Hister

Textures also changed - not all though. So yes, you are correct - not sure about necks though.

I copy below this recent observation of mine that I posted in the Performance thread: So as you can see I get 2 more FPS's when I set AA transparency to 8x (Supersample) together with brilliantly clear visuals that I haven't been able to experience before in this game! 3 "anomalies" discovered so far: Nvidia control panel set to AA 16x, in-game 3D textures set to Best and AA transparency set to 8x (Supersample) give me the highest possible FPS while they also bring incredible visuals.

That's very strange Warloch - I think you are the first to report that mods lower your FPS so considerably - I only get 1 to 2 frames less when using more then 4Gb's of z folder. Only scenarios load a bit longer. Edit 1: And now for some hard data to prove my point regarding inconsistency in antialiasing levels with my hardware/drivers: AA 4x (default in-game setting) vs AA 16x (set in Nvidia control panel) --> AA 16x wins with higher FPS's. Tests were done using the wego savegame from the CM performance thread. My HARDWARE OS: Windows 7 64bit CPU: AMD FX-6300 BOX 3,5 GHz - 14MB Cache - 95W Mainboard: Asus AM3+ M5A97 (970 ATX) RAM: DDR3 1600 8GB CL8 Corsair 2x4GB Vengeance Graphics card: Geforce 550 Ti (MSI) Graphics memory: 1Gb Hard Disc (SSD): Samsung 840 Pro 128GB All at vanilla settings, nothing over-clocked. CMBN in-game settings Display Size: Desktop (1280x1024) Vertical Synchronisation: Off 3D Model Quality: Balanced 3D Texture Quality: Best Antialias/Multisample: On High Priority Process: On Nvidia Control Panel Settings Anisotropic filtering: Application controlled Antialiasing - FXAA: Off Antialiasing - Gamma Correction: On Antialiasing - Mode: Override any application setting Antialiasing - Setting: 16xCSAA Antialiasing - Transparency: Multisample Maximum Pre-rendered Frames: Application controlled Power Management: Maximum performance Texture Filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off Texture Filtering - Negative LOD Bias: Allow Texture Filtering - Quality: High quality Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: On Threaded Optimization: Auto Triple Buffering: Off Texture Filtering Anisotropic Filter Optimization: Off 2013-03-13 13:37:31 - CM Normandy Frames: 2282 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 38.033 - Min: 26 - Max: 48 2013-03-13 13:39:00 - CM Normandy Frames: 2229 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 37.150 - Min: 25 - Max: 46 2013-03-13 13:40:07 - CM Normandy Frames: 2218 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 36.967 - Min: 26 - Max: 47 Note: I ran 3 tests since due to the OS background running programs results can not be the same each time the test is run - no major deviations occur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nvidia Control Panel Settings Anisotropic filtering: Application controlled Antialiasing - FXAA: Off Antialiasing - Gamma Correction: On Antialiasing - Mode: Application controlled Antialiasing - Setting: Application controlled Antialiasing - Transparency: Multisample Maximum Pre-rendered Frames: Application controlled Power Management: Maximum performance Texture Filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off Texture Filtering - Negative LOD Bias: Allow Texture Filtering - Quality: High quality Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: On Threaded Optimization: Auto Triple Buffering: Off Texture Filtering Anisotropic Filter Optimization: Off 2013-03-13 14:30:33 - CM Normandy Frames: 2119 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 35.317 - Min: 22 - Max: 45 2013-03-13 14:32:31 - CM Normandy Frames: 1806 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 30.100 - Min: 20 - Max: 42 2013-03-13 14:33:44 - CM Normandy Frames: 1798 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 29.967 - Min: 20 - Max: 42 Note: As you can see AA16x gives me better FPS rate. Application controlled is actual AA 4x in-game - that was confirmed by Phil Culliton.

Yeeeey, I'm not alone any more!

Would be interesting to see someone else get similar results - I feel rather lonely at the moment, he he he. Maybe it's just my hardware combo, dunno.

In-game antialiasing must be set to on - if it is set to off I get no antialiasing in the game no matter if I set nvidia control panel to override any in-game antaliasing setting. Texture quality profits from better and best settings where there are notably much more FPS's then if you set it to for example improved. This is not so with 3D model quality setting where FPS drop accordingly the higher you set it (as one would normally expect). In my case I resorted to balanced 3D model quality in order to get a really smooth gameplay with best texture quality and 16xCSAA in the Nvidia control panel. If I set 3D model quality to improved and higher I get lower FPS's so my observation is by no means related to it - just 16x in nvidia control panel and best texture quality as in-game setting gives me a considerable FPS boost. Having those two at a lower settings actualy decreasy my FPS which is counter common sense but surprisingly works that way with current nvidia drivers (at least for me). Hope it's clear now?

Yep, it's red.

When I was doing performance testing in this thread I came to a surprising conclusion. I get a better game performance (more frames per second aka FPS) if I would set antialiasing setting to 16xCSAA in Nvidia control panel then if I would have it at anything lower (aka 2x, 4x, 8x). I also realized I get more FPS if I set the ingame texture quality setting to better or best then to have it set to anything lower. This is all against the common sense. Phil Culliton (one of the devs) had this to say about the matter: I have Geforce 550Ti MSI GPU with the (at the moment of this writing) latest 314.07 WHQL Drivers. I'm interested to learn if any other owners of Nvidia GPU would get the same surprising result. If you do I'm glad I helped you get a better performance out of your machine in this game. Please do report here if you checked it out. In order to see actual FPS in game install free program called FRAPS (google search for it - it comes with no spam). To have consistent results you can load any of your WEGO save game replay. Lock-view one of your chosen units (preferably a moving vehicle) hitting the Tab, press play button and at the same time also press F11 to have the FRAPS start monitoring your FPS. When the turn ends press F11 again - you can also set up FRAPS that it only monitors your frame rates for 1 minute which is more preferable, so that you don't have to press F11 again when the wego turn ends. Now go to the folder where you have FRAPS installed and find the Benchmarks folder - in it you get a report looking like this: If you don't have any wego replay savegame you can head over to pre-prepared performance testing and get it here.

Good point!

Go ahead and apply people! Good for deciding your optimum settings and also a great help base for developers!

Superb! Thank you. Please upload them also to GreenasJades's site!

I don't understand why is it so hard to program this? Target spotted, stop, fire, resume travelling. If a problem arises with the players intention to force march his tank (he does not allow he tank to stop while travelling so that it reaches final destination point as quick as possible) then such command is implemeneted and wolf is not hungry any more while the sheep is still intact...

Yeeeey, we love you Phil you know that right!? Not sure if you know but there are still some remaining bugs with some of the tanks.

Ah OK, you got me confused right there - good that I returned here, he he.

Vanir, devs don't follow posts made here - why don't you make a post in the tech forum? Will highten the chances of this being answered at least by them if not gotten fixed.

Ha ha ha, awesome immersive music baron! Heh, how the hell did that tank manage to jump on the bridge while driving beneath it!? LOL

Didn't know it works like that! Seriously? My my, looks like it's time for my gaming knowledge upgrade...

+1 all the way brothers!

Thank you very much Mister!

Search for a mod on the repository that does exactly that.

OK, thank you guys for clarifications. While I agree with some of the points you make I repeat that being mean to him that way is not the way to go. Put him on ignore and you'll be fine. Enjoying picking on someone like him is a whole another story though...

Steiner's suggestion sounds good. Why don't we just choose two stock scenarios and for each determine what unit needs to be camera locked - that would be sufficient. Any ideas which two scenarios to pick? FRAPS would be mandatory and shouldn't be a problem since it's free and has no spam in it. Don't have a clue how to make Mac users test framerates though. Phil, when we conclude how the testing will have to be done then by all means make a notification that channels users willing to undergo testing to this thread. Looking forward to see results and will probably help users determine their optimal graphical settings.

Can you for the sake of clarity and good order make a brand new sticky thread in which you underline basic guidelines by which gamers could post their FPS's. That way it would be much more consistent then - "hell yeah, my game is rocking" kind'a posts. Let's get down to raw data shall we?

OK, indulge me lads - what are JK's believes? Any link will do, I can check it out myself.

This comparisons won't do much good if people will say things like "good performance". Run FRAPS and say how many FPS you get in this or that scenario.