Wilhelm Heidkamp Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I'm enjoying this "new" (for me) game: My main problem is the peformance. I have got a super PC. This game is using only 25% from one of my two GTX480 (no SLI-compatible I know) and one of my CPU-cores (which one is ever at 100% of load). Whatever game in market runs better than this (at maximum settings). You should to gain advantage from 4 or more cores modern CPU,s mates... Any patch in the future to get this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mies Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Please tell me you did some touch up to the screenshots. Wow! Otherwise what settings do you run your game on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Beautiful screenshots...and I would reiterate what "Mies" has asked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 In response to your Multi-core question: In past comments, BFC has stated that it will be take a lot of coding time to re-engineer the core game engine to take advantage of multi-cores -- IIRC, their comments were something on the order of 6 months' work spent on this task, and not much else. Bear in mind that the CMx2 engine was first released to the public in early 2007, and was developed during the 3-4 years prior to this. Further, BFC was until very recently a one-coder operation. They added another coder to the staff last year, but they still don't have resources to stick one team of coders on doing a multi-core backhaul, while the rest of the company keeps working on new games and game content. BFC has also commented in the past the re-mapping the game code to take advantage of 2 cores would yield only modest performance improvements, but there would be much more of a payoff with 4+ cores. So they may be waiting until a higher percentage of their player base to has 4 core+ machines before committing to the multicore coding work. Bear in mind that wargamers on average don't have as cutting-edge hardware as other gaming groups, like FPS-players. Nevertheless, I am hoping we see an upgrade to multi-core support before *too* long. I think it's a pretty safe bet that multi-core support will NOT be backhauled into CMBN, but I am hoping makes it into the next major game family release, which according past comments is going to a Battle of the Bulge-based game, probably 1-2 years out (total SWAG on my part on the release schedule). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 BFC has also commented in the past the re-mapping the game code to take advantage of 2 cores would yield only modest performance improvements, but there would be much more of a payoff with 4+ cores. So they may be waiting until a higher percentage of their player base to has 4 core+ machines before committing to the multicore coding work. Bear in mind that wargamers on average don't have as cutting-edge hardware as other gaming groups, like FPS-players. Do wargamers really have on average basic spec pc's? I would be interested to know the percentage of members of this forum who have less than quad core machines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Interesting re the cores, but to get back to earlier questions, what video card settings (nVidia??) did you use to get that look? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Do wargamers really have on average basic spec pc's? I would be interested to know the percentage of members of this forum who have less than quad core machines. The wargamers' hardware thing is a SWAG on my part, but it's one I'm pretty confident of; go hang out on a FPS forum and see what people post for hardware specs, and then compare to here. Hard to get a reliable percentage of what people who post here have, as there's no way to get an objective sample (data will be skewed because you'll only get answers from those who want to respond). And this forum is not necessarily a reliable sample of CM players in general. If you care, I'm still running the game on a 2.4 GHz Core2Duo, but I expect to upgrade sometime this year. Steam does occasionally post data for the hardware that users of their service have though, IIRC, percentage Steam users who of high-end 4+ core hardware is smaller than you'd think. In any event, the most important point I was trying to make above is that when the CMx2 engine first came out in early 2007, dual-core machines were still a pretty high end feature. Further, when the CMx2 code first started to be laid down (2004-2005 maybe?), the very first consumer dual-core machines were just coming out. So it's not all that surprising that they didn't put the time into building multi-core support back then, as only a very small percentage of players would be able to take advantage of it (and even for them, apparently, the performance boost for 2 cores would be slight). Now, 5 years later, technology has advanced considerably -- Today, even compact laptops generally have dual cores, and 4 cores is pretty standard now from mid-grade and up, especially for desktops. Heck, dual cores are pretty standard in tablets now... So I'm sure multi-core support is "on the roadmap". It's not a question of if, but when BFC will find the time to do this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 ...the CMx2 engine first came out in early 2007... July, wasn't it? Not that it is a terribly important point in the present discussion... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 July, wasn't it? Not that it is a terribly important point in the present discussion... Michael You might be right... didn't bother to verify. So, mid-2007. Still doesn't change things much as far as what "state of the art" was in consumer computing at the time CMx2 was developed and initially released. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Are those krauts wearing puttees? Did they nick them from the Brits? What machine specs give those pictures? I'm on a 3gb Acer laptop 2.13 giga something with Intel HD graphics and frankly I prefer CMBO graphics. Time I bought another PC so just let me know what I need to get that quality. Money no object. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Responding to the original screenshots posted. Were they doctored?? What settings do I need to get that high quality of graphics?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Let me join the ranks of the slack-jawed It took me a moment to realize the first shot wasn't a colourised period photo (the uniform poses of the pixeldoughs made me look again). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yes please tell me your screenies are modded in some way or I will have big problems on the home front when I attempt to spend what ever $$ necessary to match your setup exactly .. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonRocko Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Holy Moly! That's the game I want!:eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Nice pics, mate. They're definitely touched up. I'd hazard that he's desaturated the colours and upped the mid-tones and contrast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Nice pics, mate. They're definitely touched up. I'd hazard that he's desaturated the colours and upped the mid-tones and contrast. I wonder if this can be done with a mod. You know, like the one in CMA to tone down the rather flashy trees and bushes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I think that's well beyond the realms of a simple mod, I would love to see the brightness increased a bit though, would make an awesome addition to, say, a module ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I have the same rig as him. The screenshots are most definitely touched up. I also get the lacklusture game performance from CMBN given the power of my rig. It's almost 100% video card related as turning shadows off boosts fps by at least double, and the performance changes when you zoom in and out. Thus it is not CPU or RAM related. In short, there are lots of objects being drawn and I don't think the engine is well optimised in this regard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm Heidkamp Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 I have the same rig as him. The screenshots are most definitely touched up. I also get the lacklusture game performance from CMBN given the power of my rig. It's almost 100% video card related as turning shadows off boosts fps by at least double, and the performance changes when you zoom in and out. Thus it is not CPU or RAM related. In short, there are lots of objects being drawn and I don't think the engine is well optimised in this regard. Sorry but you are plain wrong. Firstly check the CPU and GPU use (as I do) and later you will understnad that GPU is working at 25-30% only. CPU (one core) is working continuosly at 100%. This is the limit. I guess that coder set up excessive things for CPU. For example, you can design a engine to render shadows by CPU (not GPU). Check it, mate. I did. @everybody: Yes, screenshots are filtered through Photoshop. Only light, contrast and colour saturation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm Heidkamp Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 I think that's well beyond the realms of a simple mod, I would love to see the brightness increased a bit though, would make an awesome addition to, say, a module ... Mate, I'm using a program to get different bright and contrast values ingame (later, I touch up images through Photoshop). This little program is called Gapa-Gamma and is working with CMBN. I posted about it here (for IL-2, other game): http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,3324.0.html Whoever can choose new settings to test. Try it. It's free. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Sorry but you are plain wrong. Firstly check the CPU and GPU use (as I do) and later you will understnad that GPU is working at 25-30% only. CPU (one core) is working continuosly at 100%. This is the limit. I guess that coder set up excessive things for CPU. For example, you can design a engine to render shadows by CPU (not GPU). Check it, mate. I did. @everybody: Yes, screenshots are filtered through Photoshop. Only light, contrast and colour saturation. Hmmm nope. Your problem (which was hard to tell from your OP) is definitely caused by something else - anti virus maybe?. Why on earth would any coder design an engine to render shadows using CPU's and not GPUs? This problem hasn't just been reported by me, but other uses in the tech support forums (also with GTX 580's). The game isn't optimized to render shadows, terrain, etc very well and in my case and the case of others it's purely GPU related. It was the case in CMSF as well, but it's exasperated now in Normandy with all the forests and more units. Here are my processors while playing "School of Hard Knocks" - which is a Btln sized engagement. Barely breaking a sweat (and I run VM servers in the background). With all due respect, I am not "100% wrong". Maybe you need to look elsewhere than the game to figure out what your issue is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm Heidkamp Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Hmmm nope. Your problem (which was hard to tell from your OP) is definitely caused by something else - anti virus maybe?. Why on earth would any coder design an engine to render shadows using CPU's and not GPUs? This problem hasn't just been reported by me, but other uses in the tech support forums (also with GTX 580's). The game isn't optimized to render shadows, terrain, etc very well and in my case and the case of others it's purely GPU related. It was the case in CMSF as well, but it's exasperated now in Normandy with all the forests and more units. Here are my processors while playing "School of Hard Knocks" - which is a Btln sized engagement. Barely breaking a sweat (and I run VM servers in the background). With all due respect, I am not "100% wrong". Maybe you need to look elsewhere than the game to figure out what your issue is. Well, I disagree. I have in my secondary screen GPU, CPU, VRAM and RAM use (through AIDA64), and when I play CMBN one of my cores is at 100% and my GPU (one of them) is at 25-30% maximum. Moreover, I have tested at different resolutions: from the lowest to 2560*1600 (30" LG). I have tested with the highest possible AA filter through NV CP. I have tested in game enabling or not shadows... And the result is that my FPS don't change and GPU load either. It's not a GPU related problem. It's CPU. I don't have any problem with antivirus nor in whatever other game either. You cannot check CPU load (your pic) alt-tabbing from the game, because when you do that, CPU load disappears (I have tested 2 min ago). You need a secondary screen or keyboard with screen (G15 or G19 with pluggins, for example) to check the load in game. If you return to desktop to measure it, you don't get the figure, you get 0% of use. Mate, on my opinion and with due respect, you are wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Why are you being so argumentative? I work in IT so I am more than familiar with how all this works. I do have a second monitor. You can see the CPU load is around 60% on the first core until I quit the game, in which it returns to low usage and THEN I take the screenshot. Whatever issue you are experiencing is different from the issue reported by myself and others. I'd almost say it's something to do with your configuration and NOT the game. I have been playing the CMx2 engine for -years- on multiple rigs. I am quite experienced with it. So calm down, stop making assumptions. The issue I have is 100% GPU related and not CPU related. The issue you have is that your CPU is bottlenecking performance first, for whatever reason. The fact is my CPU is NOT a bottleneck, yet my video cards are. This makes my assumption that CMBN is not well optimized to work on GPU's correct. This would also be logical considering the resources at Battlefront's disposal. Maybe perfmon is more your thing? No maxed out core usage there either. Each core is an i7 2.67ghz. I do have two processors but I don't think CMBN takes into account multiple processors? I could be wrong. In any case, my processors are not the bottleneck. Post from Steve on the topic, plus other people complaining about performance: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96422&page=2 Unfortunately there are a LOT of factors that determine what framerates people get. We move a lot of data around and if you have a slower subsystem somewhere, then it can throttle down the speed because your system can only go as fast as its slowest component. Having at least 4GB of RAM (and not choked up with other applications) and a 512MB video card is probably the most important things to have for optimal, consistent speed. Processor is not so important. We personally don't necessarily consider 20 fps range "sluggish" for our type of game for some systems under some conditions. The original CMBO would often be lower than that, for example, even in the best of times when the game was first released. We would, of course, like to see 30+ across the board everywhere all the time. So we will keep looking for ways to reduce bottlenecks. Steve Any more questions? Some screenshots: Shadows On: Shadows Off: Even 30 FPS is pretty meh given the amount of money spent on this computer, and the superb performance in every other game. In fact, I actually bought a second GTX 580 to try and get the most out of CMBN as it's the only game on my computer which doesn't run nicely. Using ArmA II as comparison, which runs smooth on pretty much max, and is also quite a CPU intensive game: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 To turn this thread to a more positive tone... Wilhelm, what specific settings on Gapa-gamma are you using to get these amazing looking visuals ingame? I actually have that utility on my PC but never considered applying it to CMBN, and wasn't sure how/whether it might make a difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Aww, Broadsword there you go just when things are getting interesting! It's like watching two bull elephant seals getting ready to fight! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.