"The Citadel" Mission (US Campaign) is Unplayable due to Low FPS

[z1812]

3 hours ago, nposborn said:

 

Are there other specs that are relevant? 

No......sorry I did not see your above post.

[Bulletpoint]

19 hours ago, Roter Stern said:

The issue is the sheer volume of CPU-heavy calculations each and every soldier and vehicle has to execute - each pair of eyes looking around, each gun sight taking aim, each bullet being fried - every single frame.

This is a myth, as those calculations are not that demanding. Try playing a battle in real time. Notice the amount of frames per second you're getting. Now pause the game so that no bullets are fired and no eyes are looking around. What happens to the performance? It hardly changes.

[Roter Stern]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is a myth, as those calculations are not that demanding. Try playing a battle in real time. Notice the amount of frames per second you're getting. Now pause the game so that no bullets are fired and no eyes are looking around. What happens to the performance? It hardly changes.

Sure, let's try that.

Load up the scenario in question (The Citadel) and try running it in real-time. On my side it runs at sub-single FPS.

Now load up the same scenario in turn-based. For me each turn takes about 3 min to calculate, but once that's done I'm getting a decent 30~40 FPS.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, Roter Stern said:

Sure, let's try that.

Load up the scenario in question (The Citadel) and try running it in real-time. On my side it runs at sub-single FPS.

Now load up the same scenario in turn-based. For me each turn takes about 3 min to calculate, but once that's done I'm getting a decent 30~40 FPS.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

What happens when you pause the real-time game like I suggested? Does your FPS suddenly shoot up now that there's no spotting or shooting being calculated?

[Roter Stern]

41 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

What happens when you pause the real-time game like I suggested? Does your FPS suddenly shoot up now that there's no spotting or shooting being calculated?

I don't see what you're trying to prove here. You're also making a rather huge assumption that calculations pause when the RT is paused. There's plenty of reasons why that would not be the case.

Point is, the more units are on the field, the slower RT runs - where as turn based is hardly effected.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Roter Stern

[Thewood1]

On 6/2/2021 at 3:21 PM, Ultradave said:

It was playtested though, both in the 79 and 82 campaigns. I had no problem at all with it on my 2018MacBook Pro that does not have a GPU card, 8GB of RAM.
 

Dave 

https://www.battlefront.com/shock-force-2/cmsf2-base-game/?tab=demo

• Windows 7 or MacOS 10.7.5 (Lion)
• Pentium IV 1.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor
• 256 MB VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution in OpenGL
• DirectX 10 compatible Sound Card (Windows only)
• 4 GB RAM
• 8 GB Hard Drive space
• The game does not work in a virtualized environment (virtual machine)

Minimum specs listed for CMSF2.  None are listed for CMCW.  I sure hope someone at BFC tests scenarios in the campaign on that minimum spec PC.  I tried the Citadel scenario on two different machines:

Wife's old desktop bought in 2014 - i3-3220, GTX 280, 4Gb RAM

Citadel ran about 10-12 fps at lower settings and in single digits at medium settings.  Granted that this PC is seven years old and only gets fired up a couple times a year.

My current laptop MSI Titan GT76 i9-10900K, 2080 Super, 64Gb RAM.  (This is a desktop CPU and GPU chipset, not mobile)

Citadel ran at 19 fps at highest settings and 35-40 at medium settings.

The desktop is well above minimum settings and meets recommended spec and it struggled even on low settings.  And that was with no action.  I was just sitting looking at level 3.

Again, I'll point out that if you are going to put large scenarios like that in an included campaign, might want to warn people starting the campaign about it.  I'd hate to spend a lot of campaign time then have to slog through a large scenario on the edge of being unplayable.

btw, note there is no warning on that page about intel GPU chipsets.  I know in another thread it was stated that warning was posted.  Couldn't find it.

 

[Thewood1]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:45 AM, Roter Stern said:

Point is, the more units are on the field, the slower RT runs - where as turn based is hardly effected

Its very effected even in turn-based.  I see big differences in fps when looking at empty map spots and spots with a lot of units.  Or do you mean the difference netween RT and wego not being impacted by number of units.

[z1812]

As I recall, originally Company sized battles were the recommended optimum and effective size of a Combat Mission engagement. I presume that has changed.

Company sized, perhaps a bit smaller or larger, does seem the sweet spot for me.

 

 

[Blazing 88's]

On 6/5/2021 at 10:58 AM, Thewood1 said:

...btw, note there is no warning on that page about intel GPU chipsets.  I know in another thread it was stated that warning was posted.  Couldn't find it.

Yep, this is probably the same thing I was referring to in my post on the first page of this thread.

 

 

[Thewood1]

I know.  I'm just pointing out that was a larger thread about Intel GPUs where someone stated it was in the specs that Intel GPUs weren't supported.  I couldn't find it.

[Blazing 88's]

37 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

I know.  I'm just pointing out that was a larger thread about Intel GPUs where someone stated it was in the specs that Intel GPUs weren't supported.  I couldn't find it.

No worries. I was just patting myself on the back, for that somewhat old /stale, by still no doubt useful info.