FPS Really?

[Grunts]

Never checked FPS before but decided to take a look. I was surprised that even with my Nvidia 1080Ti  w/32gb memory and no mods installed I was getting a lot of stuttering jumps in FPS from 17-55 FPS with mostly 17-20 fps in action areas.Is this the norm?

[sburke]

Double post from your other one?

[General Jack Ripper]

I see large jumps of between 15-60 depending on how much is on the screen at one time, to how far the camera is zoomed in, to how large and complex the map, flavor objects, and forces present. I especially notice it while recording videos and that often accounts for the particular camera style I use, trying to maintain a high enough framerate for fluid video.

Unlike most games, the variations in framerate don't really matter unless they happen to drop below 15 in which case you may get some stuttering in the animations, and if you zoom the camera in and out, or pan quickly, you may notice a slight pause followed by some terrain and textures being re-drawn.

This is all completely normal.

[MikeyD]

If you look at what's onscreen when the framerate drops and when the framerate spikes you can tell pretty quickly what's eating up resources. Sometimes its not what you'd expect.

For me a big framerate hit was simply tree branches swaying in the wind. You turn off 'Tree Detail' in options and the next time your camera zooms in on a hillside with a hundred trees the framerate won't drop trying to render all those swaying branches. This especially true in tree-heavy titles like CMBN and CMBS, not so much CMSF2.

Some QB players or scenario designers like to 'push the envelope' of CM capabilities. A 2km x 3km tree filled mountain map with two battalions worth of forces on each side is a good idea in theory.

[Grunts]

Ok so the bottom line is there is low fps for a series of games that in my opinion should have been better optimized by now.They have had plenty of time to do it. I like the game and have all the games and most modules but that fact still remains.

[sburke]

What fact?  Cm has been optimized probably about as much as it is going to be.

[MikeyD]

Players crying for huge highly detailed maps, dense urban areas or thick forests, huge force levels, weather effects, smoke and haze, detailed animations, with all their graphics card features turned up to max and magically fast framerates are deluding themselves. Tell us which of those you DON'T want and maybe BFC will discard it for you. Are you asking BFC to reduce soldier model polygon count by half? Framerate for a standard movie is 24 fps. If you can live with that watching Marvel superhero movies then it shouldn't be considered a particularly onerous burden playing CM.

[Schrullenhaft]

Yep, the fact still remains...

Optimizing is not simple little changes to the code to somehow make it faster. Graphic engines do NOT work that way. To get very significant improvements in performance (especially to the level that many users here complain about) would basically require rewriting the graphics engine. There are some tweaks that can be done (and they HAVE been done, going back to Engine v. 2.0), but the improvements are limited in their effect when they're still part of the same graphics engine.

The graphics engine was written with the OpenGL 2.0 API starting in 2004, primarily because it was supported by both Mac and Windows. Now Apple is in the process of deprecating OpenGL and moving to their own API, 'Metal'. In Windows DirectX has moved from 9.x (what was available at the time of CMSF1's development - DirectX 10 just coming out as CMSF1 was released) to now DirectX 12 with Windows 10, though each new DirectX iteration doesn't necessarily improve performance, but rather provides more graphic options to developers. Moving to DirectX 11/12 (on the PC...) would provide a bit of a boost in performance due to the optimized nature of DirectX video drivers (more development time and optimization is performed on them since most games on the PC utilize DirectX), but it isn't a simple matter to rewrite the graphics engine in another API (still a laborious, time consuming process).

Writing a 3D graphics engine, even using such environments as Unity or Unreal, takes a long time, especially for a single programmer. This is what would be necessary to make the sort of drastic improvements in graphics performance most users are clamoring for. However such long periods of development are a significant risk for small developers. Take too long and you go out of business (assuming your making just enough to survive while developing said 'new engine'). Don't do it soon enough and you'll get complaints about the 'dated graphics/performance', etc. Which is where Battlefront finds itself right now. And of course there's always calls for new content ('Barbarossa', 'Stalingrad/Op Blue', 'Cold War NATO', 'Vietnam', etc.). So it is a somewhat safer bet to bring out new content, but with the old engine (you'll be getting a paycheck every so often...). Developing a new engine slows down (or even stops) that output and reduces your income for a significant period of time.

[Bulletpoint]

15 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Are you asking BFC to reduce soldier model polygon count by half?

I'm not the guy you replied to, but CM has lots of polygons inside the soldier models and the guns that could be removed without any problem, as they are never visible anyway and serve no purpose. I don't know exactly what kind of effect they have on performance, but if we're talking about reducing polygons, those are ripe for the picking.

15 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Framerate for a standard movie is 24 fps. If you can live with that watching Marvel superhero movies then it shouldn't be considered a particularly onerous burden playing CM.

Games and movies are very different, because we control the camera in games. Here's an interesting discussion about it:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-movies-look-smooth-at-24-fps-but-video-games-look-terrible-at-24-fps-Is-it-because-of-motion-blur-If-yes-how-does-that-affect-video-games-vis-à-vis-movies

However, that being said, when I started playing CM, I had 5-7 FPS and it was actually possible to play the game. Not a very smooth experience, but I got hooked anyway.

The real problem of CM performance is not so much if we get 30 or 40 FPS, but more that the FPS varies wildly. As I move the camera with the mouse, sometimes it will lag and I will lose control of the panning for a second where it just coasts along like skating on ice.

[General Jack Ripper]

17 hours ago, Grunts said:

Ok so the bottom line is there is low fps for a series of games that in my opinion should have been better optimized by now.They have had plenty of time to do it. I like the game and have all the games and most modules but that fact still remains.

Your expectations are flawed, and your statement of fact is only an opinion.

You seem to think improving the framerate is a goal of game refinement, which is true for things like first person shooters, which rely on high framerates in order to encourage competitive skill-based play and allow players to exercise their reflexes in real time.

Combat Mission does not require twitchy reflexes in order to play, so maintaining a high framerate is completely unnecessary.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Combat Mission does not require twitchy reflexes in order to play, so maintaining a high framerate is completely unnecessary.

Exactly. Smooth camera controls are way more important in CM. That *has* improved since CMBN 1.0. I can happy play the game with smooth control at 15 - 17 fps. Usually better over 20 but as long as things are not jumpy I don't even look at the fps numbers any more.

There are settings changes that can be made to improve things which any one can read about here (check out the links under Performance Discussion):

 

[Grunts]

On 1/15/2019 at 4:41 PM, sburke said:

What fact?  Cm has been optimized probably about as much as it is going to be.

Let me first start off by saying I have all the games and modules except one. That says what I think about the game but at the asking price today of around $60. there is a certain responsibility that comes with  that to make frame rate  and other improvements like certain animations of soldiers moving etc ongoing. There is always room or improvement and games like this that depend so much on graphics have to improve using the newer technology being offered.

[sburke]

Just now, Grunts said:

Let me first start off by saying I have all the games and modules except one. That says what I think about the game but at the asking price today of around $60. there is a certain responsibility that comes with  that to make frame rate  and other improvements like certain animations of soldiers moving etc ongoing. There is always room or improvement and games like this that depend so much on graphics have to improve using the newer technology being offered.

Within reason. You bought the game for what it was not what you might want it to be years later.  Now BF has shown they will optimize where possible and where the effort makes sense but you can’t expect them to put a significant amount of effort without expecting an additional cost. Also a lot of the issues are specific graphics card dependent. Not all players are having the same experience and issues. 

I bought my truck before there were common rear view cameras. I can’t go back to the manufacturer and say the UI for my truck sucks and expect them to just give me one. 

[Thewood1]

Just because I like beating the crap out of car analogies...

When your truck is all used up, and you go to buy a new one, wouldn't you expect the new one to offer the neat back up camera.  Especially if you had seen them on other trucks 5-6 years ago.

Not saying I don't understand BFC's dilemma, but we gotta stop using car analogies and metaphors.

[sburke]

but I like car analogies...…  and you aren't buying a new engine.  It is the same engine that is undergoing what optimization it can so if you were magically expecting that CMSF2 running the same engine as CMFB was gonna behave differently with your graphics card then you may need to take a class in logic.

Read Schrullenhaft's much better explanation above.  You can disagree if you want with it, but it isn't going to change the basic facts.

[Thewood1]

But your analogy was add ons like a rear view camera.  An engine is a different story.  Don't read disagreement into what I am saying.  I specially call out the BFC's dilemma and also empathize with them.  But at the same time, new car buyers coming in and paying full price for a new car do have expectations around some basic  technoloy features they see in similarly priced cars.  Those tech features have zero impact on how the car will handle snow, is maintained, etc., but those tech features are becoming very large factors in car buying.  My son bought a car, with all other things being equal, based on how easy the bluetooth was to connect to.  The engine, suspension, etc. are commoditized for what he needs it for.

Car analogies are tired and don't work.  Most people don't buy cars the same way they did even five years ago.  To carry this to BFC, someone comes from ARMA or a flight sim like IL-2 where DirectX is the backbone and are shocked at the graphics and performance.  Is the tactical engine the best out there?  Probably.  Is it what people see when they first fire it?  No.  There is nothing BFC or it fans can do to change that except convince them the graphics are worth it because its a different kind of game.