Performance. Game is unplayable!

[Templer_12]

Panzer Command: Eastern Front is running on our system, although I have the options set almost the absolute minimum (among other things, we change our daily-used resolution of 1280 × 1024 down to 1024 x 768), mainly just single-digit FPS area! : Mad:
This even while the "basic view" to run in no Calculation or apparent actions of the program.

This is not to ask the question how can it be ...? -
We mean here is to complain that a game with such a safe and appropriate for the genre adequate graphical presentation, such unintelligible, such as the outrageous and totally unacceptable end performance!

But as already indicated in the Forum, the graphics (FPS) of Panzer Command: Eastern Front run on some of our computers very bad!

Well, so I have the demo yesterday of Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy downloaded and played.

I thus start the game, and megalomaniac as I am, all graphical settings we set to their maximum values.

When we see the loading screen, I remember that I have forgotten to set our common resolution of 1280 × 1024 down to 1024 x 768.

Boh ey!
Sure, the graphics are compared to Panzer Command: Eastern Front, we deliberately understate now, breathtaking!

Gets even better.
But now, despite the outrageously high optional setting to the graphic presentation - the game run almost completely fluid!

How does it work?

It must be in the programming of Panzer Command: Eastern Front brakes have been something evil programmed.
Panzer Command: Eastern Front, for me compared to Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy, in terms of frame rate, is unplayable!

I feel the graphics are not as fireworks but entirely appropriate.
But with the outrageous performance, with the unacceptable frame rate, Panzer Command: Eastern Front is unplayable for us!

We see it as proven that this can not be due to our system configuration!

Our system configuration:
Windows XP
Pentium IV 3 GHz with Hyper-Threading Technology
2.75 GB RAM
Video card: ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series 1024 MB
Kaspersky Internet Security 2011

Our system meets the minimum requirements.

Should I have to recommend one of the two systems, I have to give Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy the call.
The game "in progress" works!

My settings:

[Templer_12]

The FPS (5,696) scandal.
No action - no calculation- no gras - no fun although less low graphic setting:

[junk2drive]

I have XP SP3, single core CPU, less RAM, HD4200 integrated at 256mb, and the game runs fine with medium or smaller battles. Large or Ultra size battles with lots of trees are unplayable for me.

I have AA and AF at 0 and turn off shadows in the options panel.

Make sure your Kaspersky is not scanning the game while you are playing.

[Mad Russian]

I'm not sure why you're experiencing such a problem with the game play. Is that a multi-core processor?

There were at one time more than 15 people involved with the development and testing of PCO. All with different systems. Nobody had an issue anything like what you are reporting or this game wouldn't be for sale.

What we need to figure out is why you're having such a hard getting it to run.

Let's try the smallest battle in PCO. Try to run First of Many. It's a 1941 battle that's on the first page of the Set Battle selections.

Set your settings wherever you want to test them. Let's see what kind of actual data you're getting starting with the smallest scenario. Then maybe we can start to figure this out for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

[JMass]

Be sure that CPU is not stressed by other application, limit infantr, defrag your hd...

[Madpaddy]

Very odd i have CBMN and it runs like a lame dog,very unhappy with the performance,but PZCO runs great 40+ at all times even while calculating my turn.Im not a PZCO fanboy just find it odd that anyone can run CBMN fine and not this.

[erichswafford]

First of all - great game. Secondly - yes, it's quite the resource hog. As expected, it's 110% CPU-bound. No fancy GPU needed, but boy does it eat up CPU cycles.

On my laptop with an i5-460 and HD5650, the GPU tops out at 50% utilized (and that's with 4x super-sampling AA), but all 4 virtual cores of my CPU stay pegged in the 70-90% range (outstanding multi-threading there).

By contrast, CMBN is more GPU-bound if you start turning on eye-candy - although it is also CPU bound 90% of the time (especially at my low 1366x768 res). For CMBN, both my CPU and GPU are going all-out.

Overall, CMBN runs more fluidly - but the scenarios are also much smaller (perhaps inevitably, given the nature of bocage fighting - the venue does lend itself well to small actions).

The problem the OP has is his ancient CPU (P4 3.0Ghz). That CPU is a single-core with an early implementation of Hyperthreading (which doesn't help in games anyway). 6 FPS may be about right. I'm not sure why CMBN would run so well. It's also VERY hungry for CPU cycles, but the OP has a (relatively) strong GPU to go with a very old CPU. From that, I have to assume that his settings in CMBN are very high in terms of eye-candy, thereby providing some "running room" for his GPU. Ah, yes - now I see where he turned everything on to "high".

Bottom line - this game needs/wants a very fast CPU and a moderate-to-low GPU. As evidence of this, when I'm giving orders, I get about 30-60fps. But when the action starts, we're talking 20-28fps max.

I'm going to install it on my desktop with a 5.0Ghz i7-2600k. If that can't give me good FPS, there really is a serious issue (!).

[junk2drive]

I went from
AMD Duron 1.2 512 ram ATI Radeon 7000 64mb / playable but very slow
To a
AMD Sempron 2.7 single 2g ram ATI HD 4200 onboard 256 shared / very good except for large battles and or lots of trees / CMBN demo fair on medium settings
To a
AMD x2 250 3.0 dual core 4g tam nvidia 7025 onboard 512 shared / very slow mouse, low FPS, loads and calcs fast / CMBN demo good on high settings

So unless it has to do with the chipset or ATI vs nvidia, I have the opposite of what you are saying. CMBN is a single core program, PCO uses multicores.

[7thcav]

Core duo 2.8 overclocked to 3.0 operating system is XP with 2gigs of ram .Nvidia GTX275 896mb. AA,AF,grass and shadows off everything else on high( I have tried running at lower graphics quality settings but got very little improvement ). Resolution 1680x1050, FPS is 8-9 at high level 18-25 down on the deck.The game runs ok/playable with reasonable mouse speed...gets a little laggy at times BUT I have seen these results on other titles ( TOW for instance ) and suspect the issues are on my end. I ran virus and spyware scans as well as defraged my hard drive prior to installation of the game.

The biggest annoyance for me is scenario load times. Small maps such as "Lake at lessen" load fine in four and a half minutes. Medium size scenarios I am looking at 12-18 minutes A couple such as the "Biggest and Baddest" I have given up on with 50% load at 30 minutes average and that is a scenario I would really like to play. In all cases the vast majority of the time is spent "Loading data base" easily 95% of the load time going bye the load screen graph.

[junk2drive]

I am usually OCD about disk cleanup and defrag but totally forgot about doing that with this new box. I would have remembered this weekend but thanks for the reminder. We'll see if it makes a difference for me.