RE: Performance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 3:14:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

Unfortunately I think I'm done attempting to play the game for now. It's simply too unresponsive to be enjoyable. Anything but 1 second is completely out of the question, as the units simply disappear and re-appear in their new position. Perhaps this is by design, but I can't see the point unless you don't care to see what is actually happening during that time. Anything above 30 seconds results in me waiting 10-15 seconds to see any kind of movement, sometimes longer, it isn't at all consistent and isn't useful for anything but waiting for units to cross vast distances. (And again, the ticks take forever)

A one second setting results in at least a semi-playable state, but the UI lag, coupled with simulation seeming to slow to a crawl with a lot of units on screen(On any scenarios other than the tutorials) makes it also pretty unenjoyable.

I'm really disappointed that for the moment, I don't have a playable game. I wish I had put my money towards something like Command Ops, something I know runs smoothly. Instead I have a $80 piece of software that is useless to me at the moment. I'm only getting more frustrated the more I try to play it, which is pretty unusual for me, as I haven't come across a game that I wanted to like so badly, but am unable to due to technical reasons.

Is there any way I can request a refund, or at least store credit? I don't feel like I received a working product for my $80. =(


I'm sorry to hear that, as we are actively investigating the UI performance issue.

Your description: "the units simply disappear and re-appear in their new position." . This is a "pulse", and it appears so by design. This is not a flight sim. This is how units & contacts appear on a tactical console. This is what you would see on a real command console. Don't take our word for it - ask the people who do/did this for a living.

We could have gone for a fluid 30-60 FPS display and all it would do would be to steal scarce computational resources from the simulation engine - and it would actually look _less_ realistic to someone who has been in a real CIC or command center.

In any case, we are sorry for your disappointment. Since the release we have been busy in this forum and everywhere else, collecting user feedback and prioritizing items to resolve on our future updates. It's a shame that you do not plan to be here to reap the benefits of this. That said, your decision is fully respected and we will pass your request to Matrix representatives.

Thank you.



JOhnnyr -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 3:20:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

Unfortunately I think I'm done attempting to play the game for now. It's simply too unresponsive to be enjoyable. Anything but 1 second is completely out of the question, as the units simply disappear and re-appear in their new position. Perhaps this is by design, but I can't see the point unless you don't care to see what is actually happening during that time. Anything above 30 seconds results in me waiting 10-15 seconds to see any kind of movement, sometimes longer, it isn't at all consistent and isn't useful for anything but waiting for units to cross vast distances. (And again, the ticks take forever)

A one second setting results in at least a semi-playable state, but the UI lag, coupled with simulation seeming to slow to a crawl with a lot of units on screen(On any scenarios other than the tutorials) makes it also pretty unenjoyable.

I'm really disappointed that for the moment, I don't have a playable game. I wish I had put my money towards something like Command Ops, something I know runs smoothly. Instead I have a $80 piece of software that is useless to me at the moment. I'm only getting more frustrated the more I try to play it, which is pretty unusual for me, as I haven't come across a game that I wanted to like so badly, but am unable to due to technical reasons.

Is there any way I can request a refund, or at least store credit? I don't feel like I received a working product for my $80. =(


I'm sorry to hear that, as we are actively investigating the UI performance issue.

Your description: "the units simply disappear and re-appear in their new position." . This is a "pulse", and it appears so by design. This is not a flight sim. This is how units & contacts appear on a tactical console. This is what you would see on a real command console. Don't take our word for it - ask the people who do/did this for a living.

We could have gone for a fluid 30-60 FPS display and all it would do would be to steal precious resources from our simulation engine - and it would actually look _less_ realistic to someone who has been in a real CIC or command center.

In any case, we are sorry for your disappointment. Since the release we have been busy in this forum and everywhere else, collecting user feedback and prioritizing items to resolve on our future updates. It's a shame that you do not plan to be here to reap the benefits of this. That said, your decision is fully respected and we will pass your request to Matrix representatives.

Thank you.


Sunburn, Thanks for the confirmation on the pulse - that's what I figured. I would be fine with it normally, however as I mentioned, anything over 30 seconds results in pulse's that take 10-15 seconds or longer. (On super small scenarios it seems to be better and more consistent, updating correctly and in one a second or two, but not always)

I'm pretty bummed, as the game really seems like it could be something special, but as I said, it's simply not enjoyable to me at this time due to the performance issues =(.

Thanks for your help,

John



IainMcNeil -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 3:44:48 PM)

Hi Johnny

we're sorry you are having problems and we'd like to help. I know how frustrating it is to have technical problems prevent you from playing a game you really want to play.

Would you be willing to let one of the dev team remotely access your machine to allow them to debug what is going on and work out how to fix it?

Send me a private Message and we can work out the best way to solve this.

Cheers

Iain



Erik Rutins -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 3:45:13 PM)

Hi Johnny,

Let's wait a bit - the team is working on improving performance and that may help you as well. The issue you describe is really by design, not a bug or glitch, but I'd still like to see if the next few builds change your mind. If that fails and you really can't get past it, we'll give you a refund. Let me know if that's ok.

Regards,

- Erik



JOhnnyr -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 3:52:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Hi Johnny

we're sorry you are having problems and we'd like to help. I know how frustrating it is to have technical problems prevent you from playing a game you really want to play.

Would you be willing to let one of the dev team remotely access your machine to allow them to debug what is going on and work out how to fix it?

Send me a private Message and we can work out the best way to solve this.

Cheers

Iain


Iain,

I would be fine with this, but I don't want to pull the developers from working on the game just to cater to me - it sounds as though I'm not the only one with these problems, so I think I'm ok to wait it our for a few builds as Erik says below. (Unless the devs would like to remote in, if it would help then I would be happy to)

If part of the issue is that this is simply the way the game is designed, (as someone said earlier, a command console) then I wouldn't think there is much to be done - I've just never had this type of experience with a wargame before. I think there may be two issues at hand

One, the UI, which is kind of unresponsive when zooming or moving, or trying to click/type. At anything over 1 second I often have to click twice, or wait several seconds for something to happen (like opening a UI tree).

And secondly, the simulation, which even at one second is jerky and inconsistent, and much worse at higher pulse times. Perhaps this is by design, but it makes the game fairly hard to play (for me).

The closest game I can compare this to is something like Command Ops or even Dangerous Waters, both of which are real-time with adjustable time, however both perform smoothly and are responsive.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Johnny,

Let's wait a bit - the team is working on improving performance and that may help you as well. The issue you describe is really by design, not a bug or glitch, but I'd still like to see if the next few builds change your mind. If that fails and you really can't get past it, we'll give you a refund. Let me know if that's ok.

Regards,

- Erik





Erik,

That sounds completely reasonable. Would you be able to give me a general idea on when you think the updates might be coming? (weeks vs a few months?)

Thanks!

John



IainMcNeil -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 3:54:13 PM)

Hi Johnny - if we thought the problem only affected you we wouldn't be able to justify that but what causes your problem could well affect others so its likely a benefit to all and a problem we need to solve.

If you PM me your email address I'll pass to the dev team and get them in contact with you.




JOhnnyr -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 4:00:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Hi Johnny - if we thought the problem only affected you we wouldn't be able to justify that but what causes your problem could well affect others so its likely a benefit to all and a problem we need to solve.

If you PM me your email address I'll pass to the dev team and get them in contact with you.




Will do! I added some additional information to my post above as well, if that helps.

Thanks.



MorningDew -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 4:23:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper
Feels a bit - beta launch


We beg to differ.


As well you should. The quality out of the chute is awesome. It's always amazing what comes up though when you are suddenly running an a myriad of different hardware and OS versions. Even a large beta team can't hit all combinations.




mjk428 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 4:49:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

As well you should. The quality out of the chute is awesome. It's always amazing what comes up though when you are suddenly running an a myriad of different hardware and OS versions. Even a large beta team can't hit all combinations.





Yeah, esoteric combinations like Microsoft Windows 7, Intel i7, and Geforce 670. [8|]

Glad it's awesome for you. For those that paid 80 bucks for a work in progress not so awesome.



Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 4:51:37 PM)

I recently took a look at a tester's PC (high-end) that had similar performance problems. It turned out he had all sorts of crapware installed, plus a myriad 'helper' apps running at start time. After i removed the crapware, speed went up roughly by two.



Duck Doc -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 5:03:25 PM)

I have a "moderately" high-end rig with a macho gpu. I run it very lean and have System Mechanic tune it up all the time. Not a lot of extraneous stuff on it. Unfortunately it got a killer virus and is in the shop getting its hard drive nuked. I will have to start over. Aarrgh!

My questions: Are the stuttering and slowing peculiar to high-end machines and gpu's? How common is this? I assume there were a lot of beta testers with high-end machines who tested this. Did any experience similar problems? How likely am I to experience the same?

This is a little disconcerting reading about this kind of issue in a game which should have this kind of issue revealed and handled before release.



JOhnnyr -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 5:10:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I recently took a look at a tester's PC (high-end) that had similar performance problems. It turned out he had all sorts of crapware installed, plus a myriad 'helper' apps running at start time. After i removed the crapware, speed went up roughly by two.


My box has a completely fresh install of windows 8 (as of two days ago after my first SSD died on me and I received the replacement)

I've loaded steam and this game, and nothing else. =(



mjk428 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 5:58:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I recently took a look at a tester's PC (high-end) that had similar performance problems. It turned out he had all sorts of crapware installed, plus a myriad 'helper' apps running at start time. After i removed the crapware, speed went up roughly by two.


My box has a completely fresh install of windows 8 (as of two days ago after my first SSD died on me and I received the replacement)

I've loaded steam and this game, and nothing else. =(


My Win 7 is a clean install less than 2 months ago. Don't let anything load that isn't absolutely necessary. Not even Steam. My browser open w/ 4 tabs and my CPU is currently @ 0% usage w/ 72 processes. Only 2GB RAM committed. 183 GB free on my SSD. It's all available to Commandto use as it sees fit.



MorningDew -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 5:59:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

As well you should. The quality out of the chute is awesome. It's always amazing what comes up though when you are suddenly running an a myriad of different hardware and OS versions. Even a large beta team can't hit all combinations.





Yeah, esoteric combinations like Microsoft Windows 7, Intel i7, and Geforce 670. [8|]

Glad it's awesome for you. For those that paid 80 bucks for a work in progress not so awesome.


I didn't say I had no issues. For me, graphic performance definitely needs to be improved. But right now, I'm learning and having fun.

I guess the difference between us is that I expect all software I buy to be a "work in progress". I expect, and honestly hope for, patches and improvement. I definitely have never expected perfection when I buy software on release day.

I'll repeat my statement that Command's quality day one has been impressive, but I also expect it will be even better after patch one and forward.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:04:25 PM)

Hi guys - we've had an internal review and we have some ideas why we might have issues with machines completely unrelated to their performance.

We're working on a hotfix for you guys to try out. If at all possible we'll have it for you to try before the weekend but we can't guarantee it yet.

One thing you can be sure of - we are aware of the issues and will get them fixed ASAP. Once again apologies for the inconvenience.



mjk428 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:15:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Hi guys - we've had an internal review and we have some ideas why we might have issues with machines completely unrelated to their performance.

We're working on a hotfix for you guys to try out. If at all possible we'll have it for you to try before the weekend but we can't guarantee it yet.

One thing you can be sure of - we are aware of the issues and will get them fixed ASAP. Once again apologies for the inconvenience.



Thank you. No doubt in my mind that this will turn out to be the best game I've purchased from Matrix. Glad you're all over this.



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:17:54 PM)

To garner further information, if you are having performance problems can you please post your screen resolution, and also whether you have any multi-monitor setup running.

Also, as a thought, I wonder whether disabling desktop composition might help with the issue as a temporary workaround.

We appreciate your patience while we try and solve these configuration issues.

Cheers

Pip



mjk428 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:28:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

To garner further information, if you are having performance problems can you please post your screen resolution, and also whether you have any multi-monitor setup running.

Also, as a thought, I wonder whether disabling desktop composition might help with the issue as a temporary workaround.

We appreciate your patience while we try and solve these configuration issues.

Cheers

Pip


1920 X 1200. Only the single monitor. Would happily add a 2nd if it could display a secondary map view. ;)




JOhnnyr -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:36:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

To garner further information, if you are having performance problems can you please post your screen resolution, and also whether you have any multi-monitor setup running.

Also, as a thought, I wonder whether disabling desktop composition might help with the issue as a temporary workaround.

We appreciate your patience while we try and solve these configuration issues.

Cheers

Pip


I'm running 1920x1080, one monitor.

Thanks,

John



HercMighty -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:40:03 PM)

2048 x 1152 on two monitors. i5, 8G RAM, Nvidia Card (Can't remember which one at work here, but believe it is a 5XX series, I am running the latest drivers). I am running the game from an SSD through a 3.0 USB Port. Oh and Win 7 64Bit.



gabravo2005 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:40:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

To garner further information, if you are having performance problems can you please post your screen resolution, and also whether you have any multi-monitor setup running.

Also, as a thought, I wonder whether disabling desktop composition might help with the issue as a temporary workaround.

We appreciate your patience while we try and solve these configuration issues.

Cheers

Pip


Win 7 64-bit, Core i7-3820 @3.6GHz, 32GB RAM, GeForce GTX670 with 2GB of RAM @1920x1080 single monitor (Samsung SA550), Command is installed on a 2TB WD Caviar Black HDD, currently 1.34TB are free on that drive. OS is installed on a 120GB Kingston HyperX SSD.



thewood1 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:41:47 PM)

1366 x 768 HP laptop with AMD A8-4500M and Radeon graphics...8Mb RAM.

btw, win 8 and I don't think you can turn off desktop composition in Win 8.



NefariousKoel -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 6:58:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I recently took a look at a tester's PC (high-end) that had similar performance problems. It turned out he had all sorts of crapware installed, plus a myriad 'helper' apps running at start time. After i removed the crapware, speed went up roughly by two.


My desktop has almost nothing running in it's system tray, and the Avast anti-virus is turned off. I disable all the non-essentials in the MSCONFIG tool so they don't even start when the computer does.

Oddly enough, my laptop has a lot of extra junk running in the background and it runs slightly better. With nearly every other program, it's the opposite way around - my desktop runs better.


EDIT: Desktop runs at 1680x1050
Notebook runs at 1366x768

Aero is off on both.



thewood1 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 7:12:49 PM)

I went into win 8 advanced system settings and changed processing priority from background processes to programs and it has seemed to help a little...I think.



montanaza -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 7:14:08 PM)

Exactly what I was hoping to hear - make no mistake, ANYONE READING THIS WONDERING WHETHER TO BUY OR NOT! This game is one dream of a sim if you have even a remote interest in Naval or aerial warfare. The level of fidelity, and scope (GLOBAL!) is incredible.

Yes, when I posted this thread I had some concerns. I live in south Africa, and here, with the current exchange rate this game cost the same as 30 Big Mac medium meals (lol Big Mac index) but totally worth it.

The fact that the dev team and forum admins are open and HONEST means alot. When taking the plunge on something like this I have no objection to bugs, especially when the dev team is a 4 man job, with day jobs. RESPECT. I have NEVER spent this much on a game, but I decided a year ago to take the plunge based on what I saw coming up on youtube / warfaresims etc.

Ultimately, what I respect most is the open and honest commitment to make this release perfect.

You guys have my support. And if this is the calibre of Matrix devs, and forum admins, I'll def be buying from you again.








quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Hi guys - we've had an internal review and we have some ideas why we might have issues with machines completely unrelated to their performance.

We're working on a hotfix for you guys to try out. If at all possible we'll have it for you to try before the weekend but we can't guarantee it yet.

One thing you can be sure of - we are aware of the issues and will get them fixed ASAP. Once again apologies for the inconvenience.




Emx77 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 7:21:30 PM)

I don't own CMANO (yet) but maybe my experience could be useful for devs. I have decent machine (Intel i5, 4GB RAM, Nvidia GTX275) but in some 2D strategy games I noticed a lot of lag and stuttering during map scrolling. At the same time, Far Cry 3 and other demanding 3D games are running smoothly without any problems. When Ageod published AJE (Alea Jacta Est) lag was unbearable on max zoom out level. With other Ageod games (they all uses same engine) I didn't have any problems. It turned out main reason was introduction of so called "red borders" (dynamic borders between different factions).

So, where is a link between AJE red borders and CMANO? Red borders are some kind of 2D vectors. I suspect that CMANO uses different kinds of 2D vectors. Problem is that on some machines WDDM doesn't handle that vectors well. Here is excerpt with more details from my private conversation with Ageod programer where you can find hints about this issue:

quote:

Yesterday I googled for potential source of this problem. It seems it is, at least to some extent, related with WDDM 1.1 in Win 7 (WDDM - Windows Display Driver Model). According to people with similar problem there is something wrong in WDDM 1.1 which causes very bad 2D graphic performance on some cards (both NVIDA and ATI). There is a program called PerformanceTest 7.0 which shows that on affected systems drawing of 2D solid and transparent vectors is extremely slow. Only solution for Win7 users is to install older WDDM 1.0 drivers which are used in Windows Vista.

To test this I measured 2D vectors performance with latest NVIDIA drivers (301.42, WDDM 1.1) and then installed old NVIDA drivers (182.42, WDDM 1.0). Here are the results:

WDDM 1.1
Solid vectors - 0.52 thousand vectors/sec
Transparent vectors - 0.52 thousand vectors/sec

WDDM 1.0
Solid vectors - 2.57 thousand vectors/sec
Transparent vectors - 2.52 thousand vectors/sec

Although result is still not satisfactory (8.8 thousand vectors/sec is recorded at some machines), there is considerable improvement over WDDM 1.1 (approximately 500%). Unfortunately, this solution is not without issues in newer 3D games (for example there are nasty artifacts in Skyrim with older NVIDIA driver).

Then I started both games with map scrolling issues. In Decisive Campaigns problem is entirely gone. In AJE there is noticeable improvement but still scrolling is not as smooth as in previous Ageod games. I'm pretty much sure that difference in AJE is related to red borders as I assume they are some kind of 2D vectors.

Here is one forum link where people are discussing WDDM 1.1 issue.


After discussing this with Ageod's programer he introduced in-game option for turning off that borders which eventually solved performance issue in AJE. Maybe you can investigate CMANO performance problem in this direction.



Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 7:35:33 PM)

Okay, we have identified at least one bottleneck; the "Borders + Coastlines" map layer is taking a large chunk of the rendering pipeline. Everyone with map lag problems, please disable this layer and see if this helps performance as a temporary measure. Thanks!



thewood1 -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 7:43:53 PM)

I never had them on



JOhnnyr -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 7:58:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Okay, we have identified at least one bottleneck; the "Borders + Coastlines" map layer is taking a large chunk of the rendering pipeline. Everyone with map lag problems, please disable this layer and see if this helps performance as a temporary measure. Thanks!



Someone had mentioned this early in the thread, I've had them turned off, it didn't seem to make a difference.



HercMighty -> RE: Performance (9/26/2013 8:28:29 PM)

I didn't see a difference, tried this along with the pre-frame rendering...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1