everything. No GPS, no fancy doo-hickeys, etc.

Graphics are bad, agreed. And I do not see that much difference between low and high settings (other than everything disappearing 20m infront of the camera).

I wouldn't bet any money on CM:N being better in that respect. The graphics are outdated, and bad by late 2008 standards.

I have a feeling that many of the CM-players have old computers. But that's a whole different can of worms.

[Mord]

I am a graphics nut...One can find many threads/posts by me championing the continuation of the graphics side of CMX2 but I have to say I don't think CMSF or CM:A graphics are sub par. I think outside of some retexturing of unis (CM:A) and some niggles I have with both, like lack of pistol graphics and the ATGM hanging in the air when the unit moves, the graphics do a very nice job and hold my disbelief in check 95% of the time. Drawing on the landscapes could be a lot better, but when I am zoomed in watching the action, the trees, grass and everything else looks great. To act like this game is completely ugly is plain dishonest.

Now, maybe if it were a straight up RT game with health bars hanging over the tanks and men, you'd have a point...but then those games don't try very hard to be anything more than hit point based time passers so graphics get the the lion share of the programming. Now compare CMX2 to it's true ancestors and relatives, Close Combat, Steel Panthers, Squad Battles, Computer Ambush, and CMX1, games that leaned more towards trying to simulate combat and it's effects on men and equipment in a more realistic manner, well, then CMX2 is damned beautiful. Not to mention the budget is probably 50 to 100 X smaller than the big named companies...

CMX2 can use tweaking, and I am all for anything extra I can get my grubby little hands on when it comes to graphics...BUT it's far from an ugly game.

Mord.

[AslakH]

Mord,

I remember the first time I tried the CMSF demo. It didn't blow my mind (it was modern, and back then I thought "yuck!").

Then, I tried the demo again last December. I started noticing the little things;

MG crews flipping up the top cover when reloading, etc.

THAT blew my mind. I got a four hour erection after buying the game and playing it for 10 minutes.

The game is not hideous, but graphics could be a lot better. So could the gameplay.

But we only have one CMx2. There are thousands of RTS games á la CoH out there.

CMSF/CMA keeps me immersed enough to care about my troops, and lets me try out real life tactics.

[Moon]

Yeah, it's very nice and dandy that it works for you, however, i only get 20 fps with everything turned to lowest running at 1024x786 on a system with HD5770. Tbh, that is just plain stupid. There is so much discrepancy with performance between various computers that one does not know where to look for the problem.

That's true, but what you are saying above is something else entirely than "CM is ugly" or "it's so slow". What you are saying is that you have problems on your PC with getting the performance/quality out of it that others get. That's an important modifier. Mind you, I'm not saying that the engine is perfect or can't be improved (it can and will be; with the basic simulation firmed up and polished, we will be able to add more and more visual/performance improvements to it over time). But I am saying that some PCs may need tweaking to get the best performance, and yours seems to be one of them. As I suggested before, tweaking some of your hardware/video settings may have a dramatic effect on what you see in the game. The game manual has various tips on what to try in the Options section, and I believe there are some hints at www.battlefront.com/helpdesk in the Knowledgebase area, too.

Unfortunately, you can't assume just because you have the latest gadgets that the game should be running at 60 FPS with all the latest gizmo catchwords enabled. Many of the modern cards are optimized for specific big budget games and are using specialized functions and settings to provide you with the latest marketing-optimized eyecandy.

Martin

PS. I know this isn't primarily about FPS, but here is an interesting web find: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

[Gryphonne]

That's true, but what you are saying above is something else entirely than "CM is ugly" or "it's so slow". What you are saying is that you have problems on your PC with getting the performance/quality out of it that others get. That's an important modifier. Mind you, I'm not saying that the engine is perfect or can't be improved (it can and will be; with the basic simulation firmed up and polished, we will be able to add more and more visual/performance improvements to it over time). But I am saying that some PCs may need tweaking to get the best performance, and yours seems to be one of them. As I suggested before, tweaking some of your hardware/video settings may have a dramatic effect on what you see in the game. The game manual has various tips on what to try in the Options section, and I believe there are some hints at www.battlefront.com/helpdesk in the Knowledgebase area, too.

Unfortunately, you can't assume just because you have the latest gadgets that the game should be running at 60 FPS with all the latest gizmo catchwords enabled. Many of the modern cards are optimized for specific big budget games and are using specialized functions and settings to provide you with the latest marketing-optimized eyecandy.

Martin

PS. I know this isn't primarily about FPS, but here is an interesting web find: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Well, in all honesty and my pc problems aside, it _is_ sluggish, especially the camera. And i know for a fact that this isn't limited just to my pc. Also the LODs are unelegant as I mentioned before, there's a huge difference between low grade textures in the distance and high res textures close by, and there is no transition between these at all. I just hope that Normandy is a lot more efficient and elegant.

I appreciate the help, Martin. However, I am very well aware of what hardware I buy, I have been building my own systems since the dawn of time and I know what to look for; also having said that, I never buy the "latest gadgets". I am also very well aware that the human eye can't register past 32 or fps. I don't need 120fps, but a constant 40 would be nice. Besides, the extra buffer in fps is always handy when you do have a scene that requires a lot of processing power from the GPU so the fps doesn't drop below 30. That is the reason why people want as much fps as they can have, not for shows or otherwise.

[vincere]

I have some jagged zig-zaggy shadows again. This was mostly solved sith SF.

The big issue I have first is that the sound is stutering.

Doubtful but: Will this have to anything to do with mords SF sound mod in my Z folder?

[Kat Johnston]

I'm getting CTDs every five to ten minutes or so on some maps. Other than that, it's fine. ^^