Combat Mission on a high-end machine

[NUTTERNAME]

I don't think "eyes bleeding" has much to do with the FPS. As long as I get a monitor to refresh rate at 75 hz or greater, the slow FPS does not really bother me.

As for the memory debate...I have two USB 3.0 thumb-drives. I let Win8 use one as 'Virtual memory' and the other is used as Readyboost. I don't recall any new crashes as of late.

 

[sparty]

I'll feed you the line that BFC has been crapping all over their customers for a decade at this point:

"Our game is so advanced it just requires that much CPU because of how many concurrent calculations are taking place."

I'll tell you what common sense suggests:

Battlefront lacks any credibility in evaluating their own code. They blame everyone but their own poor job of understanding how their code works with standard GPU instruction sets and how they handle memory mapping. You want to know why an individual patch can have a big difference in their performance? They don't know how to performance tune.

BFC's track record is that they have great ideas for games and know how to cram a lot of cool stuff into them. They lack, however, the fundamental skill to achieve their goals. They claim their games are the most advanced in the market, but the advent of games like ARMA II, Steel Beasts, etc. that have as much (if not more) going on under the hood from a physics engine and 3d engine perspective just point out the flaws in BFC's logic time and time again.

 

[Geordie]

Despite having a decent PC and graphics card CMBN has never really played as well as any other game I have. The total war series seems to have more going on but runs smooth at the highest settings. games like ARMA 2 and now 3 run at high settings and give a decent frame rate. CMBN though seems to be hit and miss. Sometimes even small scenarios take ages to load and other times the game seems to play quite fast. There doesn't seem to be a consistency between scenarios or QBs. Then again, different modules and upgrades have seemed to make it faster,or slower. There's just no consistency to it all and not being computer literate to any great degree I have no idea how to get it working smoother.

Don't get me wrong,,the game plays OK most times, but its never been as smooth as any of the other games on my PC.

 

[Elvis]

Despite having a decent PC and graphics card CMBN has never really played as well as any other game I have. The total war series seems to have more going on but runs smooth at the highest settings. games like ARMA 2 and now 3 run at high settings and give a decent frame rate. CMBN though seems to be hit and miss. Sometimes even small scenarios take ages to load and other times the game seems to play quite fast. There doesn't seem to be a consistency between scenarios or QBs. Then again, different modules and upgrades have seemed to make it faster,or slower. There's just no consistency to it all and not being computer literate to any great degree I have no idea how to get it working smoother.

Don't get me wrong,,the game plays OK most times, but its never been as smooth as any of the other games on my PC.

I'm with you in the computer savvy department. As I've said before, I rarely have framerate issues on either my old desktop or my new cheap laptop. For me lots of trees is the only thing that ever makes it slightly slow. But never so bad that I can't play the game without cursing at anything other than my poor tactics. A game like Skyrim would not move on my desktop (which has a pretty decent graphics card) and plays smooth as silk on the laptop (which seems to have a cheap card). I've never been able to play To the Volga from CMBB (DAMN YOU BERLI!!!!!!!).

 

[Fleischer]

I just bought the $10 CMBN upgrade, hoping that would solve some of my performance issues. However, that new "shaders" feature actually took another 5-10 chunk of fps from my already horrible performance, leaving me with a meagre 9 fps min and 20 fps average in some cases.

I ran yet another set of tests with two different graphics cards with entirely different chipsets to see if this was simply a matter of compatibility issues with my chipset, however, I get basically the same performance drop on all cards.

What's worse is that with the 2.0 upgrade, I can no longer use the texture mods I had (which made the game look much better than the crappy "shaders"). So I'm left with worse performance AND looks. Hey ho.

 

[Redwolf]

I just bought the $10 CMBN upgrade, hoping that would solve some of my performance issues. However, that new "shaders" feature actually took another 5-10 chunk of fps from my already horrible performance, leaving me with a meagre 9 fps min and 20 fps average in some cases.

I ran yet another set of tests with two different graphics cards with entirely different chipsets to see if this was simply a matter of compatibility issues with my chipset, however, I get basically the same performance drop on all cards.

What's worse is that with the 2.0 upgrade, I can no longer use the texture mods I had (which made the game look much better than the crappy "shaders"). So I'm left with worse performance AND looks. Hey ho.

You are doing better than me. I had not one but two installations that didn't work thanks to their braindead patch stacking and reuse of software their have no control over and that does something random (namely the DRM).

I now have a working install but Martin says it isn't working so I'll do another round

I haven't seen a single AFV in the MG module yet