RE: Performance (Full Version)

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



Message

Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 11:39:47 AM)

Yes, every terrain cell is read from disk initially and then cached into RAM. This is a serious part of speed optimizations, and also the reason why you may see a large scenario start with humongous pulse-times the first few sim-seconds (ie. terrain is read from the disk) and then steadily accelerate (terrain is re-used from RAM cache). However there is a limit to how much we can cache in RAM (at least until we migrate to exclusive 64-bit mode) so periodically part of the cache is flushed and any subsequent requests have to be re-read from disk. And for the time being we definitely cannot pre-load the entire terrain set in memory to avoid disk access during play.

(There is also of course the option, if you have enough RAM, of putting the entire Command directory on a disk-backed RAM-drive, thus effectively pre-caching the entire terrain to RAM.)



thewood1 -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 11:40:19 AM)

I agree, I have only 8Gb, yet Command only seems to use small amount of it, even on large scenarios.

Sorry, I was replying to the RAM comment.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 3:24:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
I had 4.5 and 9.0c on my PC in Win7 before installing the game. I followed the advice given here and left the boxes checked anyway. This appears to have borked NET framework. As after installing and rebooting Windows informed me that NET Framework 4.0 needed to be repaired or uninstalled. I opted to repair. This removed 4.5. I have since re-installed 4.5 and the game runs much better. Still a little sluggish. Clicking on the plus sign when looking at aircraft at a base takes a second to work. Zoom could be a little better. Game saves now go where as they're supposed to in Win 7 and I can save and load without any problems now.


Interesting. That's not how it is supposed to work. The .NET installers are Microsoft official installers and they are supposed to work together harmoniously. .NET 4.5 basically replaces .NET 4.0 and if you have 4.0 or 4.5 installed already, you'll see the "repair or remove" options, instead of just an automatic install. Repair _should_ not bork 4.5, at least we haven't seen that on any previous installer, but we'll double-check that here as well. Sometimes Microsoft throws us a curveball.

Seeing these 4.5 reports, I can say that we know from other games that 4.5 has better memory management, so it may be worth a try going to 4.5 if you are at 4.0 and experiencing poor performance while we continue to investigate.

Regards,

- Erik




2ndACR -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 3:53:28 PM)

I know when I was installing the game, when it got to the NET part, it never asked me about repair or remove, it said something like "rollback failed" or some such. I just shrugged at the time and re-installed 4.5 back on my machine.



mjk428 -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:01:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Interesting. Thanks a lot for this information!

We are currently testing an update with better zoom/pan performance, and combined with these actions they should be able to resolve this issue. We may have to put together a small FAQ or checklist for folks facing this problem.

(Just to clarify something, zoom/pan actions are always performed in discrete 'steps'; we never intended to replicate GE's 30-FPS rotation/zoom animation. GE can afford to devote all PC resources to this stuff because that's all it needs to do; we have to hold back for the actual game [:)])



Just to make sure I was on the right track this morning I installed 4.5 on my secondary Win 7 PC (i3-3225,HD4000)and once again the worst of the problems were resolved for me. Just like on my main PC when I initially installed the game on the i3, and then let Windows repair NET Framework, it rolled 4.5 back to 4.0.

Unlike on my game machine I first uninstalled 4.0 and CMANO. This exactly what I did on the second PC:

Uninstalled 4.0 & rebooted.
Uninstalled CMANO
Installed 4.5 & rebooted
Manually deleted the 63k(1.87 GB)of files that CMANO left behind after being "uninstalled"
Installed CMANO & rebooted

Performance much improved once again. Also the difference between the i7 w/SSD and i3 w/HDD can now be appreciated. It does run OK on the i3 w/ HD4000 graphics. In fact I'd be surprised if an external graphics card matters much with this game above a certain point. Fast CPU, more cores/threads, and a SSD all make a greater impact IMO.



NefariousKoel -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:04:16 PM)

I installed .NET 4.5 on my desktop and didn't see any difference regarding the performance issues.




Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:10:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
In fact I'd be surprised if an external graphics card matters much with this game above a certain point. Fast CPU, more cores/threads, and a SSD all make a greater impact IMO.


All correct. Command generally loves multiple cores * and low I/O-latency storage.

* It slightly prefers fewer cores with stronger per-core performance, ie. usually Intel series, rather than more cores with less per-core throughput e.g. most of AMD's offerings, but the difference is not great.



latosusi -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:32:21 PM)

I got lag like 50000 ms...if that what it means



Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:37:03 PM)

The "PulseTime XXXms" diagnostic refers to how much it takes for the sim engine to process each pulse. The primary problem discussed here (and actively under investigation ATM) is the excessive lag/delay in the UI map map/zoom operations.



latosusi -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:46:19 PM)

I see



NefariousKoel -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 4:54:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

The "PulseTime XXXms" diagnostic refers to how much it takes for the sim engine to process each pulse. The primary problem discussed here (and actively under investigation ATM) is the excessive lag/delay in the UI map map/zoom operations.


Dunno if this makes any sense, but my pulse times are rather spastic in 1:1 time compression, but smooths out at anything higher than that.

At 1:1, I see it regularly jumping up into the 50s and back. Nothing big but when compared to the smooth & steady 1-5ms I see at 1:5 and 1:15, it seems a bit odd that 1:1 time jumps so much more.



thewood1 -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 5:02:52 PM)

That is exactly what I am seeing...my core test aligned with that as well.



juanchopancho -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 6:11:26 PM)

I have 16gb RAM, services max out usually around 1.5gb. Is Command able to use available RAM or is there an artificial hard limit like 4gb RAM?




mcoyote -> RE: Performance (9/27/2013 11:47:05 PM)

FWIW, when I installed the .NET installer ran "Repair" to completion, since I already had it installed. Today I tried a 4.5 installation (with reboot) and the issues remain. They're not deal-breakers, but they make it hard to play for any length of time.

Issues:
- Unit detail sash panels on the right get cut off and don't get redrawn when the map section is resized (left half-drawn)
- Zooming is roughly a second per step with the mouse wheel
- Black datablock following the mouse leaves trails
- General map functions (unit selection, etc.) is what I would term sluggish -- ~1sec from click to highlight, etc.

System
- i7, 2GHz, 12GB, nVidia GT540M, lots of free disk space
- Windows 7, recently re-installed, virus-checked, defrag'ed, etc.

I note my system is a laptop with the nVidia "Optimus" jazz, basically a dual-card system where desktop apps can run with either a lackluster, low-power Intel or the nVidia unit. I use the nVidia unit by default and, by all appearances, CMANO is, also.



JiminyJickers -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 12:34:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mcoyote

...

- i7, 2GHz, 12GB, nVidia GT540M, lots of free disk space
- Windows 7, recently re-installed, virus-checked, defrag'ed, etc.

I note my system is a laptop with the nVidia "Optimus" jazz, basically a dual-card system where desktop apps can run with either a lackluster, low-power Intel or the nVidia unit. I use the nVidia unit by default and, by all appearances, CMANO is, also.



I have the same video card as you and a similar system and experiencing a bit of lag too. Not a killer but would be nice if it could go away.

The NVidia graphics card is definitely being used, you can enable a NVidia control panel feature which shows what is using the video card.

Lets hope the hotfix they are working on will make things better. Still having a blast with the game though.



adek670 -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 1:50:47 AM)

Hi

What feature in control panel allows you to see what is using the card??



NefariousKoel -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 5:39:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Hi

What feature in control panel allows you to see what is using the card??


There is a System Tray Icon/Program that looks like a green processor chip with multi-colored pins in the middle. If you click once on that systray icon, it will show a small pop-up listing which programs your Nvidia GPU is currently running, in a little box with a black background behind the running program's icon.



adek670 -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 11:52:11 AM)

Hi thanks for the response,

I don't have the capability on my gfx card.

System details are:
Win 7 ultimate 64-bit,Q6600, Direct X runtime version: 11.0, 2 x GeForce GTX 260, , 8 Gig Ram
Geforce driver 327.23. res: 1920 x 1080, 60Hz

For what its worth, I have found that combining range rings and hiding enemy range rings improves performance considerably.

Only this way can I get 1:1 at 1sec with a lot going on screen.

I thought my PC was well up to the task of running this game. Some observations and questions if I may:

1. Does CMANO support my 260s in SLI ? if so, the SLI monitor doesn't kick in at all - would running in full screen correct this? The speed isn't noticeably different with SLI disabled.

2. The Nvidia gfx card monitor doesn't show any demand on the GPU - it sits at 2- 3 % at best. Full screen games such as Combat Mission Normandy show 70-80%

3. Has anyone found any sweet settings that work with the Nvidia control panel. I rolled back my driver to 320.49 (from 327.23) and it seemed to feel a little slicker - maybe unfounded!

4. Overall, CMANO's stutter displays like the CPU rendering in on of the 3d max graphics card benchmark tests that I used in the past. This suggests to me that the CPU is bearing all of the load and the GPUs aren't being taxed at all - is there anything that can be done to address this?

Overall, I am a little disappointed with the game - Paid top £s for this and my rig meets the recommended specs.

Ade



JiminyJickers -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 12:59:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Hi thanks for the response,

I don't have the capability on my gfx card.

System details are:
Win 7 ultimate 64-bit,Q6600, Direct X runtime version: 11.0, 2 x GeForce GTX 260, , 8 Gig Ram
Geforce driver 327.23. res: 1920 x 1080, 60Hz

...



It looks like you have a desktop. That feature is only for Optimus NVidia laptop graphics cards. (At least I hope they don't they don't ever use it on desktops. It causes more issues that it solves.)

In any case, the game isn't taxing on video cards at all. It is more to do with the processor and hard drive, I believe.



JRyan -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 6:00:06 PM)

I have decided to use my NVidia G650M 2GB instead of the Intel4000. I have an i7 and to be honest I don't see a difference, a noticeable one at least. It does not tax the 650M at all and I find that strange. I have 16GB of ram and at most use 4GB. I would like to be able to dedicate 12GB to the game but I can not expect that to be easy to implement.



Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 6:20:57 PM)

Hi Ethan,

If you can spare 12GB of RAM it may not be a bad idea to make a RAM-drive with that memory, copy the Command folder there and run it from there. You should see a noticeable performance bump at heavy scenarios.



bgeery -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 11:02:32 PM)

Why does the RAM usage change so dramatically? One second it's using 500 MB and the very next it's at 12 MB! I've never seen such rapid fluctuation of RAM usage in a program. Even with a scenario of thousands of units, I've never seen a peak of over about 800MB or so. It seems like it keeps dumping it's Ram cache and reloading it over and over.

Win8, quad core i5, 16GB Ram w/ 13GB free, 256GB SSD drive, two AMD Radeon HD 7750's, three 1080P monitors.



thewood1 -> RE: Performance (9/28/2013 11:20:39 PM)

I too saw wild fluctuations, not just in RAM, but in CPU usage.



Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 7:26:21 AM)

Hi all,

We have now provided instructions to everyone on this thread who has reported UI perofrmance issues, to download and try a candidate build for v1.01. Please give it a go and report your findings here.

Thanks!



montanaza -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 8:35:01 AM)

Great thanks Sunburn! Will try out now and revert asap



K 19 -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 9:49:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Hi all,

We have now provided instructions to everyone on this thread who has reported UI perofrmance issues, to download and try a candidate build for v1.01. Please give it a go and report your findings here.

Thanks!


I would like to participate in the beta test. Have been having a lot of lag problems. Thank you.



MaB1708 -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 10:02:25 AM)

If this patch is also supposed to handle some of the game freezes I would like to be included in its test.
Cheers,
M



Dimitris -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 10:23:12 AM)

Guys, check your e-mail inbox & forum PMs.



deagu -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 10:42:42 AM)

I would Like to test the patch.
Thanks and congratulations for this great simulation.



jubriqueno -> RE: Performance (9/29/2013 11:47:43 AM)

I would kike to test the patch too.

thanks



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.5625