More optimization is always good. You see, it's not only about how it makes the game run in its current state, but what kinds of future improvements it makes feasible.Yet more pointless optimisation. Game runs better than any other paradox game already, yet right now there's not enough content to even want to play into late-game and see the benefits of the optimisation.
Maybe, but so what? This is a grand strategy game. It makes sense to make it more playable even for people with low-end machines.People complaining about low fps must be running FX's or 2nd gen intel CPU's
There's a difference between a low-end machine, and a 10-year old CPU that costs less than the game.More optimization is always good. You see, it's not only about how it makes the game run in its current state, but what kinds of future improvements it makes feasible.
Maybe, but so what? This is a grand strategy game. It makes sense to make it more playable even for people with low-end machines.
As we have just been shown, just having an HDD instead of SSD can make a tremendous difference to the worst, and most users don't have much choice in the HDD/SSD matter. My notebook is of 2014 and has HDD, and I have every right to expect CK3 to lag... a bit... freaking... less (just watch my segment on ModCon to see what I am talking about - and it's a cut-for-public version, original was forty minutes long and included a whole minute of fighting with lags non-stop as well as many shorter sessions of the same; granted, that segment was filmed with Zoom and Discord working in the background but that shouldn't be enough of a reason).People complaining about low fps must be running FX's or 2nd gen intel CPU's
I can't really agree even if it were true that the benefits only matter for late-game (which is false, see above). CK3 has much more content than base CK2 had (and I don't even mean "had back when it was launched", which is trivial, I mean "if you launch CK2 now with no DLCs"), and base CK2 has been fun enough to want to play till 1453 for many people.yet right now there's not enough content to even want to play into late-game and see the benefits of the optimisation
That is crazy slow and sounds definitely like some edge case or hardware combo issue because not even our min spec machines run it that slowly, on the min or recommended specs its one of the best performing (if not the best) of our games. On speed 5 (uncapped tick rate) for good hardware its to the point of unplayable in how fast it runs the ticks.I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, with people talking about how CK3 is the fastest PDX game. For me, it's the slowest, and by quite a big margin. But with many people saying it runs very well for them, I suspect my performance woes are the result of a rare bug with certain hardware combinations.
CK3, for me, sometimes takes up to a minute for a single in-game day, the game constantly pauses and unpauses while running, and the framerate swings *wildly*. I'm pretty confident in saying even the M&T mod for EU4 runs faster. And before someone jumps on me, saying I'm using decades old hardware, I have a 11700K, 32GB RAM and a 2070S. It's not about mods either, I'm currently playing modded but I had the exact same issues with a completely vanilla game, that I've reinstalled from scratch.
I wonder if the team is aware of this issue? Or is this how the game runs for everyone. Anyhow, I've attached one VTune Hotspot analysis summary (without callstacks) and one Parallelism analysis, if it's useful.
I suspect it has to do with NPC calculations stalling other cores. If so, I'd really like to see more concurrency here, or, if that's not possible, consider using SIMD here? If you already are, I would love to see AVX512, considering the only consumer CPU that has it (Rocket Lake) doesn't have any AVX512-related clock slowdown.
What I meant by that, is, if NPC-related logic is necessarily ran on two threads, SIMD would help wrap up those calculations faster, and therefore leave more room for "more concurrent" code to run. But, if it runs on more than two threads, then you're correct, it won't help for this specific issue."NPC calculations stalling cores" doesn't really mean anything, that isn't how our parallelism works. Nor is throwing some SIMD at something gonna really magically solve anything.
Sure, I can do that. Do you want me to tag you on that thread?I'd be super interested if you made a thread in the tech support sub-forum and included as much info as you can from the game (a fresh install if possible and mods disabled), some stuff off the top of my head to include:
Yeah we use all the threads we can, I’d suggest checking out last weeks anatomy of a game on how our game state works it explains our threading for game logic a bit actuallyWhat I meant by that, is, if NPC-related logic is necessarily ran on two threads, SIMD would help wrap up those calculations faster, and therefore leave more room for "more concurrent" code to run. But, if it runs on more than two threads, then you're correct, it won't help for this specific issue.
Sure, I can do that. Do you want me to tag you on that thread?
Wow. I v rarely post (or log in, for that matter), but I always read these dev diaries, and I felt like I should comment to say how utterly fascinating I found this. It's v rare to get a glimpse behind the curtain to see the amount of work--and even more than that, the *type* of work--that goes into games these days. More of this, please!Hello everyone and welcome back to Anatomy of a Game, I’m Matthew a programmer on Crusader Kings 3 and today I am going to be talking about some optimisations I’ve done for 1.5 to put some of the higher level examples we’ve shown off in the previous two posts in a more concrete context.
And that is all for this week folks! Next week I will be digging into the script system as a whole and how that works to let our Content Designers and modding community make all the cool stuff they do which fills our game up with fun things!