Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Scourge of War: Waterloo >> Tech Support >> How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/13/2015 4:16:21 PM   
St1gar

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/15/2011
Status: offline 		The following is a copy of a post I made at the official forum.

---

Long story short; SoW Gettysburg ran horribly on my then very powerful computer, even in tiny, brigade-sized scenarios. Then an expansion was released, (Chancellorsville, perhaps?), where the performance was improved to a ridiculous degree. I mean to recall the reason being that they had changed or optimized the way they rendered foliage, or something of the sort.

I'm sure you can guess my question - how does Waterloo run, compared to Gettysburg? I'm not comfortable with buying before I feel reasonably secure that it hasn't somehow reverted back to the bad, old days.


My Computer.

Two "NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z"s in SLI.
32GB RAM.
"Intel Core i7-3960X".
64-BIT "Windows 7 Ultimate".
Two SSDs; one regular hard-drive.

< Message edited by Lusketrollet -- 6/13/2015 5:16:46 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/13/2015 7:46:14 PM   
Jim_NSD


Posts: 81
Joined: 9/19/2012
Status: offline 		It should run as well or more likely clearly better than Chancellorsville. Test team members with systems generally comparable to yours are able to play army sized scenarios with army sizes approaching 100K troops per side.

-Jim

_____________________________

Design Lead: Scourge of War

"My God, if we've not got a cool brain and a big one too, to manage this affair, the nation is ruined forever." Unknown private, 14th Vermont Infantry, 2 July 1863

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 2
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/13/2015 8:33:52 PM   
St1gar

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/15/2011
Status: offline 		Those are good news, though I suppose it depends on how someone defines "able to play as".

< Message edited by Lusketrollet -- 6/13/2015 9:35:23 PM >

(in reply to Jim_NSD)
Post #: 3
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/15/2015 6:40:53 PM   
sspoom

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 6/10/2015
Status: offline 		20+ fps in the full battle scenarios during testing, which is quite a hectic pace considering how many troops were not just on the field but fighting


< Message edited by sspoom -- 6/15/2015 7:42:13 PM >

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 4
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/15/2015 10:05:15 PM   
St1gar

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/15/2011
Status: offline 		I took a chance and bought the game, and by God - the performance is ****ing horrid.

It takes me all the way back to the days of the original Gettysburg. What happened? Did the guy who did the improved, optimized terrain for the expansion have a some sort of horrible stroke and forget all his competence from the last SoW? All improvements from the expansion are gone, as though they never existed.

I'm using the default graphical settings, (Sprite Ratio - 0; Percent Trees Showing - 100; Max Transparent Tree - 200; Max Terrain Draw Distance - High; Show Map Objects - Best; - Uniform Quality - Best; All draw distance settings at 1500.)

I've done practically all I can to squeeze out as many frames as possible, like fiddling with the SLI-settings and shifting the game over to my SSD-drives, but to no avail. It runs like diseased ****. Just like in Gettysburg, the only half-decent way to un-**** the performance is to press the T-key until all terrain is hidden. Then the performance takes a massive jump.

Please fix your damned game. Do whatever you need to do. You managed in the last SoW, albeit in an expansion we had to purchase.

< Message edited by Lusketrollet -- 6/15/2015 11:08:49 PM >

(in reply to sspoom)
Post #: 5
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/15/2015 11:35:12 PM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline 		Hate to post the obvious, but... I have a pathetic quadcore 2.4, 3 gigs ram, and ati 4650 card. I can do "best" graphics with Chancellorsville and "high" with Waterloo. Your system, meanwhile, is awesome. But don't think we can blame your experience on the game, when no one to my knowledge has issues with it.

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 6
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/15/2015 11:41:16 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Having two vid cards in sli does not mean you get the combined memory.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?678089-Build-a-PC-for-Attila-TW-Hardware-Recommendations-(Currently-Updating)

CrossfireX and SLI?
This is when two graphics cards are connected and working together

Pros;
Theoretically, double speeds (it never is though, 80% at the absolute most)
More performance than a single card priced the same

Cons;
More power usage, heat and noise compared to a single card priced the same
Possible micro-stuttering in some games with bad support
The on-board GDDR5 RAM of the cards does not double, it is shared between them to generate images. eg. 2 graphics cards with 2GB each will equal 2GB usable memory, not 4GB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lusketrollet

What happened? Did the guy who did the improved, optimized terrain for the expansion have a some sort of horrible stroke and forget all his competence from the last SoW?



This will get you *nowhere*.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 6/16/2015 12:43:14 AM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 7
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 1:28:55 AM   
St1gar

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/15/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Hate to post the obvious, but... I have a pathetic quadcore 2.4, 3 gigs ram, and ati 4650 card. I can do "best" graphics with Chancellorsville and "high" with Waterloo. Your system, meanwhile, is awesome. But don't think we can blame your experience on the game, when no one to my knowledge has issues with it.


Like I wrote - the problem with Gettysburg was how it wasn't optimized for a powerful computer. I have reason to suspect the same to be the case with Waterloo.

quote:

CrossfireX and SLI?
This is when two graphics cards are connected and working together

Pros;
Theoretically, double speeds (it never is though, 80% at the absolute most)
More performance than a single card priced the same

Cons;
More power usage, heat and noise compared to a single card priced the same
Possible micro-stuttering in some games with bad support
The on-board GDDR5 RAM of the cards does not double, it is shared between them to generate images. eg. 2 graphics cards with 2GB each will equal 2GB usable memory, not 4GB


This is why I've tried playing the game with SLI both enabled and disabled, as I pointed out. Didn't help for crap.

quote:

This will get you *nowhere*.


My apologies. I forgot how ****ing far niceness and politeness got us with SoW: Gettysburg.

< Message edited by Lusketrollet -- 6/16/2015 2:30:21 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 8
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 8:21:15 AM   
IainMcNeil


Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline 		Lusketronet sorry you are having problems but please keep it polite. This is just not an acceptable way to talk to the development team. If you think being abusive will get the problem fixed quicker you are sorely mistaken. You would not talk to someone like this if you were face to face with them so don't do it via a forum.

Working with the extremely dedicated team to help then find out why your particular PC has issues when others with worse and better PC's don't is the way to get this fixed.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 9
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 11:17:35 AM   
Gunfreak

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline 		It scales perfectly, ram and gpu has almost no effect, the game does not run any better with a gtx 970 then a gtx 570.

Its all about the cpu.

My 3.5ghz quadcore gets me 12-15 fps on the full waterloo battle, sprite ratio or view distance has little effect on fps.

Another user on norbsoft gets about 5-10 fps more them me, he has 4ghz cpu.

So if you find a 7ghz cpu you should get about 35-50fps on full battles.

(in reply to IainMcNeil)
Post #: 10
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 11:30:34 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline 		cpu speed is only one factor in the bigger picture overall as it's also depends on what you have loaded at start up which counts as well, 2 same pc is all spec will have different results if one is a clean install with next to nothing loaded and the other is a year or 2 old install with shedloads of rubbish loaded, nothing works as good as a fresh install every now and then.

plus sli is only ever any good in sli games, in none sli games it can be a lot slower in some while the same in others, drivers have a lot to do with it, but there are other factors at play as well.

for me with a high spec or max spec pc, to have a older o/s is not also a great idea, both windows 8.1 and now windows 10 beta work better than windows 7 does, for better memory or cpu use, speed of load, and general use all together imo... and most bench tests results as well...

Lusketronet, how old is your o/s install?

what do you have loaded with the game, eg in your boot up etc?

what anti virus are you using and any different apps running like all in ones, av, spy plus firewall etc? as this will effect your fps score, as some cause a slow down as they scan while game runs etc, webroot for one, but most will unless added to the safe list on don't scan option to a folder and or a game exe etc etc...

i generally don't test or play war games on my i7-3960X as it's a bit wasteful and never needed with any ive tried as yet...

dual core, core duo E6850@ 3GHz with 6gb

dual core Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 3gb of ram

i7 2700k cpu with 16gb of ram

i7 3960X cpu with 32gb of ram

WIN7/WIN8.1 and now win 10 BETA TESTER


just a few of some i own and use for different tasks, with vga cards from 2 to 6 gb amd ones, no issues what so ever on any settings on a clean profile, with nothing apart from the standard windows AV and FW running, no other apps... on any game i own or test.

< Message edited by zakblood -- 6/16/2015 1:18:10 PM >

(in reply to Gunfreak)
Post #: 11
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 11:31:35 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline 		Few games are optimized for an upscale computer. For most people, there are far more important things to spend money on. (Food/rent/house payments/children/college funds/etc) They are *not* going to spend the money for the sake of a computer game. That is just the reality we live in.

It's one to design a game for an X-Box or PS series. They all have the same the same CPU and GPU for *years* until the next generation.

Quite another to design a game that will run on hundreds of computers with different hardware.



_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to IainMcNeil)
Post #: 12
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 1:26:26 PM   
St1gar

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/15/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Lusketronet sorry you are having problems but please keep it polite. This is just not an acceptable way to talk to the development team. If you think being abusive will get the problem fixed quicker you are sorely mistaken. You would not talk to someone like this if you were face to face with them so don't do it via a forum.


I would absolutely talk to someone like this face-to-face, especially if I had tried being polite the first fifty times to no avail.

quote:

cpu speed is only one factor in the bigger picture overall as it's also depends on what you have loaded at start up which counts as well, 2 same pc is all spec will have different results if one is a clean install with next to nothing loaded and the other is a year or 2 old install with shedloads of rubbish loaded, nothing works as good as a fresh install every now and then.

plus sli is only ever any good in sli games, in none sli games it can be a lot slower in some while the same in others, drivers have a lot to do with it, but there are other factors at play as well.

for me with a high spec or max spec pc, to have a older o/s is not also a great idea, both windows 8.1 and now windows 10 beta work better than windows 7 does, for better memory or cpu use, speed of load, and general use all together imo... and most bench tests results as well...

Lusketronet, how old is your o/s install?

what do you have loaded with the game, eg in your boot up etc?


I reformat my computer fairly often. The last time was two or three months ago. All my other games run maxed-out with zero problem; even extremely high-fidelity AAA-titles.

quote:

what anti virus are you using and any different apps running like all in ones, av, spy plus firewall etc? as this will effect your fps score, as some cause a slow down as they scan while game runs etc, webroot for one, but most will unless added to the safe list on don't scan option to a folder and or a game exe etc etc...


I only have the programs running in the background that I absolutely need. Again - I have no problems with any other games. Don't try and tell me getting low FPS in the ****ing tutorial is to be expected because I have my antivirus on.

quote:

Few games are optimized for an upscale computer. For most people, there are far more important things to spend money on. (Food/rent/house payments/children/college funds/etc) They are *not* going to spend the money for the sake of a computer game. That is just the reality we live in.

It's one to design a game for an X-Box or PS series. They all have the same the same CPU and GPU for *years* until the next generation.

Quite another to design a game that will run on hundreds of computers with different hardware.


Ah. So I should just stop buying SoW-games because I can never expect to get anything other than **** optimization from them? Even if that was a sensible argument, (it isn't.), then that wouldn't explain how Chancellorsville was able to run just fine. These people apparently figured out how to do it, at one point; now it appears they have somehow entirely forgotten.

< Message edited by Lusketrollet -- 6/16/2015 2:27:51 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 13
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 1:47:27 PM   
zakblood


Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline 		the only other person who has / had fps issues had a webroot issue, so was only asking, but it seems you don't want the help so won't try, good look and sorry couldn't think of anything else to help out

i don't own the game either so only here to help out, hope the new patch helps

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3881653

good luck

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/NSDTeam/Downloads/SOWWLBetaPatch1.exe



< Message edited by zakblood -- 6/16/2015 2:50:16 PM >

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 14
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 1:55:31 PM   
con20or

 

Posts: 246
Joined: 5/6/2015
Status: offline 		Thanks Zakblood, some good advice.

LusketRollet/Nudz,

Webroot is the main cause of all FPS/lag issues - as I replied to your post on the NSD forums.

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/96-discussion/68074-how-is-the-performance-compared-to-sow-gettysburg

Most other reports have been of significantly improved performance with SOWWL.

That is all the help you will get from me until you calm down and get some manners.

< Message edited by con20or -- 6/16/2015 2:56:03 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 15
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 3:14:32 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lusketrollet

quote:

Lusketronet sorry you are having problems but please keep it polite. This is just not an acceptable way to talk to the development team. If you think being abusive will get the problem fixed quicker you are sorely mistaken. You would not talk to someone like this if you were face to face with them so don't do it via a forum.


I would absolutely talk to someone like this face-to-face, especially if I had tried being polite the first fifty times to no avail.




50 times in only 7 posts........ OOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKK

Not only is it impossible to have a civil conversation with you, (And if you talked to me that way face to face, you'd get pistol whipped.), you've managed to tick off one of those who would help you until it's fixed.

Bottom line, if your system can't run it, and others can, like Gunfreak, and everyone else who has the game can, it isn't the fault of the program.

It lies with you. And you alone.

edit: I see at the norb forum you're working hard on getting banned.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 6/16/2015 4:22:20 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 16
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 3:24:21 PM   
St1gar

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/15/2011
Status: offline
quote:

hope the new patch helps


The patch didn't do anything. Not that there's any particular reason to assume that it should - the highlights only really mention FPS in regard to the main menu, of all things.

quote:

50 times in only 7 posts........ OOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKK


50 times during the entire lifespan of SoW Gettysburg. Which you would have understood, if you'd read my post.

quote:

And if you talked to me that way face to face, you'd get pistol whipped


Oh, wow. You're such a big, tough, strong man.


I mean - really?


Really?


Bragging on the Internet about your willingness to commit violence towards people who say things you don't like? And you're complaining about the content of my posts? I'm not even angry; just dumbstruck.

quote:

Bottom line, if your system can't run it, and others can, like Gunfreak, and everyone else who has the game can, it isn't the fault of the program.

It lies with you. And you alone.


I did not have the same computer during SoW: Gettysburg, which I tested on multiple systems, including a laptop. The devs themselves admitted it was poor optimization, up to the release of Chancellorsville.

quote:

edit: I see at the norb forum you're working hard on getting banned.


Not an argument.

< Message edited by Lusketrollet -- 6/16/2015 4:37:55 PM >

(in reply to con20or)
Post #: 17
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 3:48:08 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline 		Green button.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to St1gar)
Post #: 18
RE: How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? - 6/16/2015 4:44:46 PM   
IainMcNeil


Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline 		Locking this thread up.

Lusketrollet if you open a new thread and keep it civil the team will try and help you. The team want to help but can only do so if you respond in a civil way.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Scourge of War: Waterloo >> Tech Support >> How is the performance, compared to SoW: Gettysburg? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.328