Is performance what's ruining it for anyone else?

[Graphic]

Sorry if this belongs in tech support, though I don't think it does. I'm not asking for help, I've already tried everything. Whine threads about bugs don't get thrown into tech support either.

So ANYWAY. I just can't take it anymore. I don't care about anything else. Not the naval invasions, not the bugs, not the balance issues, not the broken features. All I want is to have a playable framerate while at the same time having the game not look like total dog crap.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Dual Core Processor ~2.8GHz, 3 gigs of ram (with the 3 GB "enabler" tweak activated to absolutely zero effect) and a GTX 260 Core 216 = Teens on "automatic" graphics settings in battles between two full armies. TEENS. I'm not a graphics whore but I draw the line where the game can barely support enough frames to create the optical illusion of motion.

I can get into the 30's if I turn everything to low, including putting it on Shader Model 3 Low. 30 fps while the game looks like Medieval 1 practically. My computer rapes Crysis and laughs. At the bare minimum I should get 60 fps constant with everything on low. It's absurd.

What's so mindboggling is the framerate was vastly superior in the demo. And on an old graphics card. The Demo ran better on a 2 year old 8800 GTX than the retail game does on an GTX 260 Core 216 that I recently upgraded to. A LOT better. They pointed out that the demo was some ancient pre-alpha build or something when people complained about the load times. So how is a really old, supposedly un-optimzed build greatly outperforming the "finished" product? If that doesn't make you scratch your head, nothing will.

So I hope CA reads this: the optimizations in this coming patch better work. At this point I'd probably return the game if I could (thanks Steam exclusivity). I used to be one of the so called fanboys who defended CA all the time and scoffed at the whiners, but I'm unfortunately coming around to that mindset. I don't want to but I can't help it.

[a-e]

Try turning of shadows completely, I did that and my framerate doubled or more. I have everything on ultra and I am fighting 10000 man battlles with no issues. My card is not even as good as yours.

[Beskar]

What's so mindboggling is the framerate was vastly superior in the demo. And on an old graphics card. The Demo ran better on a 2 year old 8800 GTX than the retail game does on an GTX 260 Core 216 that I recently upgraded to. A LOT better. They pointed out that the demo was some ancient pre-alpha build or something when people complained about the load times. So how is a really old, supposedly un-optimzed build greatly outperforming the "finished" product? If that doesn't make you scratch your head, nothing will.

I run the game on max settings with a 8800GTX and I am having no problems what so ever.

[Fisherking]

I have been having problems! But most of them seem to be with the computer rather than only the game. Or are they?

It is hard to understand unless the are still memory leaks in the kernel.

I am not using up all my ram, but the ram is heating badly. My video chip is getting hot too, but it cools at the oddest times.

Battles are not as intense on the machine as just looking at the campaign map.

Ending the turn eases the load on the hardware. You might think that all the AI calculations would put a load on, but it is the opposite.

Some times it will just lag, and nothing intense is going on.

I am no expert so I won’t make any brash statement.

It just seems counter intuitive.

[Didz]

This is what puzzles me about all of this performance business.

You have, a faster processor, more RAM, and I only have the same GTX card you had on your old machine. Yet, whilst I have absolutely no performance problems at all you are struggling. It seems absurd, the only thing you didn't mention is what operating system your using.

I attach an extract from a DxDiag Report I took of my machine a few minutes ago just in case it holds some clues.

DXdiag Report ExtractTime of this report: 4/25/2009, 10:39:01
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234)
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 2046MB RAM
Page File: 659MB used, 3279MB available
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Music Tab: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
Network Tab: No problems found.

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 8800 GTS
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0193&SUBSYS_042010DE&REV_A2
Display Memory: 320.0 MB
Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0011.8250 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 3/27/2009 10:03:00, 6186880 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes

[Husar]

There's obviously some strange bug right there. On my laptop with it's 8600GT I set it to everything high except grass and shadows off, AA and AF off and it runs relatively fine, and ending a turn seems to increase the load etc. This could very well be a driver issue as well, have you tried changing them?

[AussieGiant]

Graphic,

There is clearly something wrong here. I also have a Dual Core E6600 Overclocked plus a 8800GTX that is Overclocked as well. I'm not running on entirely ultra settings but at 1600 x 1200 (please note that your resolution settings have a large impact on performance, if everyone states them it will make it easier to compare.) but pretty close, Particles and Shadows are at the second highest level. In sea battles it's very nice, but some large land battles my machine will drop into the high to mid teens with Fraps running. I've been tweaking things to see if I can make a difference but with not much success. I hear many people also running 8800GTX cards with good results but they could be running at 1280x1024 or 1200 x 900 which are lower resolution levels.

I'd let them continue to patch and resolve various performance issues before giving up. One thing that worked for me is to set everything in the Nvidia control panel to "Application Controlled" and then make all graphic changes in the game settings. This way you have a base line.

I also heard a number of people with the latest hardware having some problems. This is standard as testing is done over nearly a year so things can change drastically in the mean time. This means in some instances games don't run well on the latest hardware until the are a few patches pushed out.

Keep trying though. A single GTX 260 core 216 should kick the crap out of this game. It will come good eventually.

[Didz]

Good point, as I've mentioned elsewhere drivers seem to make a huge difference.

I play WAR, and that game was virtually impossible to play due to lag until I downloaded 'Driver Detective' and updated all my drivers (not just the GFX one).

[AussieGiant]

Good point, as I've mentioned elsewhere drivers seem to make a huge difference.

I play WAR, and that game was virtually impossible to play due to lag until I downloaded 'Driver Detective' and updated all my drivers (not just the GFX one).

Absolutely true Didz,

I goes without saying that everyone should update all their drivers before starting any discussions.

You can use a very easy and no complicated version here: http://www.guru3d.com/category/driversweeper/

Driver sweeper is easy to use and will give you the latest situation on all hardware.

Once you have all your drivers up to date then coming onto the board and asking specific settings is about the best way to check the difference between performance of different cards and processor combinations.

[Fisherking]

Absolutely true Didz,

I goes without saying that everyone should update all their drivers before starting any discussions.

You can use a very easy and no complicated version here: http://www.guru3d.com/category/driversweeper/

Driver sweeper is easy to use and will give you the latest situation on all hardware.

Once you have all your drivers up to date then coming onto the board and asking specific settings is about the best way to check the difference between performance of different cards and processor combinations.

You know that is a good idea in theory, but in practice it can be a disaster.

After updating my authorized and correct drives, I have developed some very strange problems with my system. Rolling back drivers on this machine is not an option. I would have to do a complete wipe and new system install. I am not going there.

At this point I think it is best to see what happens next week with the patch and go from there.

From the data I have seen, the game is not so seriously demanding. It just has some issues…lots actually.

Because of the above mentioned problems I am running the game as a window on a low resolution (that reduces the size of the window) so I can keep an eye on everything the system is doing.



It may be best to let them fix the game rather than blame your system.

I made that mistake…..


and after down loading the driver sweeper...it doesn't work either...

[AussieGiant]

Also true. Using the system restore option in XP is always a great fall back if you find further issues starting after doing this.

I personally only update my GPU driver on a regular basis and will not update others unless a specific problem occurs with it. Such as my creative sound driver.

PC's are relatively complex these days and if your system is stable and fast in other games and normal operations you can usually point to the game itself needing patches rather than looking at your own system.

[Didz]

Wel I've not had any problems so far using 'Driver Detective'. I sort of assumed they only instal official drivers anyway. Probably, far more reliable than me scrabbling around trying to find the right drivers on the net. But as you say regular system restore points are always advisable.

[Slaists]

Sorry if this belongs in tech support, though I don't think it does. I'm not asking for help, I've already tried everything. Whine threads about bugs don't get thrown into tech support either.

So ANYWAY. I just can't take it anymore. I don't care about anything else. Not the naval invasions, not the bugs, not the balance issues, not the broken features. All I want is to have a playable framerate while at the same time having the game not look like total dog crap.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Dual Core Processor ~2.8GHz, 3 gigs of ram (with the 3 GB "enabler" tweak activated to absolutely zero effect) and a GTX 260 Core 216 = Teens on "automatic" graphics settings in battles between two full armies. TEENS. I'm not a graphics whore but I draw the line where the game can barely support enough frames to create the optical illusion of motion.

I can get into the 30's if I turn everything to low, including putting it on Shader Model 3 Low. 30 fps while the game looks like Medieval 1 practically. My computer rapes Crysis and laughs. At the bare minimum I should get 60 fps constant with everything on low. It's absurd.

What's so mindboggling is the framerate was vastly superior in the demo. And on an old graphics card. The Demo ran better on a 2 year old 8800 GTX than the retail game does on an GTX 260 Core 216 that I recently upgraded to. A LOT better. They pointed out that the demo was some ancient pre-alpha build or something when people complained about the load times. So how is a really old, supposedly un-optimzed build greatly outperforming the "finished" product? If that doesn't make you scratch your head, nothing will.

So I hope CA reads this: the optimizations in this coming patch better work. At this point I'd probably return the game if I could (thanks Steam exclusivity). I used to be one of the so called fanboys who defended CA all the time and scoffed at the whiners, but I'm unfortunately coming around to that mindset. I don't want to but I can't help it.

I run the game on max settings and have not experienced any frame-rate problems so far. Neither in sea battles nor on land. Sorry, man...

[ratbarf]

I have Gameshadow personally, I find it works great for this kind of stuff cause it finds all your drivers and tells you when they have an update out and such. It also auto downloads all the patches for your games and stuff too. Personally I like it, you may want to look into it as I think you can get it for free.

[Graphic]

Then that is weird. Must be some bug or some issue the game has with a specific piece of hardware...who knows. It's very frustrating nevertheless, when there's no performance issues with dozens of other games. Yes my drivers are up to date, and whoever asked, I'm on 32 bit Vista.

[Beskar]

Then that is weird. Must be some bug or some issue the game has with a specific piece of hardware...who knows. It's very frustrating nevertheless, when there's no performance issues with dozens of other games. Yes my drivers are up to date, and whoever asked, I'm on 32 bit Vista.

It's that. Some people have had trouble for some reason with the newer patches. I haven't though, but it's rather hit or miss with Empire.

[Graphic]

Then does anyone know which are the magical Nvidia drivers for ETW?

[Beskar]

I can't remember which version it was now. However, there should be a new patch soon anyway and hopefully any problems would be fixed. So I would recommend waiting.

[Servius]

I have XP and an nvidia 9800 GT. For those two variables, I found the 178.24 driver to be the most stable. As soon as I go higher, Fallout 3 starts having random CTDs that require a reboot.

Unfortunately, While ETW seems to work fine with 178.24 on lower video settings, DOW 2 doesn't like 178.24 at any video setting. It's only happy with newer drivers. Right now I'm running 182.50 and am not having graphical problems with ETW. My problem with ETW is the cursed unit bug (then one where clicking on a particular unit causes ETW to CTD).

[Lemur]

I would love the game a lot more if those freakin' AI turns didn't take so long. Even with "follow AI moves" (or whatever it's called) turned off, you can still make a very nice sandwich on some turns. Time to brew coffee as well once it gets stuck on Sweden. Optimize, you silly coders, optimize!

[Graphic]

Man I was playing a US campaign once, after a while the turns literally got to be about 4 or 5 minutes long. Insane.

[Beskar]

That happens, there was one game of mine the turns were 30minutes long. Pressing spacebar speeds it up, though, which is good. Makes all the actions such as movements go twice as fast, but it is a little jerky.

[Fisherking]

As to AI turn speeds, I have had campaigns where it went slow and others where it was nearly always fast. I have not found rhyme or reason for them.

As I said in an earlier post, on my machine the game uses less system assets in the AI turn than it dose when I am only looking the campaign map.

Just looking at the campaign map heats my ram and GPU chip! Battles use less intensive calculations and don’t heat as bad…though it does heat the system.
Ending the turn cools the system, even though the CPU is still in use. The RAM and GPU cool.

That lead me to my own conclusion, that there must be some kind of memory leak in the kernel. But I said before I am far from expert in these matters, so I am only guessing. I can not look at the actual video RAM usage or temperature but again I am guessing that the hot GPU chip contains it and the second GPU reading is the board, and it does not overheat. Nor dose the CPU.

My RAM can reach temperatures above 95°C and the GPU has had readings of 105°C. Both are unsettling and I wonder how the machine can take it.

As memory leaks in the kernel can cause hardware to overheat and all else seems to be working fine with other games and programs, that lead me to my conclusion.

Maybe some of you with far more knowledge than me can tell me if I am on the right track or not.

[Didz]

Then does anyone know which are the magical Nvidia drivers for ETW?

I'm on an Nvdia 8800 GTS with driver version 6.14.11.8250 dated 27/3/2009 and I have not problems.

I would love the game a lot more if those freakin' AI turns didn't take so long. Even with "follow AI moves" (or whatever it's called) turned off, you can still make a very nice sandwich on some turns. Time to brew coffee as well once it gets stuck on Sweden. Optimize, you silly coders, optimize!

Might be teaching granny to suck eggs here, but you do know that pressing the <space bar> increases the speed of the AI moves don't you.

[AussieGiant]

Might be teaching granny to suck eggs here, but you do know that pressing the <space bar> increases the speed of the AI moves don't you.

I pray to some higher being that everyone knows this. If not, then the Total War community has been wasting years of their respective lives since 2000 by

-EDIT-

I'm also getting a bit annoyed that people with similar systems as mine seem to be running at Ultra settings...and I'm not!! hmmpfff

[Servius]

I too can hear my GPU card fan spinning up when I'm just looking at the campaign map and slow down when I'm fighting a battle... Perhaps it's the sea, all the actions associated with making the ripples in the sea, all the different flags flutter in the wind, and all the trees sway. Those things aren't as big an issue on the battle map. But yeah, still seems counter-intuitive.

I am also amazed at how long Sweden's turn sometimes takes. Perhaps they have gobs of fleets in treatcherous waters or something, but even when they only have 2-3 regions, they still take forever.

@ Lemur: I love the comparison of how long the AI takes measured by how nice a sandwich you can make in the mean time.

[Lemur]

Might be teaching granny to suck eggs here, but you do know that pressing the <space bar> increases the speed of the AI moves don't you.

Oh, the first thing I do when I start a game is press the spacebar. I really don't need to see how long it takes an army to march.

Also, I turn off the "Follow AI moves" or whatever it's called in the game options. Trust me, I'm all about speeding up those interminable AI turns.

Even given all of this, the AI turns can take far longer than they ought to. I'm on a mildly overclocked Core2Duo, 4 gigs of low-latency RAM, Windows XP Pro, 1 gig 4870; the only thing I could do to make my machine speedier would be to move to a quad-core. Trust me, if the game can't sing on my rig, it ain't speedy on anybody's rig.

Once they're done crushing game-killing bugs, I hope like hell they work on optimizing the AI turns. They're ... quite ... loooooooooong ....

-edit-

Oh, and to speed things up, I also dove into a clean install of Windows XP PRo SP3. Quickened everything on my 'puter except ETW.

[Dayve]

My processor is nearing 2 and a half years old now, so is my 2gb of ram, although my graphics card had to be replaced a few months back with the latest model (at the time) a radeon 4870 HD, also known as a central heating system for your PC in some circles due to how bloody hot it runs and how many problems you have with it. And i'm on XP. And i haven't defragged in months, and i haven't run a spyware or adware or virus scan in over a year, mostly because i know what i'm doing and don't need to, but still.

All in all, your PC is vastly superior to mine, yet performance for me is grand. Everything on high, shadows turned off (as i do in all strategy games... they're useless unless you're playing FEAR or DOOM 3 or games of that nature, at least imo), and unit size on large (120 men in a line inf unit), but i did have them on huge, i only turned them down because i was told it helps the AI do better in battles. I never bothered to check what FPS i'm getting but it's as smooth as a babys bottom.

So yeah, it's mind boggling.. Definitely not your PC that's causing the problem... simply... bad software.

[Graphic]

My processor is nearing 2 and a half years old now, so is my 2gb of ram, although my graphics card had to be replaced a few months back with the latest model (at the time) a radeon 4870 HD, also known as a central heating system for your PC in some circles due to how bloody hot it runs and how many problems you have with it. And i'm on XP. And i haven't defragged in months, and i haven't run a spyware or adware or virus scan in over a year, mostly because i know what i'm doing and don't need to, but still.

All in all, your PC is vastly superior to mine, yet performance for me is grand. Everything on high, shadows turned off (as i do in all strategy games... they're useless unless you're playing FEAR or DOOM 3 or games of that nature, at least imo), and unit size on large (120 men in a line inf unit), but i did have them on huge, i only turned them down because i was told it helps the AI do better in battles. I never bothered to check what FPS i'm getting but it's as smooth as a babys bottom.

So yeah, it's mind boggling.. Definitely not your PC that's causing the problem... simply... bad software.

I tried to install some beta drivers to try out this new ambient occulsion somesuch feature and got a BSOD, so had to revert to so me older drivers. For convience I put on some late Feb ones that are on the CD that came with the graphics card. Still, same thing.

Seriously, what's wrong with this picture?

https://i40.tinypic.com/2z4llhd.png

[Dayve]

Can i see a picture of what it looks like zoomed in?

The terrain does look very poor, the trees and such, but the units, with the graphics turned up high, don't look all that different to yours do in that picture when zoomed out as far as you are.

Here's one zoomed out for me. https://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zoomout.png

And zoomed in. https://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zoomedin.png