AstroCat
-
Posts
872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AstroCat
-
-
+1
I concur. Or at least provide him a free copy of the game in exchange to do so upon release!
At least that!
-
Agreed, we can only hope! I wish BF would just commission Juju to do the official UI at this point!
-
AstroCat, what if you set the NCP settings to "Application controlled"? Get any more frames out of it? Do you lose visual quality if doing so?
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?
-
No doubt about it... you definitely have higher expectations. I saw that pretty clearly several pages ago because you argue like someone who has higher expectations. I've debated issues like this for almost 2 decades and it's pretty easy for me to spot where people sit on the spectrum of whatever the topic is.
Putting aside the possibility that you've somehow never managed to have a system that can run the game as smoothly as others, you have chosen what to be jaded about. Here's a question for you... if you feel so down in the dumps when you play CM after a AAA game, why do you bother playing CM? I am sure I know the answer, so I'll help you out... because CM offers you gameplay opportunities that those AAA games do not. So here's another question for you... when you play a AAA game after CM, do you feel the gameplay to be uninteresting and rather empty compared to CM? I doubt it. Instead you find the two gameplay experiences different. What you seem to fail to grasp is if we tried to make CM graphically as good as a AAA game at a minimum you would lose whatever gameplay value you currently enjoy with CMx2. Because there is no way, no how, at all that Combat Mission can be as graphically amazing as a AAA title without the same gameplay as those same AAA titles. Likewise, there is no AAA game out there that could ever be like CM. Which is why neither one of us is going to try to be what the other is.
I don't like the "floating world" aspect of CMx2 either, but at the time we made the engine there was no choice except to neuter the playable space in major ways to free up polies and processor power to simulate unplayable space. Now? It could probably be done with major work to the game engine. And that gets us right back to where we always land... what would you guys be willing to sacrifice to make that happen? 1 year with no new games and no new features other than that? If it came to a vote and voted for that you would be out voted.
As for shadows, that's a great example of OpenGL not getting the sort of support it should by video card makers. We gave up on trying to work around the bugs and bad behavior a while ago because the card companies showed little interest in making it work as advertised. Which means on some systems shadows are beautiful and as expected, on others they have one or more problems in some or all situations.
At the end of the day, we are at the mercy of the video card companies as much as you, the customer, are.
Steve
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.
-
@AstroCat I think to make it fit to your rant you are making things up I did not say.
But a picture says more than thousand words.
I searched for the biggest savegames on my HD. I wont say from which the screenshots are to prevent spoilers, but they are from CMRT (game engine 3). That's the position, where I achieved the absolutely lowest framerate according to FRAPS on that map. I could not get into the single digits and usually the game runs around 30 fps.
Movie lighting with customized shaders enabled:
As I said: Big map. Several battalions. Best settings. Even very long shadows. Full HD resolution.
Sorry, but I am very satisfied that this great game/sim runs so well and can look so good on an already very affordable mid-class gaming notebook.
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:
How it is possible that someone with a modern desktop computer can have performance problems with CM engine 3?
I have a medium range gaming notebook only (Acer VN7-791G; GTX 960M) and I can play at highest settings big maps with several batallions without any performance problems.I am very pleased with CM's performance which I find very well suited for mobile computing. No need for an energy wasting desktop-monster from the stone age of computing.
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."
-
I have a feeling that differing perspectives is what is driving this frustrating debate. For me I do not regularly monitor the fps. U do not measure my happiness over performance by watching the fps. I do it by is the game animation smooth? Is the camera panning smooth? Is the keyboard control smooth? And the fact is it is for me the vast majority of the time. Sure if I push a scenario with a lot of units or a huge map there can be issues.
I can play the largest shipping scenario s consistently with good performance.
My rig can do that no problem. It is a less capable rig than @AstroCat's . it is an i5 with an NVidia 760 and 16Gb of memory now running Windows 10.
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.
-
How it is possible that someone with a modern desktop computer can have performance problems with CM engine 3?
I have a medium range gaming notebook only (Acer VN7-791G; GTX 960M) and I can play at highest settings big maps with several batallions without any performance problems.
I am very pleased with CM's performance which I find very well suited for mobile computing. No need for an energy wasting desktop-monster from the stone age of computing.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 2Thanks.
-
Because Dutch area does not have the architecture of Normandy.
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!
Is FB more optimized than the others?
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted · Edited by 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!