Map size IS the problem

[SlapHappy]

for me anyway.

Try this. Start fraps. Go into the editor and create an 800m x 2000m dimensioned map.

Don't add any terrain types, units, nothing.

Switch to the 3-d view and look down the 2000m length with a slight elevation and the horizon at about 1/3 down from the top edge of your screen.

I got a static 10 FPS. So without any movement, units terrain features, buildings etc. the game moves into an almost unplayable frame rate on my system. The problem seems to be very pronounced once you start increasing map size beyond 1.5 Km on the long dimension. Even so, these "pool table" maps don't achieve particularly good frame rates even when using very small dimensions (less than 500m per side, around 25-30 FPS).

[Cpl Steiner]

I tend to agree. Have you noticed how much the frame-rate improves on the "replay" phase in WEGO mode? I don't think it is my imagination that an extra 5 or 10 FPS become available when replaying the action. That can only point to things like on the fly spotting calculations slowing the FR down IMHO. With a bigger map spotting is presumably going to take more processing.

[Douglas Rudd]

Hate to say this, but I just made a 800 x 2000 map and my frame rate is from 30 - 120, with being in the middle of the map of around 45 fps.

I get low frame rates on some of the small maps, so I think it may be something else.

My rig: C2D X6800 590i MB, 7950GX2 512 meg x2, 2 gigs ram, WinXP SP2.

[peleprodigy]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

for me anyway.

Try this. Start fraps. Go into the editor and create an 800m x 2000m dimensioned map.

Don't add any terrain types, units, nothing.

Switch to the 3-d view and look down the 2000m length with a slight elevation and the horizon at about 1/3 down from the top edge of your screen.

I got a static 10 FPS. So without any movement, units terrain features, buildings etc. the game moves into an almost unplayable frame rate on my system. The problem seems to be very pronounced once you start increasing map size beyond 1.5 Km on the long dimension. Even so, these "pool table" maps don't achieve particularly good frame rates even when using very small dimensions (less than 500m per side, around 25-30 FPS).

this is an extremely valuable observation. clearly a blank ground screen shouldn't pose a problem. i know absolutely nothing about game programming, but it is almost like the engine is trying to model each individual blade of grass (and its shadows and textures) for the entire desert scene, rather than cutting off at some visual range, and subbing in much lower detail like most other games of this scope seem to do.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by peleprodigy:

it is almost like the engine is trying to model each individual blade of grass (and its shadows and textures) for the entire desert scene, rather than cutting off at some visual range

Steve said in another thread that the damage model takes into account the actual polygon hit. As so much lead is flying around and ricocheting off everything, you may well be right!

[JonS]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

... on the fly ... calculations slowing the FR down ...

Pretty much. Believe me when I say that cycles being used for calcs rather than frames is a Good Thing™

[peleprodigy]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by peleprodigy:

it is almost like the engine is trying to model each individual blade of grass (and its shadows and textures) for the entire desert scene, rather than cutting off at some visual range

Steve said in another thread that the damage model takes into account the actual polygon hit. As so much lead is flying around and ricocheting off everything, you may well be right! </font>

[SlapHappy]

Using the Balanced/Balanced settings and turning of AA in the game and substituting the settings in the video card options - As another posted suggested - I was able to increase the FPS on the blank map to around 37 frames.

Nice, but once you load the map up with textures and buildings, it drops down to around 12-13.

BTW, some of the smaller maps with lots of buildings are "chuggy" too. Still, it seems like performance should be better than it is. Would be nice to know if it is Nvidia's drivers or how the models are programmmed in CMSF.

[Hawkmek]

The Small Gain scenario is small, but about 75% forest. Very 'chuggy' for me and my old rig.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Using the Balanced/Balanced settings and turning of AA in the game and substituting the settings in the video card options - As another posted suggested - I was able to increase the FPS on the blank map to around 37 frames.

Unfortunately, due to the subject matter, AA is a must for me. The slat armour looks horrible without it. I know AA kills frame-rates but its either that or look at horrible jaggy slats everywhere :mad:

[thewood]

So basically, with no units on the map, a high density urban map chews up framerates, is that correct?

I have the same issue as stated above on a blank flat map of over 2km. It "chugs". If I shrink the map to 800m, its fine. Says something is going on regardless of units and terrain. As they say "size matters".

[Sekra]

I've found out that for some reason Shock Force switches to software rendering and that is the reason for the problems. More about what and how I found out here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000356