Anyway to speed up time between turns?
- Thread starter Jeh64
- Start date
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
What is your map size? How many civs?
Are you 'showing enemy moves'?
Welcome to the Forums.
yes, this gets annoying even from middle game when I play a huge map. My computer is athlon 64 x2 3800, I got 4 gigs of mem installed with winxp 64...
is there a tweak to get more priority to the game ? there was some back ground services/programs setting somewhere, but I'm not sure which would be better.
is there a tweak to get more priority to the game ? there was some back ground services/programs setting somewhere, but I'm not sure which would be better.
There are some settings to adjust. Graphics, movies, hide moves, and reduce memory flag (disables alt-tab too).
I haven't noticed in BtS yet, but in previous versions there was definitely a memory leak that adds up as the session progresses. The only solution to that is a reboot.
I can get turns in <45sec usually, but the slow advisor screens get really annoying.
I haven't noticed in BtS yet, but in previous versions there was definitely a memory leak that adds up as the session progresses. The only solution to that is a reboot.
I can get turns in <45sec usually, but the slow advisor screens get really annoying.
Aristos
Lightseeker
did anyone try to disable the cache for XML and system files? I didn't yet, but I wonder if that is what makes my huge games faster whenever I resume a session after rebooting the computer...
I think I remember reading somewhere here in this forum that when you start the game, you have to press some keys to temporarily disable caching of XML na dmake turns faster, but I also see a line in CivilizationIV.ini about caching XML, and it is set to ZERO by default.
Maybe this is a partial solution.
As for the advisor popups, see my post about that.
I think I remember reading somewhere here in this forum that when you start the game, you have to press some keys to temporarily disable caching of XML na dmake turns faster, but I also see a line in CivilizationIV.ini about caching XML, and it is set to ZERO by default.
Maybe this is a partial solution.
As for the advisor popups, see my post about that.
Well it's partly related to what kind of computer you're running. I have an AMD X2 6000+ with 4 gig of RAM and an GeForce 8800GT and I don't have that much of a problem with long turn times. There's also some sort of memory leak in the game that makes the game start to lag even on my uber system. After a few hours I have to save the game, quit to desktop then reboot. Once I've done that it will play smoothly again for several more hours. One thing I've noticed is that the game will eat up alot of your RAM later on, so if you're lacking in that area it's going to be slow. Looking at my Task Manager after quitting to desktop, I've seen memory usage of over 1 gig, so it's a good idea to have at least 2 gig total for this game.
omnimutant
Warlord
Smaller Maps and Less AI Civs. I used to always Play Huge maps with tons of Civs, but surprisingly even Standard Maps are Big enough. Less Civ's and smaller maps make the game much more tolerable in the late game when things start to bog down a bit. Just kick the difficulty up a bit to compensate.
I usually play really big maps with lots of civs which im sure is the biggest problem, slow down between turns isn't a problem until i've played for a long time and get toward the end of the game.
I only have a gig of ram and a Radeon X850xt but like Willem said after a few hours of playing it starts to get really slow, but when I load up the game again it runs better.
I'll definitely try using smaller maps with less civs.
I only have a gig of ram and a Radeon X850xt but like Willem said after a few hours of playing it starts to get really slow, but when I load up the game again it runs better.
I'll definitely try using smaller maps with less civs.
Magma_Dragoon
Reploid
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,354
Open task manager, processes, Civ4beyondsword.exe, set priority, high
That will make your computer do Civ4 stuff before other things.
That will make your computer do Civ4 stuff before other things.
Hey Will. CoZe stated he has 4 gigs of ram, 64 x2 3800 processor and's hes one of the 4 memebers saying the same thing on this thread, which is only 1 in about 200 threads relating to slowness in BTS Ive seen this year. (each thread is like this where new members agree with OP without starting a new thread while the same few people counter act postin to say its near flawless for them.)
Notice these guys arn't even playin mods that pile on more calculations. MAtch that with an over-huge map and see what you get late game.
Im still readin these reports to see whats really needed when I buy bargin bin BtS. I can honestly say alot of individuals have said I gig of ram isn't good enough for huge maps. I know this true as do you.
Think of all the people who have the game and not come here to air their similar results, it Must be another 100 or so people!
Really a black cloud over a respected PC brandname for those who were used to 'real size' simulation strategy game
grommit5
Warlord
i don't mean to drag this out again. i know it's been talked about plenty but...
how long is too long to wait?
what are the expectations of the players on this forum?
i don't find the wait that long or unreasonable.
example of current game: BTS
terra, huge, marathon, current year 1907, turn 953 (i think), started with 15 civs, now 12 left.
advisor popups = on, sids tips = on, wait at end of turn = on
anti-aliasing set at 2 all other graphics set to high, resolution set 1680 x 1050.
i have been playing this game just short of two hours (1:50) since loading save file and timed the last 3 turns from the time i clicked on the little red dot until the first popup was waiting for my input.
wait time was 22 sec, 25 sec and 24 sec.
i don't consider that a long wait. are my expectations lower than others or am i just lucky.
system 2.66 dual core, 2 gig ram, 10,000 rpm hd, ati x1900 crossfire edition with 512mb (running single card, never got around to adding the second card)
running winXP sp 2.
just curious
should probably add running Wolfshanze's mod.
how long is too long to wait?
what are the expectations of the players on this forum?
i don't find the wait that long or unreasonable.
example of current game: BTS
terra, huge, marathon, current year 1907, turn 953 (i think), started with 15 civs, now 12 left.
advisor popups = on, sids tips = on, wait at end of turn = on
anti-aliasing set at 2 all other graphics set to high, resolution set 1680 x 1050.
i have been playing this game just short of two hours (1:50) since loading save file and timed the last 3 turns from the time i clicked on the little red dot until the first popup was waiting for my input.
wait time was 22 sec, 25 sec and 24 sec.
i don't consider that a long wait. are my expectations lower than others or am i just lucky.
system 2.66 dual core, 2 gig ram, 10,000 rpm hd, ati x1900 crossfire edition with 512mb (running single card, never got around to adding the second card)
running winXP sp 2.
just curious
should probably add running Wolfshanze's mod.
I have played CIV since the first inception right through the series as well as CTP.
I must say that the game has became less enjoyable with the longer wait time. I dont think it is reasonable for coders to expect the market to have uber machines in order to play the game. A persistant memory leak across 2 expansions is pathetic
Having said that I love the game but have begun to tire with the longer wait times. Wasnt such an issue with CIV3 or CTP certainly never an issue with earlier civs
If I dont buy Civ5 it will be because of this
I must say that the game has became less enjoyable with the longer wait time. I dont think it is reasonable for coders to expect the market to have uber machines in order to play the game. A persistant memory leak across 2 expansions is pathetic
Having said that I love the game but have begun to tire with the longer wait times. Wasnt such an issue with CIV3 or CTP certainly never an issue with earlier civs
If I dont buy Civ5 it will be because of this
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
It's pretty strange sometimes with the speed issue.
On my w2k 1800 Mhz 768M Ram machine, it blazes, even on the largest map sizes. In fact, I've increased the size of the largest map size, and it still blazes, all the way to future tech.
On my Vista 3000 Mhz 2 gigs Ram machine, it will slow to a crawl on a huge map by the modern era, provided there is alot of land and not too much ocean.
Mind you, on the w2k machine, before I play, I run a batch file that kills all non-essential services (eg print spooler and other printer services, antivirus, firewall, kills internet connection and all networking services, etc etc etc) and the only running processes are those necessary to run windows itself. On the Vista machine, I haven't yet figured out what's crucial and what's not, so all the background processes are still running when I play.
Your experience is clearly different than mine! I still remember waiting 38 mins (exactly) for my XT 8086 to go through the "first there was Void" (or something like that) screens from Civ 1 before I could play.
On my w2k 1800 Mhz 768M Ram machine, it blazes, even on the largest map sizes. In fact, I've increased the size of the largest map size, and it still blazes, all the way to future tech.
On my Vista 3000 Mhz 2 gigs Ram machine, it will slow to a crawl on a huge map by the modern era, provided there is alot of land and not too much ocean.
Mind you, on the w2k machine, before I play, I run a batch file that kills all non-essential services (eg print spooler and other printer services, antivirus, firewall, kills internet connection and all networking services, etc etc etc) and the only running processes are those necessary to run windows itself. On the Vista machine, I haven't yet figured out what's crucial and what's not, so all the background processes are still running when I play.
Your experience is clearly different than mine! I still remember waiting 38 mins (exactly) for my XT 8086 to go through the "first there was Void" (or something like that) screens from Civ 1 before I could play.
grommit5
Warlord
frekk, sorry about your 38 min wait time but if you were playing civ1 on an 8086 processor that was your problem. i also had an 8086 and i can't ever remember trying to pay civ1 on it. 8086 was old for even civ1 standards. i can't find my manual for civ1 but i did find the manual for civnet (civ1 multiplayer) and minimum requirements for it was 486 33mhz. recomended was 66mhz.
what i am looking for here is actual turn wait times for BTS. i constantly see this runs slow complaints and while i don't doubt it runs slow for some people i'd like to see some actaul measured wait times, not percieved time. perception does some wierd things to time. the old "a watched pot never boils" when actually it takes the same amount of time as an unwatched pot. the properties of boiling water don't change just because you are watching it. it just seems longer because you are watching/waiting for it.
please include system specs, map size, number of players and graphics setting so there is some sort of baseline to compare.
what i am looking for here is actual turn wait times for BTS. i constantly see this runs slow complaints and while i don't doubt it runs slow for some people i'd like to see some actaul measured wait times, not percieved time. perception does some wierd things to time. the old "a watched pot never boils" when actually it takes the same amount of time as an unwatched pot. the properties of boiling water don't change just because you are watching it. it just seems longer because you are watching/waiting for it.
please include system specs, map size, number of players and graphics setting so there is some sort of baseline to compare.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Yah yah ... i know ... it was nothing short of a miracle that it ran at all. I learned how to overclock just to run it. And it still took 38 mins to load, counting from the starting screens (may have been another 5 or 10 mins to get to the starting screens, can't remember).
But the point is that a 486/66 was the latest and greatest when Civ1 first came out. It was an expensive high-end machine and very few people - well ok, very few young people in their early 20s - had them. My XT was pretty much junk even then, but most people I knew at the time who were into PCs had a 386. I knew exactly one person with a 486, and it was a 486/33. At the time, it was unbelievably awesome - it could run anything. In fact, I was using that exact same machine myself in 1997 and it was still a satisfactory machine for the time, a little dated but serviceable. Overclocked it ran civ2 just fine. It even ran Age of Empires without a hitch.
Anyhow, in my experience, RAM and cpu speed have extremely little bearing on how fast Civ 4 turns go by. Like I said, it runs better on my 1800 Mhz cpu with 768 m ram than it does on my 3000 Mhz cpu with 2 g ram. Much, much faster (although admittedly on the older machine I'm running a much less bloated OS, processes are pared down to a minimum, and graphics settings are a bit lower).
I'm fairly certain we'd get wildly variable results even with this information. Some people will be running clean, with few processes in the background, and others will be running dozens of unnecessary processes. Some people's registry will be a tangled mess and others will be running from a freshly installed OS. Mhz has not been a reliable indicator of processing power for years. And so on ...
People with 4 gigs of ram on relatively new machines are reporting 10 min wait times ... that seems insane. I don't think I could make either of my less powerful machines take that long if I tried to replicate the problem. I'd really like to see what processes these people have running, more than what sort of machine they're using, I think.
GravityWave
Deposed Emperor
Agree with all the above. I always play Huge/Marathon/18 Civ games and I can never recall having a wait of more than 4-5 seconds-no matter how many hours I play. My system is an AMD Athlon64 3800, 1GB Ram, GeForce8600, with WinXP Pro - which certainly isn't technically the speediest now a days, but I have all the Windows "features" I don't need turned off.
I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum that Civ4 BTS isn't optimised to use multi-core processors, and the game will run slower on an Athlon 64 x2 6000 than on an Athlon 64 3800. I couldn't find the thread so I might be talking rubbish, but it might explain why some people with new PC are having performance issues if true?
grommit5
Warlord
i'm fairly sure we would get wide range of result also. i wasn't intending to fix or troubleshoot anyones problems with this. i just thought it would be interesting to see what type of actual measured delays were out there other that "it takes way too long' or "i don't see a problem". i asked for system and maps specs just for more data to look at. statements without data to back them up don't mean squat. as i said earlier, time is a funny thing. depending on the situation perceived time seems to pass at different rates when really its all the same.
the other thing i asked for is what are peoples expectations. while instantaneous probably isn't realistic, several minutes is probably too long.
but if nobody wants to play thats fine too...
the other thing i asked for is what are peoples expectations. while instantaneous probably isn't realistic, several minutes is probably too long.
but if nobody wants to play thats fine too...
Here is some data for you:
C2Duo E6750, 2GB RAM, Radeon 1950 pro 256MB - practically no delay on huge maps, 11-12 civs, marathon (usually more units). It takes more than a few seconds only if I'm at war and I have to see enemy units on the other half of the globe do their insane in and out of city movement. (I cannot bring myself to turn the option off as I tend to overlook the ones actually within sight otherwise.) This is all with 2xAA and maximum graphics, I haven't touched any of the options such as the INI tweak as there is no need.
When playing more intensive games, I normally shut down everything unnecessary, bringing the available RAM to around 1.7 GB on XP. For CIV, I leave the Kaspersky on - 1.5 GB seems enough for its needs.
Edit: One thing that hasn't been mentioned and could have a large impact is defragmenting HD, preferably with something better than the one that comes with Windows, but even that makes a huge difference if performed regularly.
C2Duo E6750, 2GB RAM, Radeon 1950 pro 256MB - practically no delay on huge maps, 11-12 civs, marathon (usually more units). It takes more than a few seconds only if I'm at war and I have to see enemy units on the other half of the globe do their insane in and out of city movement. (I cannot bring myself to turn the option off as I tend to overlook the ones actually within sight otherwise.) This is all with 2xAA and maximum graphics, I haven't touched any of the options such as the INI tweak as there is no need.
When playing more intensive games, I normally shut down everything unnecessary, bringing the available RAM to around 1.7 GB on XP. For CIV, I leave the Kaspersky on - 1.5 GB seems enough for its needs.
Edit: One thing that hasn't been mentioned and could have a large impact is defragmenting HD, preferably with something better than the one that comes with Windows, but even that makes a huge difference if performed regularly.
