Performance of CMSF:Marines

[Gryphon]

Is the performance of the game improved in the Marines module? Currently there is so many issues with the graphics in the game it's crazy. Landscapes and objects constantly redrawing, massive loss of FPS when looking at certain objects etc.

I mean, CMSF is pretty, but it isn't Crysis, any half-decent pc should be able to run it on high settings. The models may be good, but they aren't the 50k-100k poly models shown in some flight simulators.

So, does it play more smoothly?

[Moon]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Crysis, the CPU power in CMSF goes into calculating physics, LOS and a myriad of other non-visual factors that make a realistic wargame sim. A flight sim on the other hand simulates a lot of empty space and nowhere close to the amount of units and details as CMSF does.

Having said that - yes, performance optimization has been made for Marines/v1.10, although it's difficult to say how much it will show yet, since all of the betas currently contain debug code, which is slowing things down compared to a "clean" version.

[c3k]

That's good news.

My system shows constant redraws and an inverted LOD ring. Any improvement in drawing methodology is welcome news.

Thanks,

Ken

[Piecekeeper]

Ive just discovered that you can combine certain commands by clicking on the waypoints and choose for example "target arc" for each waypoint. Im embarrased after this discovery after a year or so. I dont think its too obvious in the manual though...or is it?

(Sorry....can someone move this post)

[MikeyD]

I'm trying to remember - I think choosing actions for each waypoint may post-date the old manual. It may have been a forum suggestion that BFC picked up and ran with in an early upgrade. I've looked at the new posted manual but haven't hunted for this specifically.

And about performance - what settings are you playing at? I try to adjust my settings according to the scenario I'm playing. No sense trying to max-out my graphics card rendering a monster 2x2k map. BFC said they're in it for the long haul. I half suspect that they figure in a couple years computer performance will catch up nicely with the game. As it stands, its pretty impressive the game can do what it does in realtime on the platforms we're using.

[Gryphon]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Crysis, the CPU power in CMSF goes into calculating physics, LOS and a myriad of other non-visual factors that make a realistic wargame sim. A flight sim on the other hand simulates a lot of empty space and nowhere close to the amount of units and details as CMSF does.

This is not so true anymore because some flight sims display tremendous amounts of ground units and this is especially true for sims to come like SoW. In addition, the "empty space" may contain things such as thermal & wind simulation affecting weather real-time. While CMSF may calculate a whallop of things, slowing down a high end pc is rightout ridiculous.

I'm not going to contest the fact there is probably some hardcore calculations at work, but underestimating the complexity of calculations and objects in newer flight sims is just as silly.

[Berto]

Is the performance of the game improved in the Marines module? Currently there is so many issues with the graphics in the game it's crazy. Landscapes and objects constantly redrawing, massive loss of FPS when looking at certain objects etc.

Graphic card ATI?

These are the symptoms of ATI graphics card, with the options set off.

[c3k]

Nvidia 8800gtx; all options on. No change with options off. It's LOD and redraws, not framerates.

Ken

[rich12545]

Depends on the flight sim. I play fs9 and my system works fine. Athlon 3000 2 gig, geforce 7800 gt superclock, 1 gig ram. If I were to try fsx, it would be unplayable.

[hammelman]

This is not so true anymore because some flight sims display tremendous amounts of ground units and this is especially true for sims to come like SoW. In addition, the "empty space" may contain things such as thermal & wind simulation affecting weather real-time. While CMSF may calculate a whallop of things, slowing down a high end pc is rightout ridiculous.

You may certainly be right, but on an enclosed space where every bullet is being tracked from battalion + troops per side firing automatic weapons and other various things is a little different than your typical flight sim. I have to agree with Moon that these are vastly different types of games and cannot be compared. Also when your in a flight sim you only see so much of the "board" when playing CMSF everything on the board is moving at the same time, as you look around in your cockpit or around your plane your going only see graphically what is happening around you - the player, but in CMSF you will see vastly more things going on at the same time. If that makes any sense.

[thewood]

One point about flight sims...take a look at IL2 with a 40 bomber B17 strike and a couple dozen fighters swarming around it. IL2 tracks every bullet, has detailed damage modeled, has to do everthing at high speed, tracks all flight models, as well as shows detailed models, clouds, smoke, etc. It also has a pretty detailed ground model. It runs very well on my Vista machine, while CMSF runs well at only medium settings.

And it does it with both OpenGL and DirectX support on XP, and few problems I am aware of in Vista. IL2 can and does have to track literally thousands of bullets in large engagements. I have no doubts CMSF is complicated and tracks a huge number of tings, but don't so easily dimmiss the "open" space in combat flight sims.

[panzermartin]

I hate the redraws of graphics in CMSf. That and the random frame rate drop every time the AI scratches its head about how to plot movement paths makes the environment look so artificial and fragile. Something must be done about it. One time you have a high-res palm tree with highly detailed soldiers and the next moment you get a blurry bitmap straight from the mario kart series and moving matchsticks holding invisible AKs and yelling curses in arabic. (I also miss the vocal variety of CMx1)

And what hurts me most about Il-2 vs CMSf comparison, is that I could play a 10 player coop in the first with minimal lag *with a crappy DIAL-UP*, while a 2 player TCP/IP on DSL in CM with sizes over a company is a laggy nightmare. Marines readme says, improved internet speed and reliability..after 10 patches should I believe it?

[The_Red_Rage]

In my whole CM playing experience I cannot recall a case of a full battalion engaging. Usually - not more than a platoon actually firing on either side with few AFVs, rest of the force is usually idling. Now, that's not a whole lot of calculations for 60 guys firing. Dual core CPU with 2 gigs RAM should have no problems running a game like CM and yet I am having performance that would cause me to stop playing any other game for good. But it's CM and there is nothing remotely as good on the market as far as gameplay goes:).

Having better performance in Call of Duty 4 on medium settings with 30-40 guys on screen than that in CM:SF is just not right.

Edit: Completely agree with redraw issue as well. Such a mood killer at times and gives a game an unfinished/shareware kind of look.

[hoolaman]

I hate the redraws of graphics in CMSf. That and the random frame rate drop every time the AI scratches its head about how to plot movement paths makes the environment look so artificial and fragile. Something must be done about it. One time you have a high-res palm tree with highly detailed soldiers and the next moment you get a blurry bitmap straight from the mario kart series and moving matchsticks holding invisible AKs and yelling curses in arabic. (I also miss the vocal variety of CMx1)

Yes I agree. You often see low res palm trees in front of his res ones, and a wise man described the LOD redraws of the bushes as "going off like little popcorns". I wish the map was just "there" instead of fading in and out like a desert mirage.

The mechanics of the game is getting so good, I hope this gets a look in.

[Pandur]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Crysis, the CPU power in CMSF goes into calculating physics, LOS and a myriad of other non-visual factors that make a realistic wargame sim.

there is just one thing i wonder about, "what is my GPU doing". we all know since long time that CMSF use just 50% of the power a dual core CPU can offer, also the engine is slow and choppy, maybe partly becouse of that reason.

but lets forgett about CPU power for a moment and think about GPU power!? why can i "play" a scenario when not looking at the screen/map, but as soon as i look at the map while the turn is calcualted it gets unplayable!? why is that!?

its almost like the medi core graphics are to "good" to be calcualted by even the most modern GPUs out there. but it does work if you do NOT look at the scene without any flaws.

something there is utterly wrong and needs some attention in my eyes.

[abdecken5]

I agree the graphics are quite horrendous for people with high spec systems. This tends to makes people think the game is badly made and dismiss it.

But a nice simple looking and smooth 3D world and responsive camera controls could do so much for the game and its popularity. Look at those games on the nintendo wii - they look good but have simple, smooth graphics that dont put people off.