Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Meanwhile many people are perfectly happy with 20 and I can even stand less than that periodically. I would rather keep my settings at the top and have the odd slow down here and there for big battles than have to remember to turn my settings up and down.

I don't care much what the actual frame rate is just that the camera controls are smooth. I think some people look at the fps number and feel bad that it is so "low". I say just turn it off and enjoy the game :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I wasn't using FPS tracking program first and then said oh my, I don't like this low number, I can't play this game. I played the game, noticed the slide show and delayed responsiveness and only then resorted to FPS tracking program to see what was going on. By using it I discovered my controls, onscreen animations and general choppines of the game got unsatisfactory or if you will not smooth when I was getting below 25 FPS and pretty much a deal breaker below 13.

This said I'm getting as low as 1 frame in some scenarios which renders them unplayable. Getting 10 frames on a tiny map when I look on 4 vehicles from behind, then I move the camera to look on those same vehicles from a bit different angle and frames go up to 40 with general scenery in the background remaining the same. I was fiddling with ingame settings and nvidia control panel settings, tried every possible combination but the noticable fps drop in that tiny scenario remains. I played the scenario to the end but was not enjoying as much as I could due to mentioned issues.

 

I am not having issue with FPS per see but with how game looks like and behaves, and when I'm not liking what's on my monitor I resort to FPS counter and then relate to the magical number 25 frames above which I am not experiencing the game negatively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough and good to know. I am sorry to hear that you are seeing such choppiness during play back. That does suck. I wonder what is causing that. I just do not experience anything like that. Even on the large map I am playing on now when I have the fps monitor on i sometimes see it drop to 14 and cannot see anything wrong with the animation and the camera still panns smoothly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know if this will help anyone but I run the game with lowest model quality just to keep 25fps. It is particularly bad in large scenarios. It seems like in some maps you simply cannot look in certain directions without the frame rate dropping to 4fps. 

I have 16BG of ram. a 295x2 8GB, and 4670k

Clearly something needs to be done about this, as it makes the camera so choppy it is unplayable, as some of you already stated. Although in the mean time, it might be a good idea for scenario designers to limit the model count or the map size to help. It seems like maps with huge numbers of trees or buildings combined with being big are the biggest causes. 

Edited by shift8
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 29/5/2016 at 5:12 AM, shift8 said:

Clearly something needs to be done about this, as it makes the camera so choppy it is unplayable, as some of you already stated. Although in the mean time, it might be a good idea for scenario designers to limit the model count or the map size to help. It seems like maps with huge numbers of trees or buildings combined with being big are the biggest causes. 

I'm working on a quite big (but not huge) scenario, and I am aware of this problem. Unfortunately especially trees and other vegetation are really important to both the look/feel of realistic countryside, and also to the gameplay, so there's a limit to how few I can put in.

However, I do manage to save quite a lot of trees by using mostly tiles of 1 tree, sometimes 2, and very rarely 3. I also leave some squares inside the forest clear, with just tall grass or a light forest tile with a couple of bushes. The combined effect is also making forests look better and behave more realistically than the über-dense jungles of many scenarios, in my opinion.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Has anyone tested GLDirect with CMBN? I found this tool and wonder if it improves the performance of CMBN, which is OPENGL. I am a little bit afraid of installing it because I dont  want to screw up my system :)

Description: "Run games and CAD applications based on the OpenGL® API using Microsoft DirectX 6.x or later drivers. SciTech GLDirect is compatible with any graphics card that supports DirectX 6.x and later. SciTech GLDirect 4.0 features significant performance improvements, and has improved compatibility with applications that require the latest OpenGL extensions. It is based on Mesa 5, which supports the OpenGL 1.4 graphics standard. The CAD and Game drivers in previous versions of SciTech GLDirect have been replaced with drivers optimized for DirectX 7, DirectX 8, and DirectX 9. The one that works best for you will depend on the capabilities of your graphics driver."

Link: http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/gldirect.html

Edited by DeutschRitter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have NOT used GLDirect myself, so I don't have experience attempting to use it with CMBN or other CMx2 games.

GLDirect seems to support OpenGL 1.4 and earlier. I'm not certain of CMBN's OpenGL requirements, but I believe that it does utilize some calls based on OpenGL 2.0. If I recall correctly it was possible to run CMSF on OpenGL 1.4, but it may have lacked graphical features.

If you're using an AMD Radeon or Nvidia GeForce, then the GLDirect 'wrapper' probably has little use to you since both manufacturers support OpenGL directly (they both have their own OpenGL DLL file for their drivers). GLDirect seems to be more useful for people who have video drivers that support only DirectX and/or have significant issues with the OpenGL drivers and CM. One possible audience MIGHT be those who are running Intel integrated video as their only video. Even then this is pretty old software (driver-wise) and may have bugs. 'Wrappers' will usually incur some sort of performance hit since they're converting calls from one API (OpenGL) to another (DirectX). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Schrullenhaft said:

If you're using an AMD Radeon or Nvidia GeForce, then the GLDirect 'wrapper' probably has little use to you since both manufacturers support OpenGL directly (they both have their own OpenGL DLL file for their drivers). GLDirect seems to be more useful for people who have video drivers that support only DirectX and/or have significant issues with the OpenGL drivers and CM. One possible audience MIGHT be those who are running Intel integrated video as their only video. Even then this is pretty old software (driver-wise) and may have bugs. 'Wrappers' will usually incur some sort of performance hit since they're converting calls from one API (OpenGL) to another (DirectX). 

Thanks for a good explanation. I would like to try it out, are there any pitfalls or is it just a program I can download, try out and then uninstall if it doesn't solve my problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware you can install it and simply uninstall it if it doesn't work for you. I don't think it messes around with your video drivers (though I haven't experimented with it to confirm that). I believe you have to copy their 'opengl32.dll' file into the main CM game directory (where the game executable is at) in order for it to work. You remove this file when you no longer want to use GLDirect (there typically isn't an 'opengl32.dll' file that needs to go back to that directory once you do this - this file is typically installed within the Windows\System32 directory). I don't know if there are any configuration options for GLDirect, and if so if they are necessary in order for it to work with CM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thx Schrullenhaft for your explanation. In the NVIDIA performance thread people said that CM runs better with higher graphic settings in the nvidia control panel for example. I can confirm that. I found out that CM runs now smooth with constant 30 fps with AA 32xcsaa, 16xAF, 8x (supersample)AA transparency. Without all settings cranked the fps drop under 20. You have to enable all settings which are consuming GPU usage to get better performance AND better graphic. I searched google and read a lot of forum threads about this topic regarding other games too. Even with all settings maxed out CM uses only about 55 percent of my GPU. Maybe someone can "mod" an opengl.dll file to force CM to use more GPU usage? I found modded dll files for other games like Fallout 4. If we can force CM to use more GPU power the game would run very smooth!

Edited by DeutschRitter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Let's revive this topic a bit.

My problem is simple, low fps on any settings of 3D models quality above faster or maybe fast, starting from balanced its nearly unplayable. All other settings didn't do much to increase frames per second. I tryed custom setting via AMD control panel (ye ye im using AMD GPU bla bla bla). Also tryed to install CMBN on my SSD, nothing changed. Any ideas?

My rig. Win7 64, i7 4770k, 16 DDR3 1600, r9 290x in crossfire, HDD 7200 rpm and SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nahomag - What are you using to measure your FPS, is it something like FRAPS or simply just a lack of performance that isn't specifically measured ?

The CM series does NOT utilize SLI and Crossfire setups. It is strictly running on one GPU and similarly it is also utilizing only one core of your CPU (with the exception of the scenario loading process, which does utilize more than one core). SSDs will help a little when it comes to scenario loading and game saves, but there tends to be more happening during the loading process that simply reading data off of the drive, so it only has so much of an effect on increasing the speed of loading.

I tested on a rig with an AMD FX-8370 (8-core, 4GHz), 16GB RAM, R9 290 and a SSD as the OS and app drive. Using the 16.11.4 Hotfix drivers and running at 1920 x 1200. CMBN 3.12 loading a 'huge' QB of map 'Attk Large city QB-234' with a battalion of infantry and a company of tanks I got between 7 - 10 fps measured with FRAPS with the whole map in view (ground level to default mid-air level) - this is during setup only (not yet measured while playing). This is running with mostly the defaults for CMBN's 'options' and OpenGL Triple Buffering set to 'on' in the Radeon control applet. Not having set it, I believe that most texture filtering (anisotropic) and most levels of antialiasing will only have a minimal effect on the framerate of CM. What do you get with possibly similar settings ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i've just tested it. 3D models quality set to "fast", textures "best", trees quality low on, Triple Buffering "on". Attk Large city QB-234 i got 15-17 fps (FRAPS) when deploying and in replay phase. When combat begins 5-10 fps at best. As i said before anything higher than fast or faster in 3D model quality and i can count that many frames with my fingers on 1 hand :)

P.S. i tested with and without texture mod - same results.

Edited by Nahomag
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The game runs fine when using model quality improved. Everything over improved will result in bad fps. In smaller scenarios you can use best. Texture Quality doesnt matter. You can always choose the highest setting. And as i mentionend use the best quality options in your nvidia driver control center like supersampling 8x etc. I made a lot of testing runs. With the higher settings you get more fps because your card is forced to use more power. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 14.12.2016 at 7:10 AM, DeutschRitter said:

The game runs fine when using model quality improved. Everything over improved will result in bad fps. In smaller scenarios you can use best. Texture Quality doesnt matter. You can always choose the highest setting. And as i mentionend use the best quality options in your nvidia driver control center like supersampling 8x etc. I made a lot of testing runs. With the higher settings you get more fps because your card is forced to use more power. 

After 1.5 months of testing with different drivers and different setting in amd control panel and ingame, none of given advices worked. Texture Quality actually does matter for me, cuz this is THE most fps killing stat. There is 1 half working solution though - turning off shaders and shadows, but positive effects of this are random cuz fps still going from time to time from 10 to 30 with or without reasons (at least that i can see on the screen). Maybe this will help a bit, if i'll switch 3d model quality above balanced, game will start to take longer and longer time. At best quality it load so slow that i manage to make myself a cup of tea, return to PC, and it will still be loading :) p.s version 4 intalled.

Edited by Nahomag
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nahomag said:

After 1.5 months of testing with different drivers and different setting in amd control panel and ingame, none of given advices worked. Texture Quality actually does matter for me, cuz this is THE most fps killing stat. There is 1 half working solution though - turning off shaders and shadows, but positive effects of this are random cuz fps still going from time to time from 10 to 30 with or without reasons (at least that i can see on the screen). Maybe this will help a bit, if i'll switch 3d model quality above balanced, game will start to take longer and longer time. At best quality it load so slow that i manage to make myself a cup of tea, return to PC, and it will still be loading :) p.s version 4 intalled.

Hm, OK. I tested two nvidia cards. The GTX 770 and GTX 1060. With both cards I got a performance boost when enabling all the highest settings in the nvdia control panel. In many forums of other games people made the same experience. But its true. Disabling shadows and and shaders give you a boost too. For me without shaders and shadow constant 60 fps. With shaders and shadows enabled between 27 fps min and 48 fps highest. 3D Qualtity improved and Texture best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DeutschRitter said:

Hm, OK. I tested two nvidia cards. The GTX 770 and GTX 1060. With both cards I got a performance boost when enabling all the highest settings in the nvdia control panel. In many forums of other games people made the same experience. But its true. Disabling shadows and and shaders give you a boost too. For me without shaders and shadow constant 60 fps. With shaders and shadows enabled between 27 fps min and 48 fps highest. 3D Qualtity improved and Texture best.

Can you please share your rig combo with us? What motherboard, what RAM, what CPU and what GPU?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add, using Nvidia Inspector, creating a CM profile and making sure to force VSync to be "half refresh rate" has been mentioned somewhere..  Works great for my rigs and running CM. 

Mind you my video cards are in need of some updating, not sure if this would be any good advice for newer cards??

...and if you do not have a dedicated video card, i would go into your bios and turn off the integrated video card to permanently shut it off.  In my case, I think it would happen after I updated my Nvidia drivers (certain ones), I would start up a CM game and b...b bBb BOG!!.... all because the Intel integrated piece of garbage took control of starting up CM.  My Nvidia profiles for CM were wiped after updating drivers (CM was not in the Nvidia Profiles list). 

Dedicated video card setup is the best way to go for no headaches running stuff, imo

Edited by Blazing 88's
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Blazing 88's said:

I will add, using Nvidia Inspector, creating a CM profile and making sure to force VSync to be "half refresh rate" has been mentioned somewhere..  Works great for my rigs and running CM. 

This causes the drawing line to be very close and thus makes the game look not good. Only to be used in a dire need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my setup, at the moment, it looks no different in comparison.  Not sure about this setting for the newer cards.  Works for me with no degradation in quality that I care about.  That is the only setting that I have "dumbed" down, the rest of my settings, I have increased quality.  Someone posted about this in one of the many related threads, screen shots and everything...  sorry not doing the leg work for this anymore.  Search and it will show "you".

Edited by Blazing 88's
Link to post
Share on other sites

My rig.

Asus Sabertooth Z87, i7 4770k stock, 16GB DDR3 RAM (crucial ballistix sport 1600), Amd Radeon r9 290x x2.

I ran more tests today, with different settings + new amd drivers. Same results. Look at screenshot - this a GPU useage while playing. GPU's actvity isn't stable (blue line) while gpu and memory MHz speeds are close per every turn. Drops only when giving orders.

Бы.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...