Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

This version is horrible.


Recommended Posts

Let's start:
You erased all my Naval Academy progress.  This issue has been brought up before.  I am aware of your excuses.

Fix it. 

Of 57 scenarios, about a dozen were fun.  The very least you could do was save the data that says the player won the scenarios and allow the player access to all the scenarios.

My version is horribly slow.  This was never a problem before.  I ran this game on it's top settings, the most "resource intense" settings before, no issues. I ran this game with two big fleets at 30xspeed, no issues. 

Guess what?  I'm not buying a new laptop because you changed the game.  My laptop is only 9 months old.

AND

I'm pretty sure my equipment is not at issue.

I have tried to "throttle down" my graphics.  The settings page ignores my input.  I get an opening screen that goes off the edges of my monitor on all axis's.  I have to use ctrl-alt-delete to get out of the game. I can't design a ship because I can't select a hull, or any towers, or any funnels, etc. I can't scroll down that far.

There may be more issues, but I can't design a ship.  

As it sits now, I have an unusable program.  

Oh

I've never heard of a way to save scenarios in the middle, or at all.  I can't even save the very end of a scenario so I can get an after-action report.

This is a fail.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Speglord said:

Could you post your specs? It may help if one can compare them to the minimum/recommended specs provided on the Steam page.

He literally said: 

 

9 hours ago, Hardlec said:

My version is horribly slow.  This was never a problem before.  I ran this game on it's top settings, the most "resource intense" settings before, no issues. I ran this game with two big fleets at 30xspeed, no issues. 

So his spec are more than good enough. Also the game has system requirements that are more than needed.

MINIMUM
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz, AMD Phenom II X4 940
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660, AMD Radeon HD 7870
RAM: 4 GB
Storage: 6 GB
OS: 64-bit Windows 7

DirectX: Version 11 

 

RECOMMENDED
CPU: Intel Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz, AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060, AMD Radeon RX 580
RAM: 8 GB
Storage: 8 GB
OS: 64-bit Windows 10

DirectX: Version 11

 

Hardlec, try installing MSI Afterburner and run RTSS to look at usages while you're playing. Along with that run HWINFO while playing to register and monitor your other necessary info just in case. HWINFO and MSI AB can both run independently with their default settings. Nothing will happen as long as you do not turn on gpu voltage monitoring in msi ab for no no reason since hwinfo will do that for you while you look at rtss in game. Also make sure to monitor your ram and other memory usages as I think this game is full of memory leaks.

If you notice gpu mem and ram maxed, lower all details from ultra to high and keep textures at max, and lock frames to 60 (for a start) and disable antialiasing and turn on vsync.

If there are still slowness lock frames to 30. If there are still problem lower textures to medium. If there are still problems it's probably a new memory leak.

Also gpu usage itself will never go down in this game regardless of how low you set settings. And locking your framerate and using vsync at the same will make it more smooth and stable and increase the lifespan of your gpu. 

Ideally you should use the settings I mentioned, turn on vsync and lock framerate to 30. This will lessen some of the load on the cpu and free up at least some ram.

Edited by Elrerune The Honorbound
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely agree the game is poorly optimized. It would push my GPU (on medium settings) to 70C+ when Elite Dangerous running on ultra settings would barely get into the 60s. Locking framerate definitely helps. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:

He literally said: 

 

So his spec are more than good enough. Also the game has system requirements that are more than needed.

MINIMUM
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz, AMD Phenom II X4 940
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660, AMD Radeon HD 7870
RAM: 4 GB
Storage: 6 GB
OS: 64-bit Windows 7

DirectX: Version 11 

 

RECOMMENDED
CPU: Intel Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz, AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060, AMD Radeon RX 580
RAM: 8 GB
Storage: 8 GB
OS: 64-bit Windows 10

DirectX: Version 11

 

Hardlec, try installing MSI Afterburner and run RTSS to look at usages while you're playing. Along with that run HWINFO while playing to register and monitor your other necessary info just in case. HWINFO and MSI AB can both run independently with their default settings. Nothing will happen as long as you do not turn on gpu voltage monitoring in msi ab for no no reason since hwinfo will do that for you while you look at rtss in game. Also make sure to monitor your ram and other memory usages as I think this game is full of memory leaks.

If you notice gpu mem and ram maxed, lower all details from ultra to high and keep textures at max, and lock frames to 60 (for a start) and disable antialiasing and turn on vsync.

If there are still slowness lock frames to 30. If there are still problem lower textures to medium. If there are still problems it's probably a new memory leak.

Also gpu usage itself will never go down in this game regardless of how low you set settings. And locking your framerate and using vsync at the same will make it more smooth and stable and increase the lifespan of your gpu. 

Ideally you should use the settings I mentioned, turn on vsync and lock framerate to 30. This will lessen some of the load on the cpu and free up at least some ram.

I am not running Steam.  I am not a big fan of Steam, as they tend to sell my information.  

I can't reduce or minimize any of my screens, so I have no clue as to what stresses are on my resources.  I am only offered one screen size.  (I am curious as to why this seems to be referred to as "resolution."  Resolution is usually expressed as pixels per square inch or pixels per square centimeters.)  

I am unfamiliar with the other acronyms you mentioned. If they relate to apps, I'll try them out, but I need to know where I can find them. (Sorry, but I trust both Google and Bing to direct me to the site that pays most for advertising, not to what I am looking for.)

I am on the wrong end of an overstressed Internet Service Provider.  I've noticed things like my "double posting" or posting drafts.  This causes me to be very careful with downloads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:

He literally said: 

 

So his spec are more than good enough. Also the game has system requirements that are more than needed.

 

Yes, I know how to read. Yet I still think it could prove useful in trying to figure out the issue here. And if his specs do exceed minimum or even recommended specs, then I think they should be updated by GameLabs, particularly if others are encountering similar issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many others report this?  There aren't  many people on this forum.
How many have just walked away?

The graphics of this Game have outweighed it's playability for the last 3 revisions.

NO CONTEXT.  As the leader of a multi-division fleet, I have no view that shows all my ships relative to each other.  I should also be able to locate "enemy" ships I can see or detect on RDF/RADAR.  I have very scant way to use any tactics.  Remember those scenes on "Sink the Bismarck"  where Convoys were plotted on a map that showed the entire GIUK part of the North Sea. Yes, I want a 500 knot diameter map. 

You can tell me how many 2-inch shells hit the captain's latrine.  You should be able to report to me which direction a visible enemy is going.

WEAK AI.  I should be able to "command" subordinate ships and divisions with a lot mre flexibility than "AI will seek to avoid action."  (And, when the computer-opponant avoids contact to time-out the scenario, this is a Loss for the computer.

These things would make the game much more playable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hardlec said:

I am not running Steam.  I am not a big fan of Steam, as they tend to sell my information.  

I can't reduce or minimize any of my screens, so I have no clue as to what stresses are on my resources.  I am only offered one screen size.  (I am curious as to why this seems to be referred to as "resolution."  Resolution is usually expressed as pixels per square inch or pixels per square centimeters.)  

I am unfamiliar with the other acronyms you mentioned. If they relate to apps, I'll try them out, but I need to know where I can find them. (Sorry, but I trust both Google and Bing to direct me to the site that pays most for advertising, not to what I am looking for.)

I am on the wrong end of an overstressed Internet Service Provider.  I've noticed things like my "double posting" or posting drafts.  This causes me to be very careful with downloads.

Here you go. This is an excellent tutorial how to set up and use MSI Afterburner In-Game.

Here is the setup to the latest version

And here is the Professional and Free Hardware monitoring software. (HWiNFO is also used by LinusTechTips and JayzTwoCents)

You can just download and use the portable version from the official link.

As for the graphics settings I mentioned, you can find them in game (ver 0.5).

Enjoy and tell us how it went.

Edited by Elrerune The Honorbound
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hardlec said:

NO CONTEXT.  As the leader of a multi-division fleet, I have no view that shows all my ships relative to each other.  I should also be able to locate "enemy" ships I can see or detect on RDF/RADAR.  I have very scant way to use any tactics.  Remember those scenes on "Sink the Bismarck"  where Convoys were plotted on a map that showed the entire GIUK part of the North Sea. Yes, I want a 500 knot diameter map.

Oh, this part is actually very realistic, at least for the WWI and before era that everyone wants this game to put more emphasis on.

Quote

 

For example, in 1914 Admiral Jellicoe realised that the key to handling a vast fleet was to maintain a tactical plot, so that he could see what was happening even beyond the limit of visibility. That was a very modern step, analogous to the sort of tactical pictures now common in naval and other warfare. Jellicoe seems not to have tested this idea in any way prior to Jutland. He did not realise that he now depended on his deployed ships to provide his tactical picture, so relative navigation was critical (the British solved this problem after Jutland). Nor did he realise that it was necessary to maintain a fixed schedule of radio reporting, both to ensure that he did receive reports and to ensure against gross interference. The latter problem kept cropping up even much later; for example it bedevilled US fleet air defence in the 1950s. Even so, Jellicoe’s plot gave him a dramatic advantage compared to his adversary Admiral Scheer; it enabled him to keep capping the German line. The sense of confusion and surprise on board the German flagship almost certainly convinced Scheer that it would be suicidal to fight the Grand Fleet again. Apparently it had never occurred to Scheer that he would be unable to visualise the battle situation from his flagship; he had no plot of the situation (and the Germans never adopted that technique). No other navy had adopted tactical plotting, although several US naval officers at the Naval War College pointed out the need for it in 1914 (the US Navy adopted the method only after seeing it on board British ships in 1917)


 

Friedman, Norman. Naval Weapons of World War One: Guns, Torpedoes, Mines and ASW Weapons of All Nations (An Illustrated Directory) (p. 17). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have that plot.

Jellico could stand pn the bridge and get a concept of where things were.  I can't do this on a 15 inch screen in 2 dimensions.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hardlec said:

We should have that plot.

Jellico could stand pn the bridge and get a concept of where things were.  I can't do this on a 15 inch screen in 2 dimensions.

 

If you think of the 2D map as being an abstraction for the flag plot, signallers and subordinates relaying information, I think on the balance it’s good to have. The players have aids that real officers didn’t have because all of the other information available can’t be experienced through the PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

A reminder, Nick clearly stated that any kind of map mode is not intended. Unless they change their mind... which would be for better honestly.

A large mistake for sure. Sadly

Edited by Jatzi
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, massive mistake Nick. I think you need to change your mind on this "no map" crap. You're losing customers at a massive rate. It's one thing to stick to "grognard" stuff, but to actively work against something most of the players want? That's not the way to sell a game, and I want this thing to sell, because on the WHOLE it's a decent game with some minor hiccups.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HailCOBRALA said:

You're losing customers at a massive rate

Mind if I ask how you know this?  Just curious.

As to the flag plot, keep in mind that Jellicoe's information on the battle was almost completely out of synch with what was actually happening in real-time.  Mis-IDed ships, mis-IDed sides, wrong location of spotters, wrong location of targets, very slow updates, gaps in information, etc.  This led to Jellicoe making several decisions that we look at with hindsight as not optimal.

Having an accurate and up to date 2D map off the battle is a huge realism breaker beyond the control we have now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wood said:

Mind if I ask how you know this?  Just curious.

As to the flag plot, keep in mind that Jellicoe's information on the battle was almost completely out of synch with what was actually happening in real-time.  Mis-IDed ships, mis-IDed sides, wrong location of spotters, wrong location of targets, very slow updates, gaps in information, etc.  This led to Jellicoe making several decisions that we look at with hindsight as not optimal.

Having an accurate and up to date 2D map off the battle is a huge realism breaker beyond the control we have now.  

Valid points on Jellicoe and indeed most of the 20th century.

As for realism, it's just as big a realism breaker to be able to see and order ships outside your flagship to the degree we can too. At some point we have to accept it is a game. Some things need to be done make the game easier to manage for humans. The challenge should not be the interface, it should be the gameplay. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wood said:

Mind if I ask how you know this?  Just curious.

As to the flag plot, keep in mind that Jellicoe's information on the battle was almost completely out of synch with what was actually happening in real-time.  Mis-IDed ships, mis-IDed sides, wrong location of spotters, wrong location of targets, very slow updates, gaps in information, etc.  This led to Jellicoe making several decisions that we look at with hindsight as not optimal.

Having an accurate and up to date 2D map off the battle is a huge realism breaker beyond the control we have now.  

Valid. I doubt that strict realism and fog-of-war is the devs' motivation for leaving out a 2D map - but it's a fair point. However, I would add that this game does often misidentify ships when first spotted. It's a completely useless mechanic when one can simply zoom in on a ship marked 'DD??' and see it's a battleship, but the thought is there.

Cold Waters handles this rather well - there's an option to hide sensor contacts in the 3D view until they've been positively identified. If this were implemented (as an difficulty option, just to keep the wows crowd happy) alongside a decent 2D map, that would be a solid compromise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wood said:

Mind if I ask how you know this?  Just curious.

As to the flag plot, keep in mind that Jellicoe's information on the battle was almost completely out of synch with what was actually happening in real-time.  Mis-IDed ships, mis-IDed sides, wrong location of spotters, wrong location of targets, very slow updates, gaps in information, etc.  This led to Jellicoe making several decisions that we look at with hindsight as not optimal.

Having an accurate and up to date 2D map off the battle is a huge realism breaker beyond the control we have now.  

You can't have a game where we know the entirety of the enemy design and their speed and heading and damage status and then say oh we aren't giving you a map for realism purposes. No. Just no. This is the games major issue, sometimes it wants to be arcadey, sometimes it wants to be hardcore. Most of the time it just ends up being arcadey but looks hardcore. You can't have both and the devs should have picked a route long ago. Toeing the line just alienates both crowds

Also about the miss-IDing thing, I feel if a ship is miss-ID'd then the model should change. Especially if the specific class of the ship is miss-ID'd and not just the type. That doesn't happen, just the type and only at first, but that's another thing-we should mistake one battleship class for another sometimes. If they're similar looking. I've talked about this in other threads. Give it a probability based off of the superstructure design and the gun layout. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At least add the 2d map as an option. What would be the problem? It would be a selectable option you would find in the settings. Those who don't want it, don't have to see it. Those that want it, can have it. Why are people so against these things? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I put out my thoughts on a potential solution I dreamt up on the whole minimap debate a while ago:

On 7/1/2021 at 9:28 AM, Werwaz said:

Right now, there is almost no use for the radio techs in the game. Perhaps one could unlock a mini-map or something similar if they decide to equip a radio module like radio telegraph or RDF on one of their capital ships (BB and BC). Therefore, those who would like a mini-map could get it through radio techs, those who don't can just not equip a radio, and the radio techs would then have a useful purpose considering they add a lot of weight (15 or 25 percent increase in superstructure weight).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...