Jock Tamson
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Jock Tamson
-
-
22 minutes ago, db_zero said:
No graphical issues on my widescreen so far. Does this support 4K?
Yes, but the UI will not scale so it may be hard to use.
-
21 minutes ago, db_zero said:
Im on an Intel I7 CPU and 16 gigs of ram. I’m assuming if you get 32 or 64 gigs of RAM and running a 64 bit OS like Windows X this will use all available memory? This would make some of the humongous maps and battles run better I’m guessing.
No, it's a 32 Bit application. So the maximum memory it can address is 4GB (on a 64 Bit OS)
-
35 minutes ago, 71st_Mastiff said:
turn off FXAA if you're running on NVIDIA, the game is openGL.
Why? It is post processing. It will make your text blurry, but will still work. A better result can be obtained by injecting SMAA via SweetFX
-
2 minutes ago, VasFURY said:
Although I have a laptop (Alienware R17) - I only have the Geforce 1080 inside of it (so, just one dedicated card, no Intel). Nevertheless, I tried messing with the Nvidia control panel, but it doesn't seem to change anything.
Tried Turning off FXAA as per Pete's suggestion - still same problem. Game's resolution is just set to very low, and "use desktop" mode doesnt seem to improve it.
You will still have a low powered Intel GPU in it.
-
5 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
I got a new GPU (RTX 2080) and I am still having this problem. Now I cannot downgrade the drivers anymore...
If you disable shaders, install War Movie Advanced Mod, and enable Movie mode, you will not be able to tell the difference. You'll have no more crashes though
-
13 hours ago, rocketman said:
I just joined the club of crashes after playing a while
This under Nvidia 399.24 and GTX 970M. Will update now to 411.63.
Switching off shaders definitely fixes the crashing. If you use the War Movie Advanced mod it looks just as good, IMO.
-
I've found a compromise that works well for me. I have retained a recent Nvidia driver. I switch off shaders in game, which has stopped the crashing. I use the War Movie advanced mod, which enhances the in game Movie mode. I use SweetFX injector to inject SMAA to add anti aliasing (as anti aliasing is disabled by movie mode).
-
Anyone tried 411.63 yet? - came out a couple of days ago. If the problem persists into newer drivers this is going to be a real headache for anyone contemplating a new GTX 2080
-
12 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Steam is a 'parasite' business. It gets between the producer and customer sucks all the profits from the middle.
Just like cinemas and shops.
-
Windows / bloatware is a non issue. If you are using 64 Bit Windows - and you should be - then any 32 Bit application will be able to address a full 4GB of memory address space. Provided, of course, that you have 8GB of RAM or more.
-
My new PC is a 8600k, running overclocked to 4.9 Ghz. GTX 1080, 16GB RAM.
It replaces a 2500k overclocked to 4.7 Ghz, GTX 1080, 16 GB RAM.
CM performance is a bit better, but it is not a night and day improvement. It is not as big a leap in frame rates as you get from turning off shadows, for example.
-
1 hour ago, snarre said:
elevation is there on guns
When was that introduced? For clarity, I am not talking about guns moving up and down graphically which obviously they do, I am talking about limitations of depression etc
-
I would prefer Combat Mission to use more abstraction if the trade off was more CPU cycles available for frame rates and, say, improved or additional AI routines. There is already plenty abstraction in there - no gun elevation, AI tanks not stopping to shoot in WW2 games, etc.
It seems to me that if you don't have millimetre perfect control of individual units, then abstraction is ok in a tactical game. For example, if my tank gets flanked I have made a tactical error and/or the other player has had a tactical success. Neither of us has any control over where his shot will hit. So is it wrong for the outcome to be a dice roll, if that takes less computation? Particularly if getting the shot off means that the gun is at an elevation that is not achievable in real life?
-
2 hours ago, Hister said:
Ok, thank you. I shall wait then.
If you are still having problems, you could manually add an entry to your Hosts file:
192.111.137.183 www.battlefront.com
-
Best way to do these migrations is to set up a proxy server on the new IP a few days before, stick it in front of the old site, and change the DNS. Then on switchover day you point the proxy server at the new website and everybody already has the new DNS record.
-
15 hours ago, Erwin said:
What is this? Never heard of it.
Anyone who is on Steam and has a Steam history of interest in strategy games will have seen it.
-
6 minutes ago, George MC said:
Hi Jock
That campaign was not mine I'm afraid.I've only made one campaign for CMSF and that's 'Forging Steel'.
Oh dear, I stand corrected George!
-
George Mc's Highland Games campaign in CMSF is still the only one I have played to completion, despite owning all the titles. There was something about the relevance of that title that really grabbed me and makes it my favourite. Possibly helps that I am Scottish too.
-
For years I played the CM series on an i5 2500k , overclocked to 4.7Ghz., 16GB RAM.
I have had a GTX 580, a GTX 680, a GTX 980, and a GTX 1080. Changing the GPU has never made a jot of difference to frame rates. No surprise there, to me, but it is worth spelling out - if your GPU is reasonably modern, CPU core speed is everything for CM frame rates.
Latterly my test scenario was CMBS Ambush, playing as Ukraine, graphics on Best. On the GTX 1080, scrolling around at ground level or slightly higher, I would get around 20FPS at worst. It would be lower than this if I turned on shadows, which are a killer for FPS.
I recently migrated to a i5 8600k , overclocked to 5.0 Ghz, 16GB RAM, still using the GTX 1080.
FPS in that scenario, scrolling around the scenery beside the Ukrainian convoy, graphics at Best, no shadows, FPS are about 35 at worst.
So if you are swithering about a new CPU, now might be the time. For the first time I am finding performance to be basically ok.
Unfortunately, I am getting the crash after 40 mins issue that others are experiencing.
-
On 3/15/2018 at 1:34 PM, The_MonkeyKing said:
I would say CM is engine limited. After certain point no matter what you throw at it the frame rate doesn't move an inch(frame?). Law of diminishing returns gets pretty rough after card like 1050ti.
I wouldn't agree. If I downclock the CPU, the frame rate will drop. I cannot run my CPU higher than 4.7Ghz so I have never been able to "throw anything more at it", however I imagine I would see a bit of an improvement @5Ghz.
But what won't improve it is very powerful GPUs, which was the OP's question.
-
Combat Mission is CPU limited. Over the years I have played it on GTX 580, GTX 680, GTX 980 and now GTX 1080. There has been no positive improvement in frame rate across all those GPUs.
-
On 15/01/2018 at 1:22 PM, ratdeath said:
Would be awesome if there is a one player option where you could send the file to a friend and they pick the AI force.
Maybe possible to let a friend (trustworthy) remote control with TeamViewer and pick the AI force.
I would prefer forces to be something that could be exported and imported as a separate file. Eg you could have a bunch of saved XML forces created by yourself and third parties, that could be loaded into QBs. These could be hosted on one of the repositories as eg "6,000 point, 1944, mixed force, US Army".
-
I'd like to see some way to export / import forces into Quick Battles. One of the biggest frustrations of single player is the lack of surprise at AI forces (because if you want a decent battle you have to tailor the AI force). It would be great if you could import other user's AI forces eg via xml file or similar. Could get a bit of community engagement around creating opponents for people (as some people would take pleasure in crafting a challenging opposing force within given points/timescale/etc constraints). Force files could be hosted as "3000 point 1944 Heer defensive force", "3000 point 1944 US probe force" , etc.
-
You could explode your original BRZs and have a look ?
What kind of specs should a PC have to run CMx2 well?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Jock Tamson
What other people have been saying is that CM doesn't benefit from additional cores. That is absolutely true. It just needs as fast a CPU frequency as you can throw at it. There is no downside to a 6 or 8 core for CM, so long as it is fast.
For that reason, my recent upgrade was to a 6 core 8600k which is overclocked to 5Ghz. It is a decent improvement to my previous 4 core 2500k @ 4.7Ghz. Performance on Best settings is generally acceptable, but undoubtedly the least performant game I own. I leave shadows off.