Slow Ship Graphic On High-End Graphics Cards/PCs

from Stardock Forums
I love the game, but am finding it irritating that a group of 50 stacked ships (missiles) takes it's sweet old time moving on my fairly high end PC (runs Doom III and Unreal 2004 easily), whereas as single ship moves fast given the same distance. Is the movement algorithm poorly designed or something? And the new generation Graphic Cards should easily handle this sort of basic and simple 2D stuff. I get the feeling the graphics is all driven from the PC (as "software") with no graphic card assistance. Will any of this get fixed or improved in the next edition?

Operating System: Windows 2000 Professional (5.0, Build 2195) Service Pack 4
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: MSI
System Model: MS-7058
BIOS: Default System BIOS
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 1024MB RAM
Page File: 368MB used, 2093MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINNT
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: RADEON X700 Series
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Chip type: RADEON X700 PRO (0x5E4B)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5E4B&SUBSYS_23021002&REV_00
Display Memory: 256.0 MB
Current Mode: 800 x 600 (16 bit) (75Hz)
732 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I get the feeling the graphics is all driven from the PC (as "software") with no graphic card assistance. Will any of this get fixed or improved in the next edition?
End of quote

Since there isn't any 3D for the general map, but only 2D, the video card can't really help you. But Galciv II would have a 3D engine for rendering.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
AGP is for 2D rendering as well isn't it? Advanced graphics cards were coming out a bit before 3D games ever really entered the market if I recall correctly. Heh, Master Of Orion II is "2D" and handles lots of ships just fine. In any case, that will be good to see this stuff be improved, and I certainly look forward to my purchase of the next edition of GC/AP.

I have to admit, I thought it was being mostly handled in the software without taking advantage of any 2D capability of the 2D/3D graphics card (PCI, AGP, or the newer PCIE (assuming such is the case; I'm no expert). This game was performing so badly with stacked ships with my old PC (AMD-7 CPU @ 500Mhz), that I finally decided it was time to get a new PC this past Summer. Sure, there have been major improvements in game performance, but it is clear the new CPU and clock speed deserve all the credit. My gut feeling tells me the programmers could have made better use of basic 2D AGP (etc) graphics card abiltities, but they decided not to.

[Message Edited]
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
NOPE! Peace is correct! What you can do to improve the game is to have a chip that supports Hyperthreading, Windows XP and a fast CPU. These things will improve the movement speeds and handle all graphics that Galciv and dish out. 2 CPU's means nothing hardly any games support this as of late.

You have the hyperthreading and the CPU is fast. I have a 3 GIG P4 myself with the new 6800 Nvida card. I never have any issues at all with GC. Surprised that you are.

Hope to see you at NeoTech http://www.neotechgaming.com/portal.php?sid=2ecd9994d30f785aa7e8d22559148d68 a Starbase for Galciv fans - plus a lot more
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Right about what? There are 2D/3D graphics cards, and there is AGP, are there not? Such do handle 2D as well as 3D, right?

Actually, it is ok for the most part (I used the hyper-thread thing as well); my point is I have plenty of 2D games that run loops around GC with lots of animated sprites and comlex game issue (like Settlers IV) but these were played on my old AMD 7 @ 500 mHz just fine! Yet, no one is addressing specifics here: what is the answer the issue of the existance of 2D graphics cards and AGP running 2D games? They exist, do they not? If they exist, then the GC/AP software could have been written to take advantage of thier abilities, right? That's how I see it anyway.

But yes, I still find myself waiting from time to time for large stacks of ships to move when the game is has lots of ships in play; but, err, with my new PC, seeing any things "slow" down has got to be a reflection of the software program design, not my PC. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't seemed programmed very well to me.
[Message Edited]
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
2D as far as I know is dependent strickly with the CPU. There would be a small increase with a high end video card but nothing to make a big difference. I never tried a stack larger then around 10 ships. Never any slow down at all unless I play Gigantic.

As far as the explanation about the 2D issue go to NeoTech in NYS Computers ask Shawn about it. He is an expert with this stuff he knows more then anyone I know on PC hardware. (Of course I am bias he is my son. :D) I am not the tech geek that he is.. I only know that 2D graphics are not increased hardly at all by any of the new technologies. :sniff!: Sad as that is.. 2D games are great and there should be a way to speed things up I agree!
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
But yes, I still find myself waiting from time to time for large stacks of ships to move when the game is has lots of ships in play; but, err, with my new PC, seeing any things "slow" down has got to be a reflection of the software program design, not my PC.
End of quote


I'm running a P4 2.8 Ghz with 1GB ram and a Radeon 9200.

I have no slowdowns moving ships around until I get 50+ in one stack. Then the ships slow down just a bit, but it's nothing extraordinary. Maybe a quater second per parsec of movement.

Maybe if you post some system specs, or a definition of "large stacks of ships", we'll have a better idea of what you're seeing.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Thanks for the replies.

@NameisToad: I did at the beginning of this thread. That should be enough? Perhaps not? Should I up the ram some more (I may give that a try)? Yet, what you and I have as PCs should have been far more than enough given the relatively simple graphics of the game, right? It certainly is way less complex, for example, than the 2D graphics of Master Of Orion II or Pax Imperia, yet the latter two games perform extremely well even on older machines.

It does seem like you are having some "slow-down" only a little after I do or about the same, yet on the "high-end" PCs, I still feel we should NOT even be close to observing such things for what is apparently a very simple game design... in terms of graphics and play as compared to some older more complex 2D 4X games. Something just seems fishy or amiss to me, as if the game executes as a large poorly designed line-by-line basic program rather than something compiled effectively in assmebly language for speed. I can't yet accept that the economic calculations, etc, alone are that large of draw-down on CPU given other similar games. Perhaps they are and very large arrays are involved?
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
You are correct, sir. I missed your stats in the original post. (getting blind in my old age...)

If you are experiencing similar slowdowns to what I am, perhaps your allusion to large arrays is the best answer. I know I don't mind the (very slight) slowdown due to the "large stacks" of 50+ ships.

The incredible wait during an autosave is what kills me. I'm waiting upwards of a minute and a half for each save (auto or otherwise) in a gigantic map game (which is my favorite, all other things being equal).

Does everyone here play with autosave turned off?

I don't want to turn autosave off until after I figure out what's causing the game to crash to the desktop every few games...
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
I use it with all my games.. I did not know it was slowing things down? CTD (crash to desktop) is not attached to the autosave feature I would not think.

Old age? I bet I have most beat at 50 years old in March! LOL I will die playing a video game!! :D
[Message Edited]
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
#8 by Citizen NameisToad - 1/3/2005 7:26:08 PM You are correct, sir. I missed your stats in the original post. (getting blind in my old age...)If you are experiencing similar slowdowns to what I am, perhaps your allusion to large arrays is the best answer. I know I don't mind the (very slight) slowdown due to the "large stacks" of 50+ ships.
End of quote


True, on my new PC, is really is not "an issue," I exaggerated some trying to make the point... it aught not even be?


The incredible wait during an autosave is what kills me. I'm waiting upwards of a minute and a half for each save (auto or otherwise) in a gigantic map game (which is my favorite, all other things being equal).
End of quote


Myself, it's not bad, but I have a decent HD buffer, and both drives are SATA.

Does everyone here play with autosave turned off? I don't want to turn autosave off until after I figure out what's causing the game to crash to the desktop every few games...
End of quote


I save myself, but I leave it on at the max setting in case I forget after pressing TURN with not much going on during some circumstance (like a tech race).

However, it or something from time to time crashes the game to desktop... err... apparently you are experiencing a similar issue. In other games like this (Settler IV, notably), autosave is a known issue that sometimes causes crashes in that game.... but in experimenting with GC, autosave or not... doesn't seem to matter, so I recently set it back to "on" during my games.


@Desert Fox.... you have me beat only by 5 years or so (I hate keeping track, lol) :)
[Message Edited]
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
#9 by Veteran Desert Fox - 1/3/2005 7:40:30 PM
snip
Old age? I bet I have most beat at 50 years old in March! I will die playing a video game!! [Message Edited]
End of quote



You younger guys should be getting on to bed don't ya think ? ;)

Got ya "beat" :notsure: by 10+ years.


Elrikk

~SDC~
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Desert Fox
Old age? I bet I have most beat at 50 years old in March!
End of quote


Well, consider me put in my place. :) 28 doesn't seem all that old now. LOL

Chippoka
Myself, it's not bad, but I have a decent HD buffer, and both drives are SATA.
End of quote


Both my drives have 8MB buffers, but I think I'm still using ATA-100... Maybe it is time for upgrade after all. LOL
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
I bet I have most beat at 50 years old in March!
End of quote


I'm not as old as Elrikk, but have you beat by 3 years, DF. ;)

~SDC~
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

RAM would probably help because 2D graphics are stored in RAM until it has to start swapping hard drive space. 

Also, while I admit that I could be wrong, there isn't really any hardware acceleration for 2D anymore, at least not in DirectDraw, which is what GC1/AP uses.   Please note that when I say DirectDraw, I mean DirectDraw7, the last version of DirectDraw.  DirectDraw doesn't really exist anymore in the latest versions of DirectX.  Does anyone remember when DirectX 7 was new? It was definitely before Windows ME. 

Our sprites are drawn with assembly code to make it faster, but that's about all that we could do.  I didn't write the code, and the person who did isn't working here anymore.  I'm not familiar enough with assembly code to know if it's as efficient as it could be.

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
Real Programmers code in assembler. With no comments. If it's hard to code, it ought to be hard to for others to read and debug. LOL LOL LOL

~SDC~
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
I didn't write the code, and the person who did isn't working here anymore.
End of quote

You alway have a hard time when you try to explain your manager why code should be maintainable and what is necessary to achieve it :p

It's one thing that the program does what was asked for by the spec. But it's even more important that it is possible to maintain it.

My deepest sympathy for CariElf who does a great job :CONGRAT: I know it by heart since I have inherited many code by myself.

From the original description I assume that there are some scaling issues in the code. But since GC II is based on new code and it does not hurd the gameplay it's not worth to look into it.

When CariElf looks for something to work in I would be very happy when she could fix the calculation of the remaining research months.

Currently it uses the free research of the last month and not the free research of the current month. Thus it is usually wrong once you got some research abilities.

The information must already be somewhere burried in the code. Thus it should not be too hard to fix it.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
Thanks for the info CariElf! I certainly didn't know direct draw wasn't being used anymore. They should take it out of the DirectX Test Diagnostic, I would think.

I'll definately look at that memory up-sizing, hopefully this weekend.