I think the topic title gives it all away personally. Simply put once I get to America's time the game slows down incredibly. I like Rhye's mod and find it fun, especially if you like testing our your own imperialistic ways in modern time settings, but once I get to America it takes an extremely long time to go to the next turn, and there isn't even a lot to do per turn at that time. So my question is: How do I improve preformance?

System Specs:

Pentium 4 2.4GHz Processor
512 MB RAM
Windows XP SP 2
160 GB HD and 20GB HD
ATI Radeon 9250 PCI 256MB

I was thinking the RAM would be the main issue but I'm not sure. Any ideas/suggestions? I'd really like to be able to play it without having to wait ten minutes to watch my rifleman take a step.

I think that is the problem. You MUST have at least 512 MB RAM to play the game, but 1 GB is recommended (system requirements in your manual). The requirements for Warlords and Vanilla are only 256 MB RAM and 512 MB RAM recommended, and Rhye's is a very heavy game for your computer so upgrading your RAM could be the solution.
Good luck.

Okay, I'll see what I can do about that, until then I geuss I'm stuck with trying to find a reliable Earth Map without 18 civs already attached to it.

I've got 1gb of ram but still find it annoying with the long loading times. Thank G-d for alt + tab. Next month I'll be buying another 1gb just to be able to play a smoother RFC.

See what you're doing Rhye, you're building up a new market with your stupid game ;)

My hunk of junk which pretends to be a computer can play it reasonably well with low graphic settings. If you want to speed it up that's what I recommend - lower the graphics settings (you're not missing out on that much).

Would that have a huge effect on the amount of time waiting for players, though? That is my main problem, great game to play during commercials while watching TV due to the long waits. I normally don't play past ~1900 due to this.

I'm currently playing on a laptop with 512MB of RAM (well, 447, really :sad: )...

No BTS for me for the time being... And once I hit the 1400-1500s, you can bet it takes 10 minutes between turn...

All this to say: add more RAM to your PC!!!

It takes about a minute or so between turns for me, with 768MB of RAM. It's exceedingly annoying.

And the the original Rhye's of Civilization for CivIII was supposed to improve performance. Ironic.

That's the reason I always read a book while playing RFC... ;)
Mostly after 1900's it takes about 90 sec. per turn.

For such an interesting mod it is a dissapointment that I can't enjoy it, and oddly enough Rhye's for Warlords works fine....

As it turns out I've been playing it on maxed-out settings. >.> I might try lowering them to see what happens.

Ram's only a part of the answer. I have 3 GB, and it's still painfully slow after America spawns. Probably not as slow as most of you, but it is still slow. Funny thing is it used to be VERY fast for me pre-BTS. 5 seconds between turns in the 20th century fast. Now it's down to 15.

I still think BTS has a memory leak somewhere.

Ram's only a part of the answer. I have 3 GB, and it's still painfully slow after America spawns. Probably not as slow as most of you, but it is still slow. Funny thing is it used to be VERY fast for me pre-BTS. 5 seconds between turns in the 20th century fast. Now it's down to 15.

I still think BTS has a memory leak somewhere.

15 seconds is not bad at all, I'd love to have only 15 seconds between the turns at the 20th century.

And the the original Rhye's of Civilization for CivIII was supposed to improve performance. Ironic.

In fact I didn't write "The fastest loading mod" in the underline this time :p

Ram's only a part of the answer. I have 3 GB, and it's still painfully slow after America spawns. Probably not as slow as most of you, but it is still slow. Funny thing is it used to be VERY fast for me pre-BTS. 5 seconds between turns in the 20th century fast. Now it's down to 15.

I still think BTS has a memory leak somewhere.


Yeah RFC is heavy, but most is BTS fault. It's still unexplainably slow despite haveing been optimised (it was even worse in the alpha builds)

Funny really. It's optimised, but slower. Maybe they should compare it to Warlords and see what went wrong.

Or make a patch to un-optimise it. >.>

(Clearly I don't know much about game development.)

Hey all,

Believe it or not, the next system I buy is being optimized just to play Rhye's mod with Civ III and Civ IV. Not saying that the mod is a resource hog, just that I want to make sure I can play it with the minimal amount of wait time possible.

I'm thinking of getting a new Dell with these specs:

Intel Core 2 3.33 Ghz
4GB ram
Win XP (due to Civ's issues with Vista)
512 MB Nvidia GeForce 8800
750 Gb Seagate 7200 RPM HD

Does anyone have anything similar to these specs and if so, please tell me that you're playing with almost no loading time between turns or at end game?

Theresa

Hey all,

Believe it or not, the next system I buy is being optimized just to play Rhye's mod with Civ III and Civ IV. Not saying that the mod is a resource hog, just that I want to make sure I can play it with the minimal amount of wait time possible.

I'm thinking of getting a new Dell with these specs:

Intel Core 2 3.33 Ghz
4GB ram
Win XP (due to Civ's issues with Vista)
512 MB Nvidia GeForce 8800
750 Gb Seagate 7200 RPM HD

Does anyone have anything similar to these specs and if so, please tell me that you're playing with almost no loading time between turns or at end game?

Theresa

I've got an AMD Athlon 2x64 5.2gig with 1 gig of ram, and a 256 MB Geforce 7600 and 300 gb HD. I have no trouble with loading time between turns till about 1950, then its prob. 20-30 seconds after that. Im getting another 2 gigs of ram soon, but I don't think it'll make too much difference. :)

Hi Theresa, I sincerely hope it will now run perfectly, since I am buying a new PC as well...

I should start asking PC vendors a 5% for each PC sold :mischief:

Hi Theresa, I sincerely hope it will now run perfectly, since I am buying a new PC as well...

I should start asking PC vendors a 5% for each PC sold :mischief:

The only thing I don't like about RFC is that its so dang slow in the industrial onwards.:mad:

If you did then I would expect you to create a new masterpiece of RFC. :p

RAM will fix some of the speed problems (as will lower graphics settings), but there is a certain point where you can't do anything hardware-wise. Getting 4 GB of RAM will not solve all the speed issues. This is purely a programming fault. Whether it is Rhye or Firaxis (BTS), I don't know, but upgrading your computer will only help to a certain extent. You cannot completely remove the lag with hardware.

Huh, I had always thought that XP capped out at 3gigs of ram supported. I'm kind of surprised to learn that no, this is in fact false, and it can handle up to 4 gigs.

Getting XP on a new machine is pretty silly though. You're paying for an outdated OS that you'll have to pay a fortune to upgrade from in a year or two when games start coming out optimized for Vista. I've personally had no problems with running Civ4 (or any other game... okay, Ur-Quan Masters was tough to get working...) in Vista Home Premium (32bit) on my lovely new Acer laptop,

The issues start when you get the 64bit version of Vista, which, since you aren't popping past 4gigs of ram, isn't necessary -- and even then, they're mostly easy to fix by jiggering around with compatibility modes.

I disagree on Vista. I don't think that's necessary at all, for now

Vista is a piece of crap to be honest, and it doesn't increase performance no matter what it says. I will only upgrade when it's absolutely necessary (ie when programs/games come out that don't support XP anymore). And even then, I might just use Linux (although I don't know how I will live without Photoshop... :( ).

Vista isn't going to be worth the money for a couple years. If you're getting a new computer, stick with XP. The only thing worse than getting Vista is getting a Mac. XD

I agree I have 2 comps with vertually identical stats (I got one for my GF) and I got the second one with Vista, and it is completely enferior to XP. For a start dispite being a better computer than the XP it wont play Black and White 2 while the other would, and I had to turn the graphics down to get CIV 4 to run properly the only advantage it seams to confere is that I will be able to put Halo2 on it ;)

Vista is a piece of crap to be honest, and it doesn't increase performance no matter what it says. I will only upgrade when it's absolutely necessary (ie when programs/games come out that don't support XP anymore).


Don't hold your breath waiting for that... I'd say it's a pretty bold statement when even Dell stops offering it on corporate models.

And even then, I might just use Linux (although I don't know how I will live without Photoshop... :( ).

I've heard good things about Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12). Apparently it rivals Photoshop in terms of features, but unlike GIMP it also has a similar interface to PS.

I'm planning to make the switch to Ubuntu when I start feeling XP is getting outdated.

I've heard good things about Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12). Apparently it rivals Photoshop in terms of features, but unlike GIMP it also has a similar interface to PS.

I'm planning to make the switch to Ubuntu when I start feeling XP is getting outdated.

Ubuntu! :D

It's awesome. And it runs Civ! (With a bit of work :))

Don't hold your breath waiting for that... I'd say it's a pretty bold statement when even Dell stops offering it on corporate models.That's true, but XP is going to become outdated sometime.

I've heard good things about Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12). Apparently it rivals Photoshop in terms of features, but unlike GIMP it also has a similar interface to PS.That's what people said about the GIMP as well, and it doesn't even compare to Photoshop in features. And its interface sucks. But then again what can you expect from free software?

Eh, Pixel's interface looks exactly the same as PS, and I highly doubt it rivals PS in features. But then again I don't really need all the features of PS, so something like that could cut it.

I'm planning to make the switch to Ubuntu when I start feeling XP is getting outdated.Haha same here! I'm not a big fan of Linux but it's better than wasting money on Vista, and best of all it's FREE! =]

The thing I don't like about pretty much all Linux distros is the look. Vista does look very nice, but Linux developers seem to scoff at Windows's and Mac's GUIs as "overdone" or "unnecessary" so I think the vast majority of themes are rather plain. Ubuntu's default one is horrible.

The thing I don't like about pretty much all Linux distros is the look. Vista does look very nice, but Linux developers seem to scoff at Windows's and Mac's GUIs as "overdone" or "unnecessary" so I think the vast majority of themes are rather plain. Ubuntu's default one is horrible.

But that's what's so good! Most distros are so insanely customizable that they don't have to rely on the default look. You can tweak it to suit you ^_^

I actually agree with Úmarth. Although I hate Macs with a passion, I'll have to admit that the interface looks really attractive, as does Vista's (although I think they kinda overdid it with Aero and stuff). But Linux's just looks terrible. KDE is alright but they are trying too hard to "stand out".

And by the way KDE 4.0 is a complete rip-off of Mac's GUI. >_<

I think inevitability everything is a rip off of Mac's GUI. Apple are insanely good at designing interfaces. Half the things in Vista are ripped off from concepts Apple started using years ago.

Thanks for everyone's replies. I'll get my system and post how it goes.

While it's true that performance can cap off at a certain point, I hope at least that my efforts pay off in terms of Civ and RFC. :)