Hister Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 If I remember correctly I think that in hte manual it says the game is not optimized for SLI and suggests disabling one GPU. Edit: Nah, I was wrong. it says only this: On certain systems with multiple video cards a known bug prevents players to select units occasionally. Turn off the additional video card(s) to solve this problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 With iMolestCat's system specs apparently struggling with the game I'm starting to think that a Cray may also be found wanting! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMolestCats Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Tried 7870 HD, seems to improve rendering distance by 200 meters.... very strange i have to say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 How do you turn on shaders? I have no option for it. I'm kind of underwhelmed by 2.0 at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Alt-R. If they are not working you probably either forgot to install the 1.11 patch, or you installed 1.11 over the top of 2.0. IMO the shaders make little difference in how the game looks and are not worth the performance hit, so I just leave them off most of the time. The new commands, movable waypoints and machine gun beefiness in 2.01 are a bigger deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Shadows are not as good without shaders and vicus versa. I get almost no performance hit whit shaders turned on. Shadows is a whole another story... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I've actually found the shaders improve my performance on average - they reduce some of the rendering strain in various areas. That'll vary by card and driver of course. But yeah... shadows are expensive. On top of a big map (which are necessarily extremely resource-intensive) even a ragingly good system could have some hiccups. If you're having performance issues turn model quality down first, then shaders off (which may help depending on your card), then shadows off. As for monster (and other) systems being able to play other games just fine and having trouble with CM on large maps... well, remember that CM is doing things that most games don't. In a vast variety of ways. From AI to rendering we're attempting something your average game does not, and I think we actually manage to deliver it pretty well. On large maps (with concomitantly large forces) you're looking at a pretty epic CPU and GPU strain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 On large maps (with concomitantly large forces) you're looking at a pretty epic CPU and GPU strain. Understood. I think what's baffling to people is the strain seems to hit different systems so differently, and the hardware power that might easily handle other demanding games doesn't necessarily make CMx2 run a lot faster or smoother. I'm probably not alone in considering my next PC will be configured with CMx2 and CMx3 in mind. So what we need most of all are some more specific guidelines about what specs are proven to really make the most difference to this game's performance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Understood. I think what's baffling to people is the strain seems to hit different systems so differently, and the hardware power that might easily handle other demanding games doesn't necessarily make CMx2 run a lot faster or smoother. Yep. CMx2's version of "demanding" varies pretty significantly from most other games. Demanding games are usually pushing the GPU and not heavily straining the CPU (or vice versa, although those are more rare). We're hitting both pretty hard. Sometimes extremely hard, depending on what scenario you're running. I'm probably not alone in considering my next PC will be configured with CMx2 and CMx3 in mind. So what we need most of all are some more specific guidelines about what specs are proven to really make the most difference to this game's performance. There have been folks in this thread who've said their performance is good - it would be great if anybody here who is happy with the performance they get out of CMx2 could share their specs and settings. I'm happy with my performance - I usually play on a Macbook Pro with an i7, 8GB of RAM, and a 330M GT, which is a pretty middle-of-the-road GPU (weak, compared to desktop cards) but gets decent driver support from Apple. I usually play on Better/Balanced settings, with shaders and shadows on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I get pretty good performance with my setup once everything gets loaded up when running CMBN 2.01. Win 7 64-bit / Intel Q6600 4GB Mem / Nvidia 9800GT 1GB mem; Set to highest setting with shaders and shadows on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normannobrot Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 Understood. I think what's baffling to people is the strain seems to hit different systems so differently, and the hardware power that might easily handle other demanding games doesn't necessarily make CMx2 run a lot faster or smoother. I'm probably not alone in considering my next PC will be configured with CMx2 and CMx3 in mind. So what we need most of all are some more specific guidelines about what specs are proven to really make the most difference to this game's performance. that's the smartest and straight forwardest thing put down on here lol... No negative pun intended to others.:cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normannobrot Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 this should be made into a seperate thread, only for system specs! and rated performance and or settings ! one question is on me mind is what does combat mission take full advantage of? duel core? quad core? duel graphics / single graphics,??? lots to consider folks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tashtego Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Windows XP Pro / Intel i5 / 4 GB mem / Radeon XFX-667 1 GB mem Settings maxed out. Shaders and shadows on. Good performance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Fair enough. Although what frame rate one views as "playable" is about as subjective as "good performance". At least it gives a basis for comparison. Thanks to the folks who have responded so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 There have been folks in this thread who've said their performance is good - it would be great if anybody here who is happy with the performance they get out of CMx2 could share their specs and settings. I'm happy with my performance - I usually play on a Macbook Pro with an i7, 8GB of RAM, and a 330M GT, which is a pretty middle-of-the-road GPU (weak, compared to desktop cards) but gets decent driver support from Apple. I usually play on Better/Balanced settings, with shaders and shadows on. 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I chose to ask the question in this thread because it's related to this thread. I don't intend for this to become a central forum for discussing performance issues and frame rates, but I'm happy for folks to answer the question that I asked in whatever terms they're comfortable with. Realize that some people (Mac users especially) cannot provide "raw data", and that establishing an official baseline for that would be complicated to say the least. I'd be happy to create a sticky in the tech support forum for people to compare their hardware and frame rates, then link it here. If you'd like to create a post in that forum and lay down guidelines that you like, then I could sticky that as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I think it would be very hepful, if two saved games (one medium and one large scenario) with a 1 minute playback would be put up. With a fixed camera position (e.g. locked to unit) with Fraps quite objective measurements should become possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMolestCats Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Anyone know how to set my processor up so where i have the most power in one core, because i think CM only uses one core. Anyone one got an idea? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I get: Best quality shaders on/off - 12/13 Balanced quality shaders on/off - 20/20 "Good" FPS depends a lot on what type of game you're playing. For an RTS I'd say 30 or higher, first person shooter you absolutely need 40 or higher but you'll notice significantly better results with ~60. Under 30 is what I would consider laggy under "game" circumstances (obviously movies are alright). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 My previous note. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108641 Today - Version 2.1 performance still seems faster to me on my Mac Pro. I currently have a Z folder of 4.12 GB. Running an ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB graphics card at 2560 x 1440 with all video settings on best. I don't often use "shadows" but I always use "shaders". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I just use maxed-out settings and deal with the lag (but I only play WEGO these days). I don't notice enough of a benefit from reduced settings to outweigh the loss in graphics quality. I'll occasionally turn off shadows for a short time if needed, though. It would be nice to take part in a controlled test, if folks can come up with one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I have the retail version of FRAPS and would be happy to take part. I'll let others choose the testing parameters, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I think it would be very hepful, if two saved games (one medium and one large scenario) with a 1 minute playback would be put up. With a fixed camera position (e.g. locked to unit) with Fraps quite objective measurements should become possible. This is actually a good idea. The trick would be to determine the two saved games to ensure they are representative of cpu/gpu stress. Ken 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.