Statistics

Users
3512
Articles
156
Articles View Hits
1566428

About the game performance

5 years 8 months ago #1 by Iriasthor

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received:

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Oct 2015
  • Hi, this is my first SOW game and I am liking it so far. However, I am having some concerns regarding performance. In the first French mission (Bauduin's Brig), I am getting the following stats:

    - FPS: An average of 30FPS
    - CPU: Only 1 or 2 cores used at most
    - GPU: An average of 40-50% (90% while on menu :blink: )

    I am not sure if this is the expected outcome of the performance, but it has left me a bit concerned, mainly because I was expecting a higher performance for such small scenario or, at least, a higher usage of the computer's resources.

    The following are my computer's hardware characteristics:

    - CPU: Intel i7-4790K 4.00 GHz (8CPU-s)
    - Memory: 16GB
    - GPU: Msi GeForce GTX-970

    And my game settings:

    - Sprite ratio: 0
    - Max terrain draw distance: High
    - Show map objects: High
    - Uniform quality: Best
    - Max number arty hit decals: 50
    - Max units draw distance: 1200 yds
    - Max trees draw distance: 1100 yds
    - Max objects draw distance: 1100 yds

    Any further information you might need to answer my question, ask it and I will provide it immediately.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #2 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Iriasthor wrote: Hi, this is my first SOW game and I am liking it so far. However, I am having some concerns regarding performance. In the first French mission (Bauduin's Brig), I am getting the following stats:

    - FPS: An average of 30FPS
    - CPU: Only 1 or 2 cores used at most
    - GPU: An average of 40-50% (90% while on menu :blink: )

    I am not sure if this is the expected outcome of the performance, but it has left me a bit concerned, mainly because I was expecting a higher performance for such small scenario or, at least, a higher usage of the computer's resources.

    The following are my computer's hardware characteristics:

    - CPU: Intel i7-4790K 4.00 GHz (8CPU-s)
    - Memory: 16GB
    - GPU: Msi GeForce GTX-970

    And my game settings:

    - Sprite ratio: 0
    - Max terrain draw distance: High
    - Show map objects: High
    - Uniform quality: Best
    - Max number arty hit decals: 50
    - Max units draw distance: 1200 yds
    - Max trees draw distance: 1100 yds
    - Max objects draw distance: 1100 yds

    Any further information you might need to answer my question, ask it and I will provide it immediately.


    Thats the best you are going to get. I have i7 3770k 3.5ghz and i get 18-25 fps on that senario full waterloo battle 10-15fps.

    My current battle 331 000 troops (77 000 sprites ) i get 6-12 fps.

    Graphics card dosent seem to matter not ram either (past 8 gig) its all cpu, you got 4gig so you get 5-10 fps more then me. Hopefully you will get above 20fps on the full battle

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago - 5 years 8 months ago #3 by Iriasthor

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received:

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Oct 2015
  • Hi @Gunfreak, thank you very much for the clarification.

    The game is playable with my FPS rate, although it incommodes me a little when I can't go past 30 FPS. I understand, however, that this is a very CPU demanding game.

    Being aware of that, I think I might have read comments regarding multi-threading in previous SOW: Gettysburg forums, and I think it would be an essential improvement to greatly improve the game experience. If I am not mistaken, I think nowadays' CPU-s are not improving too much on frequencies, but on core numbers, so I think multi-threading games is a must for this kind of CPU-bound games.

    Anyway, I will be tuned regarding this subject and hoping for some future performance improvements. Keep up the good work!
    Last edit: 5 years 8 months ago by Iriasthor.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #4 by Sirlion

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 8
  • Thank you received: 1

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • I'm sorry for being ignorant on the matter at hand, but why such high end PCs cant run well a game that looks and feels like an early 2000 title? I mean, the numbers are huge, and I agree that it puts a stress on the GPU (I believe) but games with a great deal of people on screen such, for example, a TW title or an Assassins Creed, with lots and lots of details runs so much smoothly. I know that it cant be compared to the huge numbers of SOW but... still these are 2D sprites are they not? So... why a 2GB graphics card cant handle that? Why the low res textures?

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago - 5 years 8 months ago #5 by Fassan
    • Fassan

  • Visitor
  • Visitor

  • Thank you received:

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Fassan on topic Re: About the game performance

    Sirlion wrote: I'm sorry for being ignorant on the matter at hand, but why such high end PCs cant run well a game that looks and feels like an early 2000 title? I mean, the numbers are huge, and I agree that it puts a stress on the GPU (I believe) but games with a great deal of people on screen such, for example, a TW title or an Assassins Creed, with lots and lots of details runs so much smoothly. I know that it cant be compared to the huge numbers of SOW but... still these are 2D sprites are they not? So... why a 2GB graphics card cant handle that? Why the low res textures?


    1) Why it doesn't run very smoothly?
    Mostly because of lack of quads batching in the Power Render engine.
    There isn't any sort of render states / shaders / etc. changes minimization either.
    Too many GPU calls basically.

    2) Why the low res textures?
    Lack of resources streaming (background loading).
    The game reads all the required sprite sheets at once and not on scene's demand.
    That saturates the VRAM quickly.

    Ciao. ;)
    Last edit: 5 years 8 months ago by Fassan.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #6 by Iriasthor

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received:

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Oct 2015
  • Adding to what @Fassan says, I have understood that this game is mostly CPU consuming. The fact that it is not run in a multi-threaded way results in a lower performance than expected. For all the content shown on the screen, my GPU seems to do OK and has no problem at all.

    It is, again, the CPU that takes most of the work by making a huge amount of calculations (AI, paths, formations, etc.).

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #7 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Yes only the first 1 mabye 2 cores work
    So from my understanding, number of cores in your cpu will not help,

    A 4 core 4ghz will always give better effect then a 8 core 3.5ghz.

    And since 4 gig is the most you get on cpus now, nobdoy can except any better then 30fps on medium battles, 20-25 og bigger battles. And less then 15 on the biggest(full battle sandboxs)

    I get 12-15 on the full waterloo senario, I have a 3.5ghz someone with a 4ghz will get 15-25fps on the same battle.

    I get 4-10 fps on the biggest battles, someone with a 4ghz will get 6-15fps.

    I don't think anybody can except more then 25-30 fps on most medium sized battles.

    I do get 60+fps on division vs division battles. but as soon as I go up to corps sized I get 20+. army sizes 12...

    The game is great, I have one major complaint and that is the fps, and the fact the devs think it's fine as it is.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: roy64

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #8 by Saddletank

  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member

  • Posts: 2171
  • Thank you received: 587

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 06 Sep 1959
  • Gunfreak wrote: I have one major complaint and that is the fps

    Still this unfortunate fixation on fps. People have been corrupted by the last 10 years obsession with this one game criteria. Forget your fps, it doesn't matter. I know its like switching from a diet of bread and water to a fiery curry but try to do that. Stop looking at fps by which to measure an efficient game.

    And please stop comparing SoW to TW, the two are quite different games. Even different genres when you look at what the target audience is and what the game gives the player to do.

    HITS & Couriers - a different and realistic way to play SoW MP.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #9 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Saddletank wrote:

    Gunfreak wrote: I have one major complaint and that is the fps

    Still this unfortunate fixation on fps. People have been corrupted by the last 10 years obsession with this one game criteria. Forget your fps, it doesn't matter. I know its like switching from a diet of bread and water to a fiery curry but try to do that. Stop looking at fps by which to measure an efficient game.

    And please stop comparing SoW to TW, the two are quite different games. Even different genres when you look at what the target audience is and what the game gives the player to do.


    It's not an unfortinoant thing, that you don't care, is not the same.

    Many people can't play any real time game with less then 55-60fps with out getting headaches.
    Only a few games made today for pc in 30fps are made and those are not real time, (like the south park game)
    Just saying fps dosn't make and saying lalala is not exacptable.

    That some people find it fine to play 5fps is there thing, most people won't. It's not an imangiend thing.
    Does 5fps affect this game as much as it would a car game, no but it's a huge diffrence, just saying "ai is powerfull so low unavoiable and so low fps is not a problem"

    Fassan has pointed out lots of coding that is superfilus and un needed, bad coding ect. What he talkes about is way over my head, but he seems to know what he is talking about.

    Someone says fps is bad.

    Devs and a few others say either one of two things or both.

    "I don't care about fps so you shouldn't either"
    " super smart ai, so we must have low fps"

    Why should my complaint(that now others also are pointing out(one of them kinda rudely) Be ingonred, it's obvously a thing, not imaigend by me.

    I would be happy if you could get the game to run stable at 30fps on the full waterloo battle,

    And then any lower fps in bigger battles would be better.
    And It's not only the low fps, it's the jumps, you move the camera and it falls from 20 to 12, or jumps to 22 from 15 ect. This will make people sick and give them a headache.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: Iriasthor

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #10 by tim

  • NSD Artist
  • NSD Artist

  • Posts: 232
  • Thank you received: 149

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 31 Mar 1966
  • Replied by tim on topic Re: About the game performance
    I don't think any of the devs have said we don't care about fps. We care about the game being the best we can make it - we are all very very passionate about it. There's room for improvement and we will always work on things like speeding up the game. We are a small part time team and so don't have expertise in all facets of making games but we are committed to improving everything we can.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #11 by Iriasthor

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received:

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Oct 2015
  • Saddletank wrote:

    Gunfreak wrote: I have one major complaint and that is the fps

    Still this unfortunate fixation on fps. People have been corrupted by the last 10 years obsession with this one game criteria. Forget your fps, it doesn't matter. I know its like switching from a diet of bread and water to a fiery curry but try to do that. Stop looking at fps by which to measure an efficient game.

    And please stop comparing SoW to TW, the two are quite different games. Even different genres when you look at what the target audience is and what the game gives the player to do.


    Each individual has its own standards as per what a good and what a bad game is. While you feel comfortable with an average of, let's say, 15 FPS, there might be other people who does not with such a low rate. Thus, I think it is a totally valid thing to bring up.

    In my opinion, it's not just about a number. Some people do not enjoy playing a game where moving through the map results in clunky/jumpy steps. Instead of focusing in the game, which you achieve quite easily (it seems so), some people might get distracted with the performance issue and, therefore, get bored of the game.

    Far from trying to create an argument, I think trying to improve the performance of a game is always a positive thing, just as trying to improve the game mechanics. What @Saddletank is trying to say here is that while the game mechanics have advanced quite far (resulting in an excellent game), game performance has suffered a backwards step.

    This would be totally understandable if no improvement margin existed. However (I am speaking from a technically semi-ignorant point of view), I wondeer if there might exist the possibility of multi-threading the game, thus improving the performance considerably in the best machines.

    It would be a good thing to hear from the developers regarding the situation with multi-threaded development. Would it be possible to introduce it in the game? Would that increase the performance in exchange for a little development time or would it be expensive to achieve it?

    PD: Agreed totally with not comparing SoW and TW, ;)

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #12 by Marching Thru Georgia

  • SOW General
  • SOW General
  • Secession Is Futile

  • Posts: 1736
  • Thank you received: 429

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • The obvious solution for the fps complaint is rather obvious. Norb needs to put a switch in the options page titled Prefer High FPS. That will reduce the AI loops accordingly so that it insures a minimum 60 fps. That way the first person shooter types can have exactly what they like and stop the incessant whining.

    I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #13 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • tim wrote: I don't think any of the devs have said we don't care about fps. We care about the game being the best we can make it - we are all very very passionate about it. There's room for improvement and we will always work on things like speeding up the game. We are a small part time team and so don't have expertise in all facets of making games but we are committed to improving everything we can.


    Thats the feeling I got, They do not agree at all the game should run better, every time it brought up, no one has said anything about improving it, instead giving exucses, I do now know enough coding to know if the excuses are 100% valid or not, but some of them seem iffy.

    I total understand this is an indy game, I will always recomend the game(as I did with gettysburg that ran even worse) It is a great game, I just feel this specific complaint is ignored.

    I got seriously naucies and got a headache at the stat when playing at 15fps, Luckely I did get used to it, not all people will, and so the game will not be playable for a decent % of the gaming world.

    While I love the game and play it and will play it for years, just getting the game to run 25+ STABLE! in the waterloo senario would help alot,

    I can then agree that 15fps is something to live with in the bigger standbox battles!

    This is just as valid a complaint as balancing of cav and arty, I understand it's a lot harder to fix then some slight balancing of cav. But just getting the feeling that the devs atleast acknowalge it as something to improve would also help.

    And any comparising to Total war is not valid, total war is silly and game, and Napoleon total war is unplayable for me, (playing the battle of borodino with an army of 1300 men made my soul cry a little...)

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #14 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Marching Thru Georgia wrote: The obvious solution for the fps complaint is rather obvious. Norb needs to put a switch in the options page titled Prefer High FPS. That will reduce the AI loops accordingly so that it insures a minimum 60 fps. That way the first person shooter types can have exactly what they like and stop the incessant whining.


    And thats exaclty the problem, instead of acknoweding it, just ingnorng it and making stupid remarks!

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #15 by Sirlion

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 8
  • Thank you received: 1

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Okay so basically this game has zero optimization. I think I get it. I can also understand that the team is very small and the effort required might exceed their workload. However, I dont find 2 FPS on Army level excusable. Okay the men are many but still these are 2D sprites. I dont want to compare this game with the TW series either, it was just an example showing many characters on screen doing stuff. I think the game is great in almost everything it does, but seriously, FPS are important. I would love to enjoy the game but I have vision problems and to a certain degree the game splits open my head when I have to watch 30 minutes of 5-10 FPS fights. Dont try to tell me "Then dont play video games" please.
    It would be wise then if nothing can be done GPU wise to at the very least ease the workload on the CPU because multi threading is mandatory IMHO

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #16 by Xreos1

  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member

  • Posts: 42
  • Thank you received: 24

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Perhaps someone can explain for me the need for high FPS.

    For most of the history of film making, and all the movies I have seen in theaters, the standard rate of projection is 24 frames per second. I never heard complaints from movie goers about jumpy picture or headaches. ( I don't know about digitally projected movies.)

    With all this back and forth I tried a different game 'Jutland' that has an in game fps counter. With the full OOB at the battle of Jutland the game was running 40-60 FPS.

    I then downloaded fraps and tried Waterloo.

    Brigade scenarios 25-28 fps with one short dip to 18.

    Division scenarios 14-20 no dips.

    Army level 6-14 FPS frequent dips to 4 FPS.

    I would not object to an improvement in FPS, but I prefer SDK, reinforcements in campaign mode etc. first.

    What I want to understand why 24 fps is ok for films but less than 60 is bad for games?

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #17 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Xreos1 wrote: Perhaps someone can explain for me the need for high FPS.

    For most of the history of film making, and all the movies I have seen in theaters, the standard rate of projection is 24 frames per second. I never heard complaints from movie goers about jumpy picture or headaches. ( I don't know about digitally projected movies.)

    With all this back and forth I tried a different game 'Jutland' that has an in game fps counter. With the full OOB at the battle of Jutland the game was running 40-60 FPS.

    I then downloaded fraps and tried Waterloo.

    Brigade scenarios 25-28 fps with one short dip to 18.

    Division scenarios 14-20 no dips.

    Army level 6-14 FPS frequent dips to 4 FPS.

    I would not object to an improvement in FPS, but I prefer SDK, reinforcements in campaign mode etc. first.

    What I want to understand why 24 fps is ok for films but less than 60 is bad for games?


    Film is static, games are not, it's that simple.

    The more movment a game has the more need for high fps there is.

    Old talsoft turn based games don't need 60fps, need for speed, wolfenstein ect. need 60fps,

    You move alot, in Waterloo, yes it's true the sprites have no fluid animations, but the camera is supose to be fluid.

    Also as you said, frequent dips to 4!! fps in army battle.

    Imagien watcing the movie gettysburg, in the move they are frequent flyovers over the battlefield(much like the camera in scourge of war games) Inamgien suddnely the movie dropping for 24fps to 4...

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #18 by Marching Thru Georgia

  • SOW General
  • SOW General
  • Secession Is Futile

  • Posts: 1736
  • Thank you received: 429

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Film is static, games are not, it's that simple.

    Laughably untrue.

    You can change the camera speed to whatever you like. It's in the options menu.

    I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #19 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Marching Thru Georgia wrote:

    Film is static, games are not, it's that simple.

    Laughably untrue.

    You can change the camera speed to whatever you like. It's in the options menu.


    Camarea speed dosn't help at 5fps. And that has nothing to do with wether film is static and games are not

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #20 by Xreos1

  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member

  • Posts: 42
  • Thank you received: 24

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Granted I would like more than 5,

    I have fooled around with blender and a game where you create animations, they are basically static frame point A static frame point B and the program fills the frames in between. One in particular has 20 pose points for each second. Since I don't know the inner workings of program like this I don't know how that would translate to FPS.

    If I'm comparing apples to oranges I'm sorry.

    I guess I'm asking those that know more than myself, what would be an acceptable FPS?

    Just because a computer can render 60 FPS, does a game have to?

    I once had a car that would do 160 mph, didn't mean I always drove at that speed.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago - 5 years 8 months ago #21 by Iriasthor

  • New Member
  • New Member

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received:

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Oct 2015
  • I think people is mixing things here:

    Marching Thru Georgia wrote: The obvious solution for the fps complaint is rather obvious. Norb needs to put a switch in the options page titled Prefer High FPS. That will reduce the AI loops accordingly so that it insures a minimum 60 fps. That way the first person shooter types can have exactly what they like and stop the incessant whining.

    The point is not to reduce the game quality by reducing, as in your example, the AI loops for the sake of a little FPS improvement. The game should be left as it is and even improved with more functionalities. My point is that an improvement in performance is always a good new, and I think that the developers should work on this matter just as much as on other aspects of the game.

    Who wouldn't prefer playing at 60-FPS rather than at 10-FPS?

    Xreos1 wrote: I would not object to an improvement in FPS, but I prefer SDK, reinforcements in campaign mode etc. first.

    Of course, there might be a wide variety of opinion regarding this aspect. I think it all comes up to one's preferences. While for some people a performance improvement is a must and urgent matter (due to a very very low FPS rate, for example), other people like you (and me) might think that adding game features is a more important aspect of the game to work on right now.

    As a side note, I think all the opinions are to be equally respected by everyone, as I've seen some heated up answers in this and other threads (from both sides).
    Last edit: 5 years 8 months ago by Iriasthor.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 8 months ago #22 by Jim

  • NSD Design Lead
  • NSD Design Lead
  • NSD Dev Team

  • Posts: 1079
  • Thank you received: 262

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Jim on topic Re: About the game performance
    Norb's number one complaint: "Every time I speed things up the team puts in more stuff and slows it down again." :whistle:


    -Jim

    "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, 2 July 1863
    The following user(s) said Thank You: con20or, r59

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    Moderators: RebBuglergunship24Leffe7Sargonpaul9038