AstroCat Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Same problem here with: Q9650 @3.6 4GB mem GXT 580 (latest drivers) Vista 64 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 It's the 1:1 modeling of the air molecules impacting on the leaves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeeman Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 my reletively inexpensive system runs gr8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJ62 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I suspect pollen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 It's the 1:1 modeling of the air molecules impacting on the leaves. (characters) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted May 15, 2011 Author Share Posted May 15, 2011 my reletively inexpensive system runs gr8 You get no massive performance hit when viewing the trees in the "Closing the Gap" scenario, like when setting up the German forces in the forest? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Im sure veryone get it, even if you would have a 4000$ PC. Some people maybe play with lower settings then best/best, no AA and V-Sync so they maybe not notice a such dramatic FPS drop like we do. Just posting that it runs "great" does not mean they dont have the same issue...maybe they just read "performance" in the thread title and nothing more... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroCat Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I believe people claiming its running "great" and "smooth" or whatever are just loading the game up and to them it all seems fine. But, I imagine if you showed them their fps and/or compared it to other games running at 60fps like the Total War games or something they'd get what we are asking about. Nothing wrong with being happy with the game, it's just that some of us unfortunately know what we are missing as far as performance goes. Oh and for the record I think the game is great but I want to squeeze every bit of performance I can out of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I was running the game with best graphics and 3D model (no AA or V-Sync) with my GTX8800 and it ran great (or at least it looked great to me). After reading this thread I downloaded Fraps and realised my "great" graphics were actually running at 15 FPS when I was panning the camera or when there were a lot of troops running through the hedge row. So I dialed down the 3D model and the graphics look great again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Out of curiousity what aspect of the low framerates make it appear unplayable. Is it watching the action with the camera while still or is the panning around so jarring for people that it is ugly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I was running the game with best graphics and 3D model (no AA or V-Sync) with my GTX8800 and it ran great (or at least it looked great to me). After reading this thread I downloaded Fraps and realised my "great" graphics were actually running at 15 FPS when I was panning the camera or when there were a lot of troops running through the hedge row. So I dialed down the 3D model and the graphics look great again. A great example of ignorance being bliss. You were happy with the graphics until you got FRAPs. It is why I never bother with it. Either I am satisfied with the graphics or the framerate is driving me bananas but either way a measured framerate is irrelevant to my enjoyment. This came up during the beta testing of CMSF too. The beta builds measure fps too and there was a suggestion that it would be cool to include that for the released version too. Cynical me immediately warned that people who were quite happy playing with 20 fps would have a freak out learning they were getting 20 fps. btw FRAPs has been known to slow down some games a fair bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 It's the 1:1 modeling of the air molecules impacting on the leaves. And the game has to keep track of the stomas as well. Whether they are open or shut is of vital importance! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easytarget Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 btw FRAPs has been known to slow down some games a fair bit. This is how misinformation spreads on the intertard. The fact is, no matter how often you tell FRAPS to poll a game for the purposes of determining frame rate IT DOES NOT slow down the game down doing it. However, if you run FRAPS to capture video, it will definitely slow things down, appreciably. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 This is how misinformation spreads on the intertard. The fact is, no matter how often you tell FRAPS to poll a game for the purposes of determining frame rate IT DOES NOT slow down the game down doing it. However, if you run FRAPS to capture video, it will definitely slow things down, appreciably. Yes, FRAPs footprint is small, but some games do show a puzzling slowdown even when it FRAPS is just idling in the background for FPS measurement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I wonder how expensive SpeedTree is to licence? Just add all the trees and flowers and focus on the tanks and game mechanics instead? Now they have already spent a lot of hours on their own trees so the ROI will get a serious hit OK, looking here you get SpeedTree for $10.000: http://www.speedtree.com/sales/ So if they spent more than 100 hours on their trees they are already on the downhill on that investment.... And just look at the tree library you get for that price: http://www.speedtree.com/trees/index.php 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Doubt it is worth it for BFC. That package only solves the display of the trees, I think? They would still need to implement all the cover, concealment and other interaction issues that trees need to function properly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted May 15, 2011 Author Share Posted May 15, 2011 BFC doesn't need to license Speedtree technology. The tree rendering in CM:N is just fine, it's only the movement of trees in heavy winds that cause such a drastic performance loss. Again: this is NOT about low FPS in general. This is about the FPS on powerful PC systems dropping by up to 75% simply due to trees moving in the wind. I wouldn't complain if I "only" got 20 FPS. As long as I get smooth control and no jerky gameplay I'm happy. But trying to control the camera and issue oders with less than 10 FPS is simply annoying, especially when you're playing it on a system specifically built for gaming. PS: BTW I've been using a (licensed) copy of FRAPS for many years in dozens of games and have never noticed any kind of performance hit. And when possible I usually tested it against a game's built-in FPS meter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easytarget Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Easy enough to test, I ran FRAPS, I started CMBN Demo, I ran Bocage. I toggled out and looked at resource mgr. Rinse repeat w/o FRAPS running. I didn't notice any difference. Resource mgr in both instances was at ~10% immediately upon exit, then dropped almost immediately to 1%. Running it or not running it, same results. So, I'm not seeing it. Least not in a measurable way. No matter, just didn't want anyone confusing what FRAPS does when you use it to record with what most people usually use it for, which is just to take a peek at frame rate in a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 A lot of people dont understand that this is thread is about a 50%+ FPS drop caused by trees moving in the wind. Its not about if this game can be played with 60 or 15 FPS...its just about the problem caused by medium and stong wind if there are forests in the scenario. Such a massive FPS drop by such a small effect, even on high-end machines, has to be a coding or engine issue. If you get playable FPS with no wind and unplayable with heavy wind while viewing some trees, its clear what causes the problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easytarget Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 hehe, thx for clarifying that, the subject title of the thread didn't already state clearly what this thread was about, oh, no wait, it did 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 hehe, thx for clarifying that, the subject title of the thread didn't already state clearly what this thread was about, oh, no wait, it did Some seam to think its about "at what FPS is CM playable" or about FRAPS that hits the performance hard. If they would test it im sure anyone will have this issue, system or drivers dont matter much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 If you get playable FPS with no wind and unplayable with heavy wind while viewing some trees, its clear what causes the problem. No, wind doesn't noticeably affect my FPS. Trees always wave around a little bit, even at still conditions, if you are close to them. Unless you are playing on 'best 3d quality', the game balances it so that the effect on FPS is neglible. If you are playing on 'Best' setting, you are asking for quality over speed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 @ Sergei Would you please test that with a small map full of trees and first no wind and later strong wind ? Could you provide screenshot of both situations with a FPS counter ? Im just interested if this is true and only is a problem on Best/Best... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted May 15, 2011 Author Share Posted May 15, 2011 If you lower the 3d objects detail the FPS loss gets smaller. At very low settings there is barely any difference anymore between FPS when viewing trees in windy/calm conditions. But this is no solution, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 But this is no solution, of course. It's not a solution because it's a self-induced problem. Using the Best 3d Quality does precisely that, at the expense of speed, so you are getting what you are asking for. Maybe BFC should just remove the Improved, Better and Best 3d Quality options if it breaks the game so badly. 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.