Caveman 2 Cosmos

[AIAndy]

Constant CTDs for me, no idea how you guys play this

Which version? If v26, do you have the patch installed?
Post the minidump if this happens with the patched v26.

 

[Koshling]

Constant CTDs for me, no idea how you guys play this

I'm well over turn 3000 in my current game with 0 crashes so far. Something odd is going on for you. Post minidump as previously requested, plus save game if it consistently crashes from a particular action repeatably (e.g. - end turn). Be sure to specify exact version you are using.

 

[strategyonly]

I'm well over turn 3000 in my current game with 0 crashes so far. Something odd is going on for you. Post minidump as previously requested, plus save game if it consistently crashes from a particular action repeatably (e.g. - end turn). Be sure to specify exact version you are using.

I just hit the 1400 turn and absolutely 0 crashes not even a hiccup Plus the best no "Black Terrain" what so ever YEAH

 

[Sgtslick]

I've been going pretty good in my current game, 1400 turns in but i've had at least 3 or 4 CTD's plus that no unit cycling bug a bunch of times (this is with gigantic map and high graphics tho, and I have been alt-tabbing for like 30 minutes+ sometimes).
This is my best run so far. Definately making progress guys I must say!

 

[12padams]

Just for the record I am just over 1000 turns and have been playing version 26 with patch 1 on a large map with 20 civs... I've never seen the game/mod crash but I do have a powerful rig (12 core processor @ 3.33ghtz, 12 gig ram, windows 7 pro 64 bit... And for that reason I don't need to use viewport at all and never have. Still turn speeds are getting a little slow with all these civs now that I am in the classical era and I am waiting aprox 3-8 seconds per turn which is quite a pain lol.

 

[Koshling]

Just for the record I am just over 1000 turns and have been playing version 26 with patch 1 on a large map with 20 civs... I've never seen the game/mod crash but I do have a powerful rig (12 core processor @ 3.33ghtz, 12 gig ram, windows 7 pro 64 bit... And for that reason I don't need to use viewport at all and never have. Still turn speeds are getting a little slow with all these civs now that I am in the classical era and I am waiting aprox 3-8 seconds per turn which is quite a pain lol.

lol. My turn times are about 30 seconds, I just keep something else to do like tab out to a browser during the AI turns. For me it's fine as long as it takes significantly longer (average) for m to play my turn than it does the AI to play its - only usually starts to bother me when it gets over a minute.

 

[strategyonly]

lol. My turn times are about 30 seconds, I just keep something else to do like tab out to a browser during the AI turns. For me it's fine as long as it takes significantly longer (average) for m to play my turn than it does the AI to play its - only usually starts to bother me when it gets over a minute.

Now that i completely and honestly agree with, anything over 1 minute, i wonder off . . .

 

[Thunderbrd]

RE: turn times:
Has anyone tried playing on multi-player with simultaneous turns set and only one player so its still effectively a 1 player game but with the ai taking its turns when you do?

 

[12padams]

RE: turn times:
Has anyone tried playing on multi-player with simultaneous turns set and only one player so its still effectively a 1 player game but with the ai taking its turns when you do?

No I haven't but... Wouldn't that mean everything lags while you take your turn?

I like to play with 20 civs and my computer can handle that pretty well. When turns start taking more than 8 seconds I get really annoyed and impatient. I find it good motivation to destroy other civs as quickly as possible at this point to make the ai turns shorter so fighting against other cities to me is like fighting against the lag to make the game playable otherwise... I get defeated by lag lol.

 

[strategyonly]

No I haven't but... Wouldn't that mean everything lags while you take your turn?

I like to play with 20 civs and my computer can handle that pretty well. When turns start taking more than 8 seconds I get really annoyed and impatient. I find it good motivation to destroy other civs as quickly as possible at this point to make the ai turns shorter so fighting against other cities to me is like fighting against the lag to make the game playable otherwise... I get defeated by lag lol.

ahaha sounds like you have a corporate job

 

[ls612]

ahaha sounds like you have a corporate job

Those times sound like what I get on my laptop, and I by no means have a corporate job. And, modern hardware will significantly benefit from multi-threading, so I expect turn times to continue to go down.

 

[12padams]

ahaha sounds like you have a corporate job

Lol actually if you must know I am a full time childcare educator. I really wanna make an in depth lets play of this mod but I don't have enough time due to my 9 hours per day of work. Weekends are not much better because I babysit my 3 year old sister for 8 hours per day... I don't get paid but in 2010 I got that awesome computer for free due to all the babysitting lol

Those times sound like what I get on my laptop, and I by no means have a corporate job. And, modern hardware will significantly benefit from multi-threading, so I expect turn times to continue to go down.

So will this mod be multithreaded soon? I'm guessing its using only one of the 12 cores in my processor right now... Imagine when it uses all 12! Then I can do a lag free lets play... Or edit out the "waiting for ai" bits.

You've already got someone doing a v26 "lets play" (they don't like to call it that) right now though so I should wait for v27 or v28 before I even think about it Lol. Problem is that the lp will go on for months because I am one of those people who play on snail and don't like to edit out anything (apart from loading screens) in let's plays. Also I play extremely slowly when I first start and micro manage like crazy until I get my second city.

 

[ls612]

<snip>
So will this mod be multithreaded soon? I'm guessing its using only one of the 12 cores in my processor right now... Imagine when it uses all 12! Then I can do a lag free lets play... Or edit out the "waiting for ai" bits.

You've already got someone doing a v26 "lets play" (they don't like to call it that) right now though so I should wait for v27 or v28 before I even think about it Lol. Problem is that the lp will go on for months because I am one of those people who play on snail and don't like to edit out anything (apart from loading screens) in let's plays. Also I play extremely slowly when I first start and micro manage like crazy until I get my second city.

At least the parts of the DLL that we can multithread safely will be multi-threaded. Koshling says that that could be quite a bit, but anyway the parts we have multi-threaded so far only use 4 cores.

 

[AIAndy]

At least the parts of the DLL that we can multithread safely will be multi-threaded. Koshling says that that could be quite a bit, but anyway the parts we have multi-threaded so far only use 4 cores.

Well, it is just a matter of changing a number before compilation and it would be 12.

 

[ls612]

Well, it is just a matter of changing a number before compilation and it would be 12.

If we set it at a large number (he as 12 cores, I have 8) will those with fewer cores be able to only use 2 cores?

 

[God-Emperor]

Or, theoretically at least, you could dynamically detect the number available and use up to a matching number of threads. Then the fancy shmancy 12 core systems would use 12 (for things that could use that many - the spawning presumably could), while us peons with only 2 would use 2. Those with only 1 would be fresh out of luck, running it on their computer made with stone knives and bearskins.

 

[ls612]

Or, theoretically at least, you could dynamically detect the number available and use up to a matching number of threads. Then the fancy shmancy 12 core systems would use 12 (for things that could use that many - the spawning presumably could), while us peons with only 2 would use 2. Those with only 1 would be fresh out of luck, running it on their computer made with stone knives and bearskins.

Would it be possible to make it a BUG option? That would be ideal from a functional perspective, but I'm a noob to parallel programming, so I don't know if that's doable.

 

[12padams]

Would it be possible to make it a BUG option? That would be ideal from a functional perspective, but I'm a noob to parallel programming, so I don't know if that's doable.

That would be idea but if the program was unable to switch core usage while running we would have to use another method such as the one below:

The main shortcut to launch the game could be a 2-core one. There could be other shortcuts in the game directory for those with different amounts of cores. For example 4 cores, 6 cores, 8 cores, 12 cores, 24 cores ect...

Either that or there could be a settings application or file with the core number in it...

At least the parts of the DLL that we can multithread safely will be multi-threaded. Koshling says that that could be quite a bit, but anyway the parts we have multi-threaded so far only use 4 cores.

So is that 4 cores multithreading working in v26 right now? or is that the SVN you are referring to?

 

[AIAndy]

Or, theoretically at least, you could dynamically detect the number available and use up to a matching number of threads. Then the fancy shmancy 12 core systems would use 12 (for things that could use that many - the spawning presumably could), while us peons with only 2 would use 2. Those with only 1 would be fresh out of luck, running it on their computer made with stone knives and bearskins.

Currently it is a #define which allows me to make some arrays fixed length at compile time instead of allocating them dynamically.

@ls612: If you have 2 cores you can still use 12 threads, but it is not quite as efficient.

@12padams: It is in the SVN version and only two specific parts are multi-threaded.

 

[strategyonly]

Koshling says that that could be quite a bit, but anyway the parts we have multi-threaded so far only use 4 cores.

From what i am reading lately is that the majority of the cores presently out there (new PC's) are 4 core.
Only the VERY extreme overclocked have 6 core, and you really have to pay for it also