Poor performance post- v1.4.

[KG_Soldier]

I have a moderate to fair desktop computer and the game runs great for me, before and after the 1.4 patch.

[Saddletank]

Dev(s), I don't know what the hell you've done to this game, but it needs to be fixed. Bad.

I don't think thats a very fair way of putting it. Why does it need fixing? It runs beautifully on my 3-year old PC and I don't know of anyone in the various MP groups I've talked to who has trouble running it.

You've proved it to yourself that the game is fine, since it runs fine on another PC.

It looks to me like its your PC that is the issue, not the game.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Nudz wrote:

Dev(s), I don't know what the hell you've done to this game, but it needs to be fixed. Bad.

No, you need to determine what is wrong with your computer. I checked your computer specs and they look fine. Assuming that you've set the BIOS correctly the problem is software related. Have you updated all your drivers to the latest versions? Again, assuming you have, how many processes do you have running and which ones are taking more than 1 or 2% of the CPU? Once again, assuming there is nothing unusual going on here, you most likely have a virus or rootkit installed. Don't bother replying that your AV is the greatest thing since sliced bread, no AV is 100% reliable. Try downloading MalwareBytes, (free), and run it to see if it finds anything. If you are clean, then run a registry check with something like Regcleaner or CCleaner,(better know what you are doing). You may have a number of corrupt registry entries causing problems. As you can see, you have plenty to do on your end before you declare the game to be broken.

Also, don't bother mentioning how great some FPS runs on your rig. Those are graphic card intensive. The AI part of the code in those games, TW included, could easily run on an Intel 8080.

[Davinci]

As far as I can remember, in the past several years there has been approximately four people complaining about the games fps while using dual-video-cards .

So, maybe the game is not designed to work that well using two-cards , and you get better performance using one card.

Strictly, my opinion!

Also, it's sort of hard to compare this games performance with a similar game, considering that this games AI routines are far superior too most of the games on the market.

davinci

[redcoat]

Oh, wow.

I've just tried playing the game on my little brother's laptop, and it was like an entirely different game. I cranked every single setting up to its absolute highest possible value, and it ran great. It's amazing how incredibly much a decent framerate adds to the game experience. I noticed some slowdown on some of the larger scenarios, but it did in no way compare to how it runs on my computer.

Note that while that machine is fairly powerful for a laptop, (it runs "Modern Warfare 3" on max, for example), it is in no way amazing, and doesn't even come close to my computer. Yet, it runs the game so much better you'd think they were two completely different games.

Dev(s), I don't know what the hell you've done to this game, but it needs to be fixed. Bad.

then in all fairness this should tell you that something is amiss with your machine.
i know people running this game on all sorts and sizes of machines from 6 year old single processer beige towers to quad core monsters the size of the enterprise and all run well. cheers

[Nudz]

I have a moderate to fair desktop computer and the game runs great for me, before and after the 1.4 patch.

I don't think thats a very fair way of putting it. Why does it need fixing? It runs beautifully on my 3-year old PC

You've proved it to yourself that the game is fine, since it runs fine on another PC.

No, I've proven to myself that the game is poorly optimized, because it runs better on these old machines than my new one.

It looks to me like its your PC that is the issue, not the game.

No, you need to determine what is wrong with your computer. I checked your computer specs and they look fine. Assuming that you've set the BIOS correctly the problem is software related. Have you updated all your drivers to the latest versions? Again, assuming you have, how many processes do you have running and which ones are taking more than 1 or 2% of the CPU? Once again, assuming there is nothing unusual going on here, you most likely have a virus or rootkit installed. Don't bother replying that your AV is the greatest thing since sliced bread, no AV is 100% reliable. Try downloading MalwareBytes, (free), and run it to see if it finds anything. If you are clean, then run a registry check with something like Regcleaner or CCleaner,(better know what you are doing). You may have a number of corrupt registry entries causing problems. As you can see, you have plenty to do on your end before you declare the game to be broken.

That would all make sense if my computer has a history of having trouble running games far less graphically advanced that it ought to. But it does not. I have once or twice had issues with smaller, indie-type productions because they have trouble running on Quadfire-setups, but they'd either get fixed in patches or ATI-updates. Up until this game, I have never had a game with graphics from 2001 run in 10 FPS with four units on-screen. Your game is the exception, not the rule.

Also, don't bother mentioning how great some FPS runs on your rig. Those are graphic card intensive. The AI part of the code in those games, TW included, could easily run on an Intel 8080.

Arguing that it ought to be the AI that takes up the majority of the FPS doesn't make sense when you consider that it runs just as bad in skirmishes with one brigade per side as it does in large-scale scenarios. As I've pointed out, the by far largest FPS-killer in this game is terrain-features. Pressing "Ctrl-T" until all terrain is toggled invisible makes the FPS jump from 10 to 47.

i know people running this game on all sorts and sizes of machines from 6 year old single processer beige towers to quad core monsters the size of the enterprise

Are we seriously calling Quad-cores "monsters", now? :huh:

[Garnier]

I have the same huge fps penalty with lots of trees/wheat visible. The reason other games sometimes don't have this problem is that they set up the maps/graphics to never show too much. Actually, with maximum graphics turned on, total war games like M2TW give terrible performance with lots of trees on screen.

The map maker could ensure there's never more than X number of trees on screen to ensure constant performance, instead they give us the option, which is better.

Hit the T key and there's no problem -- or reduce the tree density and draw distance option.

[Saddletank]

It's never my fault. Its always someone else's fault.

*sigh*

[Hancock the Superb]

It's never my fault. Its always someone else's fault.

Well, I wouldn't rule out that it can't be a mix of both.

One one hand, any single coder has certain ideas of how to perform an operation; so processes are not neccessarily streamlined to ensure the fastest possible fps. (I'm also not saying that two coders are better than one, or that Norb's coding isn't streamlined, but the code can always be improved. Why was Vista so crappy? Because the coding sucked for the technological leap Microsoft was trying to make between XP and 7).

On the other hand, I know that my computer doesn't operate as effectively as it could to run this game (bear in mind, I get 5-10 fps with distances to 2000, max detail, and trees on). So we consumers can also improve our computer's effectivness (say, by not running the internet while playing...a crime I commit regularly).

[KG_Soldier]

It's never my fault. Its always someone else's fault.

*sigh*

I don't think that's completely fair, Digby. If I were in his position, having bought a nice new rig and then SOW ran a whole lot worse on it than my old rig, I'd be a little upset as well.

We should cut him at least a little slack. I mean. . . how is it that my AMD II X2 240 (2.8 GHz)and 6 GBs of RAM can run this game so well while his made-for-performance machine can't run two brigades skirmishing worth a darn?

Something's amiss: his machine's fault? probably, but not necessarily.