New map really this hard on FPS?

[HunDread]

Tried it today for the first time and I get significantly (10-20-30) lower FPS than previous maps with 1st gen VR. Is this normal? And I am not blown away by graphics. It's trees and rivers and forests and towns just like all other maps. What's the point? What are the plans for Normandy? Make it even more taxing on FPS?  

 

(4790K at 4.7 GHz / 16B RAM at 2666 MHz / 1080TI)

[Feathered_IV]

I find the Bodenplatte map is 25-30fps lower for me than the other maps too.

[Ribbon]

You need bomb the cities and flatten them to the ground in order to gain fps!

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by EAF_Ribbon

[40plus]

8 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

You need bomb the cities and flatten them to the ground in order to gain fps!

 

 

Solid strategy, can confirm.

[sevenless]

8 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

You need bomb the cities and flatten them to the ground in order to gain fps!

 

 

 

Yep they did it back then and were at the Elbe after 10months. Established strategy.

[WheelwrightPL]

The new Rhineland  map is still playable in Quick Mission Builder and in Custom Missions as long as you don't toss too many aircraft on the screen at once.

 

However in Career Mode it is not playable for me when using the same settings I have for Stalingrad/Moscow maps. This really sucks because I exclusively play Career Mode nowadays, therefore I cannot enjoy all those new interesting and well-modelled aircraft.

 

To alleviate this I would suggest for developers to add a new option in the mission settings "air-activity density" (or something like that) which when set to low would limit how many aircraft are in the air in the Career Mode. But it is probably too complicated to implement.

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I find the Bodenplatte map is 25-30fps lower for me than the other maps too.

 

That's a significant frame rate drop. Curious what your specs might be. I don't find it to perform any differently on my system with a five year old Core i5 but a relatively recent GPU (1070ti). I am curious what the breaking point is and if its VRAM related or system RAM or CPU - though I suspect the first two over the CPU when it comes to map versus map performance.

 

2 hours ago, WheelwrightPL said:

The new Rhineland  map is still playable in Quick Mission Builder and in Custom Missions as long as you don't toss too many aircraft on the screen at once.

 

However in Career Mode it is not playable for me when using the same settings I have for Stalingrad/Moscow maps. This really sucks because I exclusively play Career Mode nowadays, therefore I cannot enjoy all those new interesting and well-modelled aircraft.

 

To alleviate this I would suggest for developers to add a new option in the mission settings "air-activity density" (or something like that) which when set to low would limit how many aircraft are in the air in the Career Mode. But it is probably too complicated to implement.

 

It's already implemented. It's called frontline density and it affects the number of aircraft, artillery and gun positions, truck convoys, trains, etc.

3 hours ago, HunDread said:

Tried it today for the first time and I get significantly (10-20-30) lower FPS than previous maps with 1st gen VR. Is this normal? And I am not blown away by graphics. It's trees and rivers and forests and towns just like all other maps. What's the point? What are the plans for Normandy? Make it even more taxing on FPS?  

 

(4790K at 4.7 GHz / 16B RAM at 2666 MHz / 1080TI)

 

The Rhineland map is larger than most of the other maps in the series and it has more cities and towns in it than other maps. Those are likely a partial cause for performance issues. Some people have had a few performance issues and others none. I have a Core i5 6600, 16GB DDR4, 1070ti and it runs smoothly at 60 fps even in Career mode with medium frontline density (I can't go high... that murders my frame rate).

 

IMHO, with the specs you have, its either the older CPU and slower RAM that is dragging you down here OR you have some settings that might need to be tweaked because you're pushing on one of them with this map whereas the other maps need slightly less and it runs fine.

[WheelwrightPL]

I would still prefer to have existing "frontline-activity density" split into 2 new options:

1) ground-frontline-activity density

2) air-frontile-activity density

The reason is that right now even with low density there is often large number of aircraft in the air (8 in my squadron, plus about 8 bombers + 8 escorting fighters). When they all start interacting the framerate on Rhineland drops severely because all those aircraft have systems modelled in the same way the player's plane does. I bet you could crank-up "ground-frontline-activity density" very high and still have good framerate and the battlefield feeling "alive" when the " air-frontlile-activity density" is set to low.

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

I bet you could crank-up "ground-frontline-activity density" very high and still have good framerate and the battlefield feeling "alive" when the " air-frontlile-activity density" is set to low.

 

You would be absolutely correct in that assessment.

At least within reason. Certain things are more expensive, like tracers for instance, and convoys start to cost as well.

So maybe not "very high", but higher at any rate.

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Gambit21

[Gretsch_Man]

31 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

IMHO, with the specs you have, its either the older CPU and slower RAM that is dragging you down here OR you have some settings that might need to be tweaked because you're pushing on one of them with this map whereas the other maps need slightly less and it runs fine.

He said he's using VR, which can make all the difference. I'm also flying in VR (old Rift), and fps wise don't notice much of a difference. However, I have an issue with cities that keep popping in each time I like at them (when looking away from them for a moment), which is a  bit annoying.

6 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

I would still prefer to have existing "frontline-activity density" split into 2 new options:

1) ground-frontline-activity density

2) air-frontile-activity density

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me.

 

Imho the difficult level setting should also be split between number of enemy aircraft, AI pilot skill level and AAA gunner skill level. As it is of now, increasing the difficult level (easy/medium/hard) just cranks up everything together.

[zdog0331]

PWCG already splits the ground and air density.  I would also really like to be able to adjust this.  I love dense dogfights, but I honestly have no need for a not of ground units.  Though I personally haven't notised a very big difference in the maps, however I do run a wmr headset and have low settings by default since i find that i cannot see the difference in cockpit other than the performance.

[danielprates]

The new map is for sure tougher on your PC. I went back to flying on moscow and stalingrad and the frame rate is much better. Its not the whole game, FMs etc.

[Lusekofte]

My specs in signature. My fps is good in this map. I use Rift S

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Rhineland map is the only one I cannot host multiplayer coop or DF missions on while also playing them on my PC.  After half an hour or so, the game freezes solid and crashes to desktop if I'm lucky, or sometimes I have to shut down manually with the power button because of total control/mouse/keyboard lockup. I can host the other maps for hours on end without issue.  It just overwhelms my 16 gigs of ram.  I have stopped using the map in total.  It's just too large.

Edited January 20, 2020 by BlitzPig_EL

[kendo]

In hindsight I think it may have been a mistake to make the Bodenplatte map so big. With the number of settlements, towns, cities being higher than the eastern front maps it seems they went close to (or beyond) the limits for usability/frame rates for many systems (especially in career mode) 

 

I was wondering if it would be possible for the devs to add a two-map version of the Bodenplatte map, with the northern and southern parts split, to ease resource impact on our systems? There could be an 'overlap zone' of say 20-30km duplicated on both to help mitigate potential gameplay issues (campaign/career I'm thinking of here).

 

But roughly speaking, you would have Holland and the campaign from Market Garden onwards in the northern map, while the Ardennes and Bulge scenarios would be in the southern map.

 

Of course in some cases it would be still be necessary to use the full map, but for many scenarios it may work fine to limit the area and lighten the resource usage.

 

Any thoughts or opinions?  

Edited January 20, 2020 by kendo

[SCG_motoadve]

Maybe have 3 maps then, the big one and two smaller ones, no idea if it is possible or too late now though.

[Dakpilot]

When Kuban came out there were similar challenges,, hopefully now devs are back at work some improvements will also be made to performance of BoBP and game overall 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot