Your game was so messed up post-patch, that instead of the Babylonians, you had the VIKINGS? They don't even exist in ciV at all!
Ahahahaha, ok it is the Danish guys who dress up like Vikings
Still, isn't it silly?
How could they mess up this? lolol
14th of June Patchnotes
- Thread starter Gomer_Pyle
- Start date
Ahahahaha, ok it is the Danish guys who dress up like Vikings
Still, isn't it silly?
How could they mess up this? lolol
Mozzington
Prince
It seems to be their speciality.
I had this problem. Reported it to 2K Greg during the beta with zero response, and it was still there when the production patch arrived.
I've fixed it, thanks to inspired advice from Gyathaar. I edited the cofig.ini file in MyGames\Civ5. Changed one line to:
EnableGameCoreThreading = 0
My problem was that I run the Windows version in a Parallels WinXP virtual machine on my Mac, and I only gave Windows a single core to play with. Apparently, the min specs for this version require Dual Core?
[PS] Gyathaar credits dshirk's post #224 above for this solution.
The Mad Russian
Armchair Dictator
I guess I'm too much of a hardcore communist but that's another story for another thread at another time on a much later date
-Mark
JaGarLo
Settler
Unfortunely, I'm running the same ''extreme lag'' problem. Some of you said that putting EnableGameCoreThreading = 0 would fix the problem. But I wonder, what does this setting do exactly (apart from fixing the lag)?
Mozzington
Prince
Didn't work for me anyway.
Have fun with puppeted cities, or should I say puppeted capitals. I made the mistake of capturing a capital first and had to wait like 14 turns with -15 happiness, in order to build a courthouse. This was after resistance ended and I thought it would make a decent puppet city. Yeah right! Not unless you want loads of unhappiness. I am going to go back down a level, until I get the hang of this reworked happiness system. Thank god for good bugs, until they delete them, after you have been used to playing with them for months. Also, if you go to war, you better have an army of settlers ready.
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
It lets people with Quad cores (and above) have better threading.
JaGarLo
Settler
Err, what do you mean by ''threading''? (Sorry, English is not my first language...)
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
it's technical stuff that if you don't know what it is, you likely don't want to hear a long explanation of it.
simply: It's a way to let the game split up the program to use more than one CPU core at a time. It really speeds things up when you use many cores (if done right).
A program can start another program running, for example to calculate the decisions for an AI civ. Each program is referred to as a "thread". On a single core CPU, the two threads take it in turns to use the CPU. If the PC has multiple CPU cores, then a second thread can run on another core, and the result is that the two programs run at the same time instead of one after another.
[Sorry, X-posted]
[Sorry, X-posted]
JaGarLo
Settler
Ah, OK. But, do you know if a laptop has one or multiple cores, or something? (Yes, I play Civ5 on a laptop)
P.D.: 201st post!
P.D.: 201st post!
It means your processor will run more effienctely, using its full capability. Your processor will multitask, seemingly simultaneously switching from thread to thread or process to process. Almost as if this is done at the same time. This adds up to your game running on four legs (4 cores) instead of hopping along on one leg. If the analogy fits.
Ah, OK. But, do you know if a laptop has one or multiple cores, or something? (Yes, I play Civ5 on a laptop)
P.D.: 201st post!
Depends on the CPU in the laptop. Most modern desktops and laptops have at least CoreDuo or Core2Duo CPUs. The 'Duo' means they have two cores. It's unlikely that you are playing Civ5 successfully on an older, single core laptop, but tell us what it is and I'm sure someone will advise you.
"If done right" is the operative word. Not many commercial programs, including games, have really taken advantage of multi-CPU threading. Part of the problem lies in the drivers for the CPU itself, where it has to manage the timing of what goes where and when. Sometimes it does trip over itself. Plus, I think there is an issue of backwards compatability where the same program can run regardless how many cores you have, whether single CPU (?) up to 8 CPUs. There it really becomes dependent on the CPU traffic cop to split the load and bring it back together.
And to continue the metaphor: As long as you have multiple legs running in unison, things will work great, and you'll get a lot more power than you would from just one leg. But if one of your multiple legs lags a long ways behind another, everything gets tripped up horribly.
That's what was happening, at least for me. E.g., I would click on a unit, which one thread apparently took note of. A different thread was apparently supposed to get the message that that unit had been clicked on, and make a noise and switch the highlight circle to this unit to show that it had been clicked on. But, for some reason, this second thread was lagging way behind, so this notification wouldn't happen unless you wait a really long time (like 10 secs). Interestingly though, you could hit M to initiate a move sooner, and it *would* display movement paths from the new unit you had clicked on, rather than from the old unit that still had the highlight circle around it. So apparently the movement paths are displayed via a separate thread from the one that updates the highlight circles in the UI -- perhaps the same thread that took note of my initial click, or perhaps a third thread.
Anyway, I think their theory was to separate a lot of the AI and core mechanics of the game into one thread, separate from another thread that took care of displaying things on the screen. In theory, this allows the user more flexibility to navigate the map between turns using the second graphical thread, even while the first AI thread churns ahead full speed. But, in practice, there are apparently some glitches in the graphical thread that end up making it fall far behind the thread(s) that process more of the functional mechanics of the game, which ended up making the user interface unbearably sluggish, at least for some of us.
As far as I can tell (having tried only a few turns with the multi-threading disabled) you don't lose much in the way of functionality by disabling it, and the speed and smoothness increases are well worth it.
That's what was happening, at least for me. E.g., I would click on a unit, which one thread apparently took note of. A different thread was apparently supposed to get the message that that unit had been clicked on, and make a noise and switch the highlight circle to this unit to show that it had been clicked on. But, for some reason, this second thread was lagging way behind, so this notification wouldn't happen unless you wait a really long time (like 10 secs). Interestingly though, you could hit M to initiate a move sooner, and it *would* display movement paths from the new unit you had clicked on, rather than from the old unit that still had the highlight circle around it. So apparently the movement paths are displayed via a separate thread from the one that updates the highlight circles in the UI -- perhaps the same thread that took note of my initial click, or perhaps a third thread.
Anyway, I think their theory was to separate a lot of the AI and core mechanics of the game into one thread, separate from another thread that took care of displaying things on the screen. In theory, this allows the user more flexibility to navigate the map between turns using the second graphical thread, even while the first AI thread churns ahead full speed. But, in practice, there are apparently some glitches in the graphical thread that end up making it fall far behind the thread(s) that process more of the functional mechanics of the game, which ended up making the user interface unbearably sluggish, at least for some of us.
As far as I can tell (having tried only a few turns with the multi-threading disabled) you don't lose much in the way of functionality by disabling it, and the speed and smoothness increases are well worth it.
I can also confirm that the change above from 1 to 0 stopped the lag, and retuned things to many things to normal. I still feel the between turns is taking awhile, but the city menu issues I had seem to be resolved.
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
Finally installed the patch. No real problems so far, but I have noticed the following:
- The 'loading' screen which replaces the intro video is onscreen for a lot longer than the video.
- When units die, instead of the death animation, they just disappear.
- The 'loading' screen which replaces the intro video is onscreen for a lot longer than the video.
- When units die, instead of the death animation, they just disappear.
helpless_writer
Warlord
... Can anyone tell me why after enabling mods and hitting next the game doesn't start? When I went to single player the mods didn't load.
Never-mind, just had to hit single player... had a special moment.
Never-mind, just had to hit single player... had a special moment.
Similar threads
