AstroCat

Honestly it was a bit hard to tell. Antialiasing - Transparency: 4x (supersample) is the big one for increasing quality because it gets rid of almost all of the "shimmering" on movement. I think the Antialiasing was a bit better setting it to 4x and since there was no fps change I will probably keep them both set to 4x with "Enhance the application setting". I'll keep messing around with it as well and see if I can come up with a better set of settings but so far this seems to be the best balance I've come up with. Oh and I am definitely open to suggestions!

At least that!

Agreed, we can only hope! I wish BF would just commission Juju to do the official UI at this point!

Same fps in the test spot. Moving around seemed very similar. On that map since it's so big I can find a place to get 60fps and I can find a place to get 18-19fps. Average is prob high 20's, to low 30's overall.

I tried CarlWAW's saved game file with the following settings and in the same position showed 35fps. As I moved around I stayed usually in the high 20s but I did see some high teens at a few places. If I moved 3d Model: Better to anything higher I got a big drop in fps though, same as the other CMx2 games. Please note: Turning off the NCP AA and AA-T made zero changes in my fps although the image quality was of course much worse. The screen "crawling" is pretty much eliminated with them both at 4x and I get zero fps loss. In game: Display Size: Desktop (1920x1080) Vsync: On Antialiasing: On 3d Model: Better 3d Texture: Better High Priority: On Nvidia Control Panel profiles setup for the CMx2 games: Ambient Occlusion: Not supported for this application Anisotropic filtering:16x Antialiasing - FXAA: Off Antialiasing - Gamma Correction: On Antialiasing - Mode: Enhance the application setting Antialiasing - Setting: 4x Antialiasing - Transparency: 4x (supersample) CUDA - GPUs: All Double Precision: None Maximum pre-rendered frames: 4 Multi-Frame Sampled AA (MFAA): Off Multi-display/Mixed-GPU Acceleration: Single display performance mode Power Management Mode: Prefer maximum performance Shader Cache: On Texture Filtering - Anisotropic Sample Optimization: Off Texture Filtering - Negative LOD Bias: Clamp Texture Filtering - Quality: High Quality Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: On Threaded Optimization: Auto Triple Buffering: On Vertical Sync:Adaptive Virtual Reality pre-rendered frames: 1

Just curious if this is something that is being considered? Not a big deal but could be pretty cool in game... I just had building get all shot up and it was a little odd that it didn't have any damage and thought those hit decals would have looked pretty good.

Likewise, I'd love to check these out since I missed them.

These still around anywhere?

I know why I like the CM series, it's for all the reasons that make sense (long list) and I don't need/expect it to look like War Thunder, Witcher 3, Battlefield 4, etc... But I am still not convinced there is not something "lacking" within the game where it is not taking full or considerable advantage of the hardware people have. Whether that is the drivers, OpenGL version, engine coding, combo of all of them, etc. For example how switching from a mid range to high end graphics card essential makes no change in fps on the same system. I still believe it is mostly on the game side, not the user side. At this point I've pretty much explained my experience with the game's performance and I've found some collaboration with other users so I feel I am not alone in that experience. There is not much more I can say other than I will continue to play and support the games and hope for better performance and technical graphic fidelity as the new releases and patches come out.

I see the 22fps. You want to send me the save game file I can try it here? I also notice a lot of open space on that map, I've found the less objects and farther away from them you are the better the fps which makes obvious sense, trees are pretty bad in this regard. Also the reason you get the same or similar performance compared to someone with a higher end system is part of the actual problem. Someone with a 980 GTX I believe should see considerably better performance than you are showing but in my experience they are not.

I think it's expectations... I'm pretty sure I'm seeing the "correct" fps for my settings/hardware it's just I might have higher expectations for performance. I know it's mostly apples to oranges... but when I can run AAA games with everything max with graphics that "wow" even this old jaded gamer I come back to CMx2 and it's a bit jarring. I understand the reasons but that doesn't make the game experience any less real. It just seems with graphics at the CMx2 level a higher end system shouldn't even break a sweat, even on larger maps or ones with lot's of buildings but it does, comes to a crawl often. I'm still geting CMFB of course, and probably whatever else comes out I am just hoping for some legit performance improvements along the way. And... 2 more pet peeves, the shadows are still pretty rough/jagged and "flickery", and I still not a fan of the "floating world" game space... couldn't we have a fake level horizon that looks connected? I think that would up the "immersion" factor a bit, I remember CMx1 had this.

PM sent for: GERMAN LUFTWAFFE CMBN. Current link seems down and somehow I missed downloading this set. Thanks.

Not trying to make a fuss but I felt my claims were baited so my response about being ok with 5-10fps was based off of CarlWAW below post: So, yeah running that computer I see 5-10fps, maybe 10-20 "play at highest settings big maps with several batallions without any performance problems." I know that claim is not true unless he is ok with super low fps. Also, this part... "No need for an energy wasting desktop-monster from the stone age of computing." I think that set the tone... I should have probably just ignored because it was bait.. but still no way that computer is rocking 60fps "highest settings big maps with several batallions without any performance problems."

Something to remember that in my experience the "faster" the config doesn't equal usually any increase in performance or super minimal at best. You could from a 680gtx to a 980gtx and only get small performance increase, which in my opinion is very odd.

That's what I thought using the "tag" on the files but I loaded up a game and some textures seemed different. Now they might just be overlapped buildings used in the scenario. I'll have to test a bit more. Some people were saying the modded buildings don't look right with MG, but if they don't wouldn't the default ones be "wrong" too?

All I can say is that over the course of CMSF release date till now I've tried many different computers and graphics cards and I've never been able to keep a constant frame rate above 30fps. As I explained before depending on what's "on the screen" I get as high as vsync'ed 60 but as soon as I pan back around to the map or raise up to a higher position it drops. Sometimes its 40 other times it's 10, it's all over the place but two things are constant. 1) They are usually low and often in the 20s, 2) It hasn't mattered much what hardware I used. I've seen others report the same experience as well so I know I am not alone. Seriously not making it up, you could probably even see my posts through the years of this happening. Oh and if there is some hardware configuration that can give solid good fps I'd love to know what it was, I'd try and match it on my next upgrade which will be this year.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you unless you consider 5-10fps good performance. And I hardly consider a 980GTX ti card from the stone age. I have done massive testing with all kinds of setups and configurations over the course of years so I'm not buying it. Now you might be happy with super low frame rates and that's cool but saying your not having any performance problems is an opinion. Since I consider 30fps a minimum goal for this game I'd say I am getting consistent performance problems since day 1 of the CMx2 release no what computer setup I've used including desktops, laptops and all kinds of different cpu's, motherboards, etc... They ALL had inadequate performance, every single setup under all conditions and settings. I'm all for getting solid performance because I really like the games going all the way back to CMBO but it's just not happening.

I was reading that the Pat and TaL building mods are not the right style for Market Garden scenarios. Do any of them look accurate for the area? If not, I assume I should disable all the Pat and TaL building mods if I want my MG games to look more accurate? I'm using: Pat TaL Modular buildings 1 - 4 Pat_TaL_independent_building_1 - 2 Pat TaL independent commercial buildings Tanks a Lot's CMBN Barns Tanks a Lot's CMBN buildings Tanks a Lot's CMBN Church 2 Thanks.

How about Pat's buildings for MG. And are TALs less accurate than the default ones? Also, can't you just leave them installed because of the "tags" they won't appear in Holland scenarios anyway?

Actually just tried them and they seem to be working again.

Anyone want to upload these to mediafire or something?

Ha! Never mind, I found it on an old backup of the game I have.

Does anyone have a copy of these they can share? It's missing from cmmods. Thanks!

Great UI of course! I noticed they added the little suppression light in 3.10. Not sure if you were gonna add that in? I'll prob do it myself since it's a small thing.

Did the vehicle pack update ever come out? Thanks!