"Civ 4 Sucks!" A vain attepmt to address the many complaints.

[hclass]

So the smaller maps are due to taking consumers with ower cards (i.e. with less V-RAM) into account?

I'm not clear on how monitor frame-rate affects map size?

It is just an example, which is practically irrelevent, in fact it is a bad example quoted. Because Civ4 is not an action game which requires huge number of frames per cycle. For Civ4, it is not the rate of display that is matter, but the amount of details...
Still whatever title you can give to the display engine, a 3D, 4D or what so ever, if Civ4 programmer make it capable of handling huge map, they should have no problem with smaller one ... this is simple understanding/logic and can't be distorted with technical hardware terms or an irrelevent example.

 

[warpstorm]

It is just an example, which is practically irrelevent, in fact it is a bad example quoted. Because Civ4 is not an action game which requires huge number of frames per cycle. For Civ4, it is not the rate of display that is matter, but the amount of details...

It is if it drops below about 15 fps. At that rate you will feel like the mouse is not quite responding to your commands.

 

[hclass]

It is if it drops below about 15 fps. At that rate you will feel like the mouse is not quite responding to your commands.

Yes of course if it is below that rate whatever map size will have problem.
Ha, ha, but that is the lower bound, I remember we were talking about upper bound, in a way if your monitor is not too lousy (with reasonable frame rate function available), agaim my argument stands: If Civ4 can handle huge map nicely then it can handle smaller map even better!

 

[warpstorm]

My monitor is very nice (big and crisp), but it is a flat panel LCD and as such has a fairly low cap on refresh rates. Once the game can hit that cap, any speed up in display is lost.