47 replies to this topic

[Dr. Nick]

I got a chance (or rather took the time) to play GC through week 60 or so, which is a rarity. I'm certain the locking up that you experience just before a battle is announced is the result of the game writing an auto-save to the hard drive. I'd like to find out if it's possible to disable this "feature". I checked the constants and found nothing relevant to auto-saving, but I haven't checked all of the quirky little XMLs, even though it's probably a long shot.

Also, more evidence to it being a CPU issue: turning on fast-forward just about halved the frame rate. Unlike increasing build times or something like that, fast-forward actually forces the game to "think" faster, except it doesn't seem to be able to because it kills the frame rate.

Just loaded up the Core Worlds GC and got 6-10 FPS.

Thanks Dr. Nick. Have you guys had any luck at making GC run better? How does that compare to what you run TR at?

Sorry, I wasn't involved in the minimod at all. I just rigged stuff and did some of the art. You might want to ask Arbiter that or try out the minimod yourself, however.

[Kitkun]

I've looked at a couple different specs, but never see anything about a motherboard model. Even on the HP support site: dv9922us

Try CPU-Z, and google or post the chipset it lists.

[trenthowell]

Core 2 DUO e8400, 4 gigs of ddr2 pc8400 (However, I run PR in XP, non-64, so 3.5 effective, yes I have an vista 64 bit install, just dont feel like reinstalling EAW properly just for vistas sake), geforce 260. I can run core at "ok" frame rates, outer rim is...not great but passable (I would say 5-10 FPS, is there a way to actually display FPS?). GFFA Lite is practically out of the question. When I was playing a Core worlds GC, I didn't notice an appreciable increase in FPS as I wiped out the pirate forces across the galaxy (Up until I won, it was all around the same as the start...maybe a bit better). Load times into and out of battles however, increased noticeably.

[coinich]

Wiki? Fraps can give you FPS.

Edited by coinich, 08 January 2009 - 12:39 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

It's important to note that the FSB runs at the slower of the speed listed for it on the CPU and matching motherboard, so I'll have to ask for that value as well.

I suppose that, on a laptop, it's all one in the same?

On a laptop, or any other PC that's pre-assembled, I'd assume the manufacturer would sensibly pair these two components, but you never know.

BTW, I'm wondering if the hard drive spec might affect loading time in any way. Or perhaps even performance when it comes to the page file.

I'm sure it would, but reading/writing to the HD for certain things is just inevitable, so I don't know how much we'd be able to improve that. However, putting the mod back into MEG files is one thing we could do to improve access times for the HD, because it would limit how much the drive needs to spin to get to everything.

Sorry, I wasn't involved in the minimod at all. I just rigged stuff and did some of the art. You might want to ask Arbiter that or try out the minimod yourself, however.

Oh, okay. I figured you might have something sinister you're working on behind the scenes, but no one else is probably crazy enough to try something like GFFA .

By the way, I'm a fan of your modeling skills . Definitely some of the best in the community.

[hetter71]

Try CPU-Z, and google or post the chipset it lists.

Thanks for the link! It tells me I've got 1Mb L2 cache, but only 533MHz FSB...I'm guessing that's why I'm running so much slower

[Kitkun]

Go with the Rated FSB. Or heck, post some screenshots.

[Tropical Bob]

Yeah, I think that CPU-Z might tell you what your FSB is currently running at or something, because it told me that I was at 200MHz at one point.

[hetter71]

Ummmm...that was the rated FSB speed (I looked up my comp on hp to double check)...my current actual speed is a snail like 133.3...probably because of the slow as heck RAM I've got in there...two sticks @200 MHz and 2 sticks @333MHz. Think I can forget most of PR until I can afford to upgrade...except skirmish...skirmish ROCKS!!!

[Phoenix Rising]

Ummmm...that was the rated FSB speed (I looked up my comp on hp to double check)...my current actual speed is a snail like 133.3...probably because of the slow as heck RAM I've got in there...two sticks @200 MHz and 2 sticks @333MHz.

Hmm, yes, that makes sense. You'd probably do better with only 200 MHz RAM in there even. It's slowing down because it has to find a common interval for both speeds to run at: 400 MHz (DDR stands for double data rate) / 133 MHz = 4 and 667 MHz / 133 MHz = 5.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 09 January 2009 - 12:39 AM.

[hetter71]

Hmm, yes, that makes sense. You'd probably do better with only 200 MHz RAM in there even. It's slowing down because it has to find a common interval for both speeds to run at: 400 MHz (DDR stands for double data rate) / 133 MHz = 4 and 667 MHz / 133 MHz = 5.

Hrmm. That's...interesting. If I ever knew that, I had forgotten it. It sounds like you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) that I SHOULD see a performance increase if I go to just one speed instead of the two different ones. In my case, taking out the slower 2 sticks, which also happen to be the small ones, while leaving me only 2GB of RAM vice 2.5, should actually increase my performance. It's worth a shot! Especially since that speed difference will be slowing down EVERYTHING on my system, not just PR.

I'll probably try it tomorrow, so be sure to say something before then if it's not something I should try

Thanks a lot!

[Kitkun]

The key word is 'even'. Try keeping the larger, faster pieces in first.

[Phoenix Rising]

The key word is 'even'. Try keeping the larger, faster pieces in first.

Right. I was noting just how bad it can be to mix RAM.

[hetter71]

So, I finally got everything back up and running...it was a minor nightmare, as XP didn't like me taking out the 256Mb sticks, or more approprately, it didn't like the 1Gb sticks. I had to re-install windows...several times :(

Anyway, I got a faster load time on the core worlds by 14 seconds, it's now 2:48, and a slightly better frame rate on the intro movie...by eyeball it's about a 5 fps improvement. No improvement in GC, though :(

[Phoenix Rising]

And that utility lists a faster speed now for the FSB?

[hetter71]

And that utility lists a faster speed now for the FSB?

Strangely enough, no, it doesn't. It still shows 533 FSB & 133 Bus Speed (I'm guessing that means my PCI bus speed....just a guess, though). I guess on my system it's just detecting my max, and not my actual.

[thrawn2247]

My setup: Athlon 64 X2 5400 @ 2.8ghz, 2 gigs of RAM, xp service pack 3 32 bit version, radeon HD 3650 vid card

I edited the GFFA file and cut out virtually all of the starting forces everywhere, the file is only 42.4 kb now and started up a game. It ran around 30 FPS for the first 8-12 weeks until the AI and I had taken control of I'd say 80% of the planets then performance started to degrade. Tells me the problem may not be exclusively limited to units but more likely the planets and all the extra animations for their spinning, trade routes, etc.

Running GFFA or GFFA lite unedited I was getting 3-5 frames. Also I too noticed RAM usage seems to cap around 1 gig

[Kitkun]

I edited the GFFA file and cut out virtually all of the starting forces everywhere, the file is only 42.4 kb now and started up a game. It ran around 30 FPS for the first 8-12 weeks until the AI and I had taken control of I'd say 80% of the planets then performance started to degrade. Tells me the problem may not be exclusively limited to units but more likely the planets and all the extra animations for their spinning, trade routes, etc.

That's more likely a result of the AI expanding and spamming units. That was the lag problem in 1.0.

Just try turning all the graphics down, it won't make a difference.

[thrawn2247]

I edited the GFFA file and cut out virtually all of the starting forces everywhere, the file is only 42.4 kb now and started up a game. It ran around 30 FPS for the first 8-12 weeks until the AI and I had taken control of I'd say 80% of the planets then performance started to degrade. Tells me the problem may not be exclusively limited to units but more likely the planets and all the extra animations for their spinning, trade routes, etc.

That's more likely a result of the AI expanding and spamming units. That was the lag problem in 1.0.

Just try turning all the graphics down, it won't make a difference.

The problem there is none of the graphic options tone down galactic animations, its all geared for tactical, which I have no problem running. And since the AI doesn't build space colonies for whatever reason, the only things it could likely be spamming are ground units and structures.

[Kitkun]

There's very little graphical about the galactic map. The only things there are the planets, (Rotation is disabled by graphics option) and star background. It's all the stats and routines in the background that aren't changing during tactical. It's as if the engine continuously calculates something or other for each and every unit in the game.

Try smashing some AI fleets and watch it speed back up.

The AI is also very smart when it comes to finding units to spam. I destroyed about 500 squadrons of tugs and fighters (Mostly tugs) in one battle. GC immediately went from choppy to smooth. Gained about 10,000 credits, too.

Edited by Kitkun, 12 January 2009 - 02:47 AM.