evo6tme Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) Hi I have just upgraded my pc. A bit.. Still Have an i5 2500k@4.8 and 16 GB ram. But have added an r9 390x (8gb) and 1 TB ssd(Samsung evo).. After a complete fresh install of software on Windows 10 i installed fallout 4 and played for a while . Now i have installed CMBN V3.12 hopping for faster load times!!! Sorry to be blunt but my Kettle boils quicker !!! Literally!! is this just the way it is .. ???? Before you ask i have tested my ssd and it is running as expected ... I ran a stopwatch over the load process ... Remember fresh install with no mods . i loaded the Allied market garden campaign, made the first move and saved .. The reload of that first save took 2min 37 seconds .... Is this really right for an SSD ??? I would like to add that once loaded i have no issues with performance,it`s just the bloody load times!!!!! Edited March 5, 2016 by evo6tme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 I don't time them but if anything they feel slower. Hardware doesn't seem to make a huge difference.Battlefront have definitely got the blue bar moving faster but the load times I suspect will remain slow. They also stated somewhere else that this process is multi-core as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 They also stated somewhere else that this process is multi-core as well.Yes they did, which is why I find my slow load times somewhat perplexing as well.Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttp Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 My load time issues went away when I switched from an ATI video card to an Nvidia. Load times had been 3, sometimes 4 minutes for big scenarios, but they're now under one minute 98% of the time. My two video cards' specs were similar. Other people here have mentioned having similar results. I'm not sure why it is the way it is, and I otherwise have no real preference re: ATI vs NVidia, but I think the issue here may have something to do with ATI's shaders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1000 Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) Turn off all anti-aliasing and vsync also some other unneeded stuff on your graphics card profile for that specific game. If you want you can even in game options turn graphics to medium or low should be a lot better. Depends on size of map too. Edited March 6, 2016 by user1000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo6tme Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 OK guys,thanks for the replies... I guess an ssd does not make too much difference in this game. No biggie !!! It was still a very good upgrade,so not complaining .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 As I understand it, the reason why an SSD doesn't speed up load times is that each map is saved in a very basic format, and then compiled by your CPU when the game loads.For this reason, loading and saving maps in the editor is super quick (instantaneous), but when you then load the map in the game, your computer has to do a pre-check of all the lines of sight etc, which is what takes time because the game is not able to use your additional CPU cores.Checking LOS is a task that would benefit immensely from parallel computing (because if you have 4 cores, core 1 can check LOS from square 1 to 2, while core 2 checks from 3 to 4, etc.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 I don't often have this problem, but then again I was never a fan of huge battles on huge maps. The physical size of the scenario makes a HUGE difference. As the map size increases the number up-front calculations climb exponentially. I approach this game as a company+ scale combat simulator, which is no work for my CPU to manage. If you're playing multi-battalions on a huge city map (as some Market Garden battles are) then the volume up-front calculations needed is just staggering. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Canuck Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 With the announcement of the NVidia GTX 1080 and GTX 1070, maybe it'll soon be time I switched from my AMD 7870. Not that the AMD is a bad card at all (it's been fine for me), but if switching to NVidia is what it takes to load quicker, then NVidia it is. Note: Have already lowered the 3D settings, etc. . . (on my 4770K CPU with 32G of RAM). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Canuck Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I recently bought that 1070 but it hasn't really sped things up much. Otherwise, I love it, as it has now made some other games playable. 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.