RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront



Message

Mobius -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (6/8/2011 2:48:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
LOS is calculated during the calculations, it is not recalculated during replay. I think we'll have to actually take a look at the map to figure out why it is performing so poorly. There are many options in the Map Maker and it could be that you found a combination that the game doesn't handle well.
Regards,
- Erik
Then there would have to be a massive table of every point every unit was at and the LOS to every other unit at that point in time saved somewhere.



Erik Rutins -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (6/8/2011 3:32:07 PM)

It's all calculated during calculations. The replay is exactly that, a replay of all the calculations. The calculated data is indeed stored for the replay.

Regards,

- Erik



Templer_12 -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (6/8/2011 11:24:38 PM)

I'm testing the configuration at the Battle Niemirow.

Surprisingly, there seems no great loss or improvement of performance with the frame rate whether I use a resolution of 1024 × 798 or 1280 × 1024.

Also Texture Quality = High and Level of Detail Quality = Ultra or
Texture Quality = Medium and Level of Detail Quality = medium does not significantly affect my frame rate.

By the way if I use the Cinema "Alt tab" function this improved slightly the frame rate.

If I zoom in close to an object the frame rate improves significantly.
If I zoom out "Key 3", the frame rate deteriorated significantly.

And what ever I set a configuration - my mouse curser is always laggy![:(]

Can it be?

And what actually causes the recruitment level of detail Quality?
Where do I have to look for changes in the game? [&:]

And I am a bit annoyed.
I would like to play but first I have to be a scientist and an engineer! [:(]



HintJ -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (6/9/2011 2:52:36 AM)

Actually, w/the limit infantry option my framerate becomes acceptable. It occasionally drops below 20. The AI opponent on my map went crazy buying infantry. I guess having ten men for droves of infantry squads was the culprit.



Templer_12 -> What does what? (6/9/2011 1:49:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's all calculated during calculations. The replay is exactly that, a replay of all the calculations. The calculated data is indeed stored for the replay.

Regards,

- Erik


Hi Erik, [:)]

lessons for a newbie please. [:)]

To clarify:
The calculation takes the CPU and only the CPU?
And so the replay is the matter of the graphic card and only the graphic card?



junk2drive -> RE: What does what? (6/26/2011 1:42:52 PM)

Now I'm in the same boat as Mo Reb. I built a new box with nvidia graphics and the FPS is terrible in the demo scenario. Mouse and scrolling is bad. Turning off shadows and trees seems to cure it but I don't want to play that way. Hopefully I can be the test bed for a fix.



Erik Rutins -> RE: What does what? (6/26/2011 3:11:33 PM)

The issue there is that your new system has an old integrated graphics chipset. Getting acceptable performance with all the newer graphics features turned on is almost impossible with integrated graphics. You really need a dedicated graphics card to get the best experience from most 3D games.

Regards,

- Erik



oldspec4 -> RE: What does what? (6/26/2011 3:18:24 PM)

Well, the sweet spot for me (18-25 fps depending on zoom level) has weather turned off, using the three man squads, minimum level of trees, and shadows off. I also am running at 1920x1080 w/ high detail and texture.

I too would like to run w/ full trees, shadows, five man squads, and weather on. So hopefully there is some more optimization to be had here.

BTW, the game is being played on an AMD Phenom II, 8 gigs of ram, and a 1 gig 9800gt.



Erik Rutins -> RE: What does what? (6/26/2011 3:54:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldspec4
BTW, the game is being played on an AMD Phenom II, 8 gigs of ram, and a 1 gig 9800gt.


That should be plenty of horsepower. Are you getting 18-25 FPS on all maps or just on the big ones? My home system is a Phenom II X4 with 4GB of RAM and a ATI HD 5700 and I get 50-60 FPS on average, running with High settings, including all trees and shadows and grass on and anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. On some of the larger maps, the FPS does decrease.

Regards,

- Erik



oldspec4 -> RE: What does what? (6/26/2011 5:46:59 PM)

Generally, I get about the same FPS on all maps. I'm currently playing the 1st Infantry Division short random campaign.

I DO keep grass on but keep AA and anisotropic filtering at zero.



NefariousKoel -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (6/26/2011 6:10:41 PM)

8x  Anti-aliasing is an FPS killer. [X(]

AF.. not really much at all.  Your probelm is the 8x AA. [:-]  If you're using a higher resolution widescreen monitor, you probably only need 2x.. 4x at most. Even if there's another issue, that will definitely hurt your frames.

I don't see how some people can stand framerates under 30fps, but I've seen many freely admit to cranking up their video settings, such as AA, as far as they can and play away with a game running at 12fps. [sm=crazy.gif]



Templer_12 -> I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/26/2011 8:13:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldspec4

Well, the sweet spot for me (18-25 fps depending on zoom level) has weather turned off, using the three man squads, minimum level of trees, and shadows off.

No weather, no trees, no shadows ....no fun! [:(]

Unfortunately, this problem is also known to me.
Performance. Game is unplayable!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2837203

Small maps will work (not in a great way!), but I found it impossible to play a campaign in which some larger maps show up.

I hope that in future patches, performance can be greatly improved! [sm=innocent0001.gif]




junk2drive -> RE: I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/26/2011 8:25:10 PM)

Maybe I should get one of these

http://www.pcworld.com/article/221630/amd_radeon_hd_6990_serious_inquiries_only_please.html



oldspec4 -> RE: I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/26/2011 8:57:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldspec4

Well, the sweet spot for me (18-25 fps depending on zoom level) has weather turned off, using the three man squads, minimum level of trees, and shadows off.

No weather, no trees, no shadows ....no fun! [:(]

Unfortunately, this problem is also known to me.
Performance. Game is unplayable!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2837203

Small maps will work (not in a great way!), but I found it impossible to play a campaign in which some larger maps show up.

I hope that in future patches, performance can be greatly improved! [sm=innocent0001.gif]





IMHO, the game is playable and fun at 20 FPS. That being said, I think my system should be able to handle all the graphic enhancements (excluding higher levels of AA and ten man squads).

The lack of better graphic detail does impact my immersion level.





oldspec4 -> RE: I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/26/2011 8:59:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Maybe I should get one of these

http://www.pcworld.com/article/221630/amd_radeon_hd_6990_serious_inquiries_only_please.html


The price of a new computer [X(].



erichswafford -> RE: I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/29/2011 4:06:55 AM)

Guys, the problem is that the game is heavily CPU-bound. You can see this via a simple expedient: Compare the FPS during the orders phase (when no calculations are being performed and it's just your GPU doing the work) to the FPS during replays (when the CPU is doing the heavy lifting).

I have a laptop with an i5-460m (relatively fast) and an HD5650 (relatively slow). PCO runs very well during orders and lousy during replay. I agree that CMBN, while no paragon of optimization, gives far better FPS for a game which also happens to look better. As I mentioned in another post, a big part of the difference could be the much smaller maps/lower unit density in most Normandy scenarios (vs. the grandeur of the Eastern Front).

My complaint is this: This little laptop will run much more demanding (graphically) games fluidly, but chokes on this rather modest-appearing wargame. It runs Lock-On 2, Ka-50 Black Shark, ARMA II (!) and Crysis 2 just fine with high details.

It seems to me that's it's a bit under-optimized in the CPU department. Or, maybe it's just really performing a lot of very complex calculations that really do require more CPU than is currently readily available.



z1812 -> RE: I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/29/2011 2:38:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Guys, the problem is that the game is heavily CPU-bound. You can see this via a simple expedient: Compare the FPS during the orders phase (when no calculations are being performed and it's just your GPU doing the work) to the FPS during replays (when the CPU is doing the heavy lifting).

I have a laptop with an i5-460m (relatively fast) and an HD5650 (relatively slow). PCO runs very well during orders and lousy during replay. I agree that CMBN, while no paragon of optimization, gives far better FPS for a game which also happens to look better. As I mentioned in another post, a big part of the difference could be the much smaller maps/lower unit density in most Normandy scenarios (vs. the grandeur of the Eastern Front).

My complaint is this: This little laptop will run much more demanding (graphically) games fluidly, but chokes on this rather modest-appearing wargame. It runs Lock-On 2, Ka-50 Black Shark, ARMA II (!) and Crysis 2 just fine with high details.

It seems to me that's it's a bit under-optimized in the CPU department. Or, maybe it's just really performing a lot of very complex calculations that really do require more CPU than is currently readily available.


I must agree with the above. My computer runs much more graphically demanding games without a problem. It takes the fun out of the game. I also experienced this with PCK and mentioned it at the time.



Richie61 -> RE: I also wish this game ran better than it does! (6/29/2011 2:58:08 PM)

Both kondor99 and z1812 are correct. I stated the same issue awhile back. I have (2) computers. XP and Win7. Both are really good systems.

The XP has very low fps, but with run ALL other games at full settings. GTR2, rFactor, CMSF, CMBN, MOH, Wings of Prey, Rising Sun, Strike Fighters, GRID, Shift 1 and 2 etc....
quote:

XP - sp3 Pentiun 3.20GHz 4 GB (really 3.25 GB) of RAMNVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - 512 MB



The Win7 machine gets better fps, but it's a newer machine.

quote:

Win 7 Professional 64 – bit operating system Intel® Core ™ i7CPU 880 @3.07 GHz 16 GB of RAM


I agree that the fps speed does really make playing this cool game very rough at times...[&:]




LeadMeister -> ... (7/2/2011 12:49:21 AM)

...



Mad Russian -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/2/2011 3:35:07 PM)

Thanks for sharing.

Good Hunting.

MR



erichswafford -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/3/2011 12:32:23 AM)

Guys, I'm afraid the issue has zero to do with your GPU settings. To give you some idea just how heavily CPU-bound this wargame is, I actually turned on 8x Supersampling via the Catalyst control panel. Now, this is on a thin/light laptop with a wimpy HD5650. With any other game, mere 8X multisampling would be suicide. But this is *Super-sampling*! Totally ridiculous setting.

Guess what? *No* change in FPS during the orders or resolution phases (vs no AA at all):

Orders - 20fps (at zoom level 2). Resolution phases - 13fps

What's more, I looked at my GPU utilization. I'm only using just under 50% of my GPU (monitored via MSI Afterburner) at any time.

Let me repeat that for you: With 8x Supersampling, 16x AF, and a *laptop graphics card*, I'm still only using 50% of my GPU while the game is just idling (orders phase). No CPU calculations are even taking place! This is the worst case of CPU dependency I have ever seen. Or rather, haven't seen since we got GPU's at all. This is like the bad old days pre-3DFX, where your CPU was doing everything.

By the way, I thought maybe my GPU was being held back by the (insane) stress on the VRAM bandwidth (due to the extreme Supersampling setting). But No - that's not it. Even if I disable AA completely, I'm still using under 50% GPU at any time.

In contrast, I show all 4 (virtual, 2 physical) cores of my i5-460m are pegged at or near 100% during the resolution phase. Clearly, the GPU never gets a chance to stretch its legs, because the overall execution of the program is so terribly limited by the CPU. Simply put, the CPU can't serve up the frames fast enough for the GPU to render. Thus, the GPU just sits around waiting about half the time.

I'm guessing this game is running some pretty badly optimized code. I have no idea what could be done, other than to use a code profiler to see what's eating up all these CPU cycles. I have never seen a game so heavily tilted toward the CPU side of things.

I guess the good news is that you can turn up all the eye-candy and not have to worry: Your CPU speed is what will determine your FPS, and not much else.

PS - I also ran the game on my 5.2Ghz water-cooled i7-2600k system.

It ran better. ;)



erichswafford -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/3/2011 12:42:49 AM)

One other thing. By far, the biggest determinant of your FPS is the "Level of Detail Quality". This setting determines how far in the distance objects fade from view. If you set it to Low, you get a wonderful FPS bump. Unfortunately, it has a rather profound effect on gameplay - not just game appearance.

Now, you won't see trees, buildings or the enemy unless you're quite close. If you play at zoom level 2, you'll be in the dark most of the time. I tried it, but it really took a lot from the game and actually made it rather hard to plan things (given that you have to scroll over to an area just to see what it contains).

I just don't get it. During the orders phase, all the game is doing is displaying a very basic-looking 3D map. I mean - compare what it's doing to Crysis 2! I mean, the game looks OK by 2001 standards. But I'm getting better FPS playing really demanding 2011 games like the aforementioned Crysis 2, along with a host of others. And those games look incredible - basically photorealistic.

Something is very wrong. I'm going to load up my old copy of PC Kharkov to see if it's the same...

Update:

Just to give you a (startling) idea of the difference in rendering load, look at these screenshots taken from my laptop. You tell me which game is more demanding! I've enlarged the GPU loading info to make it easy to see. Notice the % GPU loading especially (located between GPU temp and core speed in the upper left).

THIS is 40fps

[image]http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa83/Kondor999/Crysis2_2011_07_02_18_56_15_655.jpg[/image]




Versus THIS is 20fps?!?

[image]http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa83/Kondor999/PCOstfront_2011_07_02_18_45_50_979.jpg[/image]



Fredrocker -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/3/2011 1:51:45 AM)

Hi Guys

I too am having some FPS issues when running replays, I use 60 second turns... My current system is

Quad Core AMD Phenon II 955 3.2 on a MS-7599 Gaming Motherboard (overclocked to 3.62), nVidia Geforce GTX 560 ti with 2GB of onbaord RAM, SATA3 ST32000 Seagate 2 TB HD(s) Mirrored.

When running the following settings (shadows on) I get about 20-28 FPS, but cut back on texture and detail properties (and Shadows off) and the FPS goes up over 60...

[image]http://www.fredrock-racing.com/images/pco.jpg[/image]

Also it seems to take a real long time to load battles, I am playing Kharkov 14th Panzer 1942... and it takes up to 12-15 minutes to load a battle... Not sure whats going on there, but at least I get a cup of coffee and a bagle down while its loading...

I enjoy the game but don't get the imersion factor I am looking for, I wish I could set it up on Ultra Detail... if anyone has any ideas let me know.



LeadMeister -> ... (7/3/2011 7:01:55 AM)

...



erichswafford -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/4/2011 5:26:26 PM)

Because the GPU is apparently not being used (much) to render these items.

How do I know this? Because, regardless of my settings, my GPU loading never goes above 50%. In contrast, my CPU loading goes through the roof. This is the hallmark of a CPU-bound game: relative insensitivity of framerate to graphics load.

You normally see this in odd situations such as when you turn all your graphics seetings to minimum and run a game at very low res. That's why, when someone is reviewing a CPU, they include benchmarks at those settings - it's to isolate the contribution of the CPU (since the GPU is hardly being taxed).

This usually indicates some sort of problem in the code. You only need one inefficient subroutine to hold things up. And then you have the situation where the GPU is waiting around for the CPU to finish, before it can render the frame. That's why my GPU utilization is only 50% - it's just waiting until the CPU gets done.

The most recent high-profile game to have this issue (to a much lesser degree than PCO, it must be said) was Call of Duty Black Ops (Google "call duty black ops cpu bound" for details). That was eventually resolved via a flurry of patches.

Look - I don't expect the developers of PCO to be at the same level of graphics coding expertise as the superstars of such things (like Crytek - I mean, just *look* at that Crysis2 screenshot I posted). But this a little bit ridiculous. After all, during the replay phase, presumably all the combat calculations (line of sight, etc) have already been done (and if not, what's the point of pre-calculating anything). So, we should be watching a simple rendering of what already happened. Which should be using the GPU much more than the CPU.

Like I said - something is very, very wrong here. This game isn't just CPU-bound. It's CPU-hogtied ;)



quote:

ORIGINAL: LeadMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999
Guys, I'm afraid the issue has zero to do with your GPU settings ... I guess the good news is that you can turn up all the eye-candy and not have to worry: Your CPU speed is what will determine your FPS, and not much else ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fredrocker
... When running the following settings (shadows on) I get about 20-28 FPS, but cut back on texture and detail properties (and Shadows off) and the FPS goes up over 60...


kondor999, I don't understand. I'm fairly sure the settings referred to by Fredrocker has an impact on GPU loading. Yet, if I understand your assertion correctly, it has "zero" to do with it. I must have missed something here. Are you saying that Grass, Trees, Shadows, have no impact on FPS? Please explain why when I turn off the Grass (when visible) that my FPS goes up. - Thanks




erichswafford -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/4/2011 6:00:43 PM)

Hey, I just wanted to say something.

This is a GREAT WARGAME, despite these technical issues which, in the end, do not substantially detract from its ability to accurately recreate WWII Eastern front combat.  The interface is substantially evolved from CMBB and it has great AI.

In other words, if you haven't yet gotten the game and you enjoy the subject matter - get it.  I guarantee you will really enjoy this wargame.

I'm actually playing on my son's desktop (i5-750 OC'ed to 4Ghz with a Radeon 5870) and it seems to run really well.  Maybe it just needs a very fast PC to get FPS over 30 on a consistent basis.  I'll keep experimenting...



junk2drive -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/4/2011 6:41:45 PM)

The game runs well except for large battle with lots of trees on my Sempron 2.7 single core with ATI onboard graphics but not as well on my Athlon x2 3.0 dual core with onboard nvidia graphics. I'm guessing it is a bottleneck in the chipset or something. The programer had nvidia GPU during the update work so I can't see it being a nvidia vs ATI thing.



LeadMeister -> ... (7/4/2011 9:29:53 PM)

...



dazoline II -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/4/2011 10:41:55 PM)

My 8 year old system recently died (P4, 5200 rpm drives) It would load most scenarios in about 5 minutes. My new system (i5 with solid state drives) loads the same scenarios in under a minute. I think the drives make a big difference as the "database" part of the load was the longest wait for me and the only "database" that PCO has is XML files.



Erik Rutins -> RE: I Wish This Game Ran Better Than It Does (7/5/2011 5:46:52 AM)

Just FYI, while Panzer Command is more CPU than GPU-bound in general, it does vary based on your combination of hardware and on what settings you use. A minimum level of GPU is required to avoid being GPU-bound. As long as you have a reasonable GPU, the game is mostly CPU-bound, but it likes multiple cores. The more you have, the happier it will be.

Continuing to optimize the game engine where we can is part of the plan, but comparing us to major AAA graphics engines is like comparing a nice Cessna and a F-22. Totally different magnitudes of budget and development resources. With that said, there are things that we can optimize, but the main focus for optimizations will be at release points rather than in updates.

Regards,

- Erik



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625