ParaBellum
-
Posts
2,061 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ParaBellum
-
-
Says the Swabian.
-
I doubt the FPS drop is related to RAM or CPU power. It seems to be a rendering problem.
I really hope this can be fixed, because otherwise scenarios in windy conditions will be a pain to play.
A simple fix like disabling/lowering the movement of trees in heavy winds would already make me more than happy.
-
Gee, do you mean if you purposefully try to break the game you get slowdowns? Wow. A revelation.
That's not the point and I'm really a bit surprised by your post, considering you're a beta tester. Same with Sergei's posts.
Trees are not the problem, moving trees due to wind obviously are. And you don't need a map full of trees, this is just to show the problem. The massive FPS drop occurs in normal scenarios, such as the "Closing the Gap" scenario from the demo.
-
Put me on that list.
I think it's the last of the older CMX1 features I am longing for.
Mord.
Same here. I still have fond memories of a 20mm flak taking out a Super Pershing by 1st destroying a track and then setting the forest around it on fire.
-
Since I was terribly bored I then set up a comparison from exactly the same position in game (start location in the 3d world plus 9 mousewheel clicks 'up'):
No wind:
Wind:
Result: wind makes the game basically unplayable from a "ground view" in wooded terrain on my system.
BFC, fix or do sumfink!
BTW I totally love the game, awesome job guys.
-
As discussed in the "performance" thread the moving trees in windy weather conditions cause a massive performance drop on my system (core i5-2500k @4 GHz, NVidia GTX 470 (1280MB VRAM), 8 Gig Corsair RAM in dual-channel mode, Win7 64 bit. Latest official Nvidia drivers. FSAA and AF set to application control. No unnecessary programs are running in the background.).
I'm running the game @1920x1080 res at max details.
I noticed this when I compared FPS of similar scenes in the "Busting the Bocage" scenario (no wind):
with the "Closing the Gap" scenario (wind):
I then created a test map and checked FPS without wind:
and again with wind:
-
Yeah, will do.
EDIT: Missed Thomm's post. Oh well, can't hurt to post it again.
-
Any official response to the performance problems with wind and trees yet?
-
Well, you're wrong.
Again, LODs are what matter, not wind. Your screenshots don't show what you are trying to prove because you can't control the amount of best LOD trees in view.It's not just a single screenshot. Make a test map yourself and compare FPS. Wind will massively reduce FPS when trees are present, especially from closer view distances.
If I move the viewpoint through the forest and get constant ~ 40 FPS with no wind, then enable wind and move the viewpoint through the forest again and now get constant ~10 FPS it's not just a LOD problem.
-
When I charge my Sherman tanks towards the Jerry lines they quite often seem to randomly explode.
BFC, fix or do sumfink!
-
trees dont have much of an impact since you will get similar FPS in CMSF where there are no trees.
This is simply wrong. Same scenario ("Closing the Gap"), same viewpoint, trees off:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/Para_Bellum/CMtrees03.jpg
Moving trees cause a massive performance loss, at least on my system.
I don't think this is true (and in fact I know that it isn't). You cannot just take two scenarios and compare them;Sorry, I disagree.
To prove my point I created a little test scenario in the editor.
No wind:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/Para_Bellum/CMtrees04.jpg
Wind:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/Para_Bellum/CMtrees05.jpg
I'm using the latest official NVIDIA drivers.
-
You can fire smoke indirectly via forward observers. Select the FO, select the mortar team and select a fire pattern, then you get the option to fire smoke.
-
I too get low FPS in this scenario when going to ground level and scroll through the woods.
I would bet that this is because the wind movement of the (many) trees !!
Looks like a issue to me, maybe there is room for improvements about the wind movement model of trees because the other two scenarios without that much wind run perfect on highest settings with AA and V-Sync but with shadows turned off on my system.
@ Battlefront:
Please take a look at the wind movement of trees and the performance issue that comes with it !
Wiggum's right, the performance hit is indeed caused by the moving trees.
Check the FPS in the upper left corner.
Lots of trees and units, no wind:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/Para_Bellum/CMtrees01.jpg
Lots of trees and units, wind:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/Para_Bellum/CMtrees02.jpg
Massive difference.
-
The mere impact shock of an AT shell could cause all sorts of internal damage, from misaligning the optics and knocking out the radio to rupturing the fuel lines and damaging the engine.
-
I have to say that especially the HMG42 sounds are quite underwhelming in the demo.
Some of the "beefier" sounds from CMBO would be welcome here.
-
Just played the "Closing the Gap" scenario and won a major victory as the Germans. Then I realized it was 1.30 AM and I have to get up at 6 AM tomorrow.
Ah, just like old times...
-
I think I like it. A lot.
Performance need to be improved and some of the GUI handling is still a bit awkward but what I've seen so far from actual gameplay is very impressive.
-
In games like CM I don't actually bother about FPS too much. But with FPS dropping well below 20 camera controls becomes sluggish. I don't even need FRAPS on to notice that. And I shouldn't experience FPS in the low teens on a hi-end gaming system.
-
Sucks cause my old computer actually had a faster (single) CPU... and it seems most duo and quad cores all have around 2-2.5GHz so getting a new one won't really help me.
GHz rating isn't everything. Modern CPUs can process much more work per cycle, outperforming older CPUs with higher GHz rating by a large margin.
Best gaming CPU currently is IMO the core-i5 2500k sandybridge. Mine runs easily OC'ed to 4 GHz. And still CM:N has performance issues.
-
Is it a problem with my hardware or is the rendering of the shadows in desperate need of optimization?
On my system (core i5 2500k@4 Ghz, 8 Gig RAM, GTX 470, Win 7 64 bit) turning shadows on basically reduces FPS by almost 50%.
I'd really prefer some "simple shadows" option because having to turn them off completely reduces visual quality quite a lot IMHO.
-
Just tried the "Closing the Pocket" scenario and got FPS as low as 12 on my system, grafics maxed @1920x1080. I do expect better performance on a system like mine, to be honest.
Core i5-2500k @4GHz, 8 Gig RAM, GTX 470, Win7 64 bit.
-
parabellum you must be a genius! How the H*LL did you manage that? More detail please....
Hmmm... nothing special really.
You will most certainly lose a tank to an AT gun. But with the infantry scouting ahead you should be able to locate the gun quickly and disable it with mortar fire. Taking the farm should be rather easy (did it with two squads) and the enemy in the center near the VL can be easily destroyed from a distance with your Shermans. Then just move the bulk of your infantry through the fields on the right side of the road, supported by the reiforcement Shermans. Spot enemy infantry, suppress, assault. Rinse and repeat.
Since the quality of the German troops in the scenario is pretty low they will get suppressed/routed very fast.
-
I haven't played a CM game in years (never got warm with CMSF) and didn't have any problems with the training scenario. The old CM tactics still work well IMO: establish firebases, scout ahead with infantry, keep tanks together supporting each other and mortar enemy AT guns as soon as spotted.
I lost one tank and about 20 men, got a total victory.
I really like what I'm seeing so far.
-
I have a core i5-2500k @4GHz, 8 Gig RAM, GTX 470, Win7 64 bit and the training scenario runs at maxed settings @1920x1080 at 30-40 FPS.
Again, LODs are what matter, not wind. Your screenshots don't show what you are trying to prove because you can't control the amount of best LOD trees in view.
German voices
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Na gut.