Old world a success?
- Thread starter rlw33
- Start date
Sherlock
Just one more turn...
Don't think we'll know until it's been off Epic exclusive for two or three months.
rlw33
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 197
Yeah. I figured it was a long shot, but my curiosity got the better of me.
nolegskitten
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 208
Old World has been in the top 5 of EG sales in the past few weeks. I don't have any numbers tho.
rlw33
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 197
That's good to hear. Hopefully it's a massive success and we get some expansions.
Sherlock
Just one more turn...
Are people still experiencing slow downs in the last half of the game?
nolegskitten
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 208
the game performances and specially the MP matching issues have seen considerable progress in the last patch (the game is still patched weekly). There is a lot more in the work on the performance side of things. Some of it takes longer to implement. We've seen reasonable improvement in perf overall, although depending on the setup/hardware some people report game changing improvement. I'm sure we'll see a lot more in the coming weeks tho.
The game will probably always run slower when there are 1000 units, a huge map, super developed AIs and nations, so late game will still be slower than early game, but the performance are improving markedly. I guess It might depend on your expectation too. I've played the game a lot with a quite old CPU and a ti 1660 and found that comfortable at 1440x2560, but I never expect super smooth scrolling in late game and don't care too much so long as I can play the game and it looks pretty. Some people are ready to kill if the FPS counter drops to 59, so YMMV.
What can be said for sure is that perfs are being worked on, that they are already improving week by week, and that there are enough margins for optimization that they will continue improving week by week for some time, perhaps dramatically.
The game will probably always run slower when there are 1000 units, a huge map, super developed AIs and nations, so late game will still be slower than early game, but the performance are improving markedly. I guess It might depend on your expectation too. I've played the game a lot with a quite old CPU and a ti 1660 and found that comfortable at 1440x2560, but I never expect super smooth scrolling in late game and don't care too much so long as I can play the game and it looks pretty. Some people are ready to kill if the FPS counter drops to 59, so YMMV.
What can be said for sure is that perfs are being worked on, that they are already improving week by week, and that there are enough margins for optimization that they will continue improving week by week for some time, perhaps dramatically.
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,848
This thing of fps is a bit crazy really. Physically, the brain can only process an image stream from the eye up to 75-140 fps (depending on the eye, optic nerve and brain). Higher than that rate the brain cannot compute frame by frame changes. It might be able to pick up tiny changes in the stream, but not large chunks of the image changing. Anything above 24 fps the brain sees as a constant stream, and less than that has a visible flicker. However, the brain is also smart enough to fill in the flicker to make it appear a continuous stream.
Then you compound that by bringing in your monitor refresh rate. In general, most monitors these days are 60 Hz, that is 60 frames per second refresh. Having fps higher than your monitor refresh risks image tearing, that is where the GPU is changing the frame multiple times per monitor refresh. Having 200 fps is pointless on a 60 Hz monitor, in fact you'll find you get lots of image tearing as a result.
So the bottom line is, you want fps to be at or slightly higher than monitor refresh. So on your standard 60 Hz monitor 65 fps is perfect. In high action fast movement situations like competitive FPS you want both high fps and high refresh rate. It makes for a much smoother and more responsive experience. But in strategy titles where this type of response isn't necessary, anything between 30-60 is adequate. Perfect is just over 60 fps. Anything under 30 fps will visually stutter though.
Then you compound that by bringing in your monitor refresh rate. In general, most monitors these days are 60 Hz, that is 60 frames per second refresh. Having fps higher than your monitor refresh risks image tearing, that is where the GPU is changing the frame multiple times per monitor refresh. Having 200 fps is pointless on a 60 Hz monitor, in fact you'll find you get lots of image tearing as a result.
So the bottom line is, you want fps to be at or slightly higher than monitor refresh. So on your standard 60 Hz monitor 65 fps is perfect. In high action fast movement situations like competitive FPS you want both high fps and high refresh rate. It makes for a much smoother and more responsive experience. But in strategy titles where this type of response isn't necessary, anything between 30-60 is adequate. Perfect is just over 60 fps. Anything under 30 fps will visually stutter though.
uhu
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2018
- Messages
- 157
Warning. You may find my opinion extreme. For this type of game the frame rate is irrelevant on a modern screen. I propose to settle on a really BIG display @ 30Hz with 4k resolution (ultraHD 3840x2160) over the cheap HDMI 1.4 interface (e.g. DeLOCK High Speed HDMI Cabel, 1.8m, 28 AWG, Data transfer rate up to 10.2Gb/s for about 6-9€). 4k-TVs are inexpensive compared to computer monitors. I can testify to the immersion. It feels so much better to play.
Compared to a 16:9 computer monitor (eg. 27'' in FullHD, 1920x1080) and its bigger variants (16:10, 21:9) provides an appropriate TV with same pixel size (eg. 55'' in 4k-ultraHD, 3840x2160) much more space: "32:18".
Same pixel size means: the picture details look the same in absolute size from the same (armlength!) distance, but the whole screen shows the fourfold area.
Compared to a 16:9 computer monitor (eg. 27'' in FullHD, 1920x1080) and its bigger variants (16:10, 21:9) provides an appropriate TV with same pixel size (eg. 55'' in 4k-ultraHD, 3840x2160) much more space: "32:18".
Same pixel size means: the picture details look the same in absolute size from the same (armlength!) distance, but the whole screen shows the fourfold area.
Similar threads
