- Mar 24, 2009
I'm actually a bit surprised to read this thread. I've only run the game a few years in 2.7, but I'm getting better performance than I ever have.
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
All it would have taken to answer your question, would have been to read the last two pages ._.Did 2.7.2 address the performance issues? I've been working through a backlog of a bunch of games, and haven't wanted to jump back into Stellaris until the performance issue got sorted. It sounds like it may have?
And just to throw in my cheap a** rig for comparison:
It's correct that if you're splitting work across multiple cores for a particular operation you still need to wait for the last thread to complete before you can go onto the next operation. However, if this is a "big" issue that is severely limiting the benefits of multiple cores then from my own programming experience I would say "You're doing it wrong!", though of course architectural limitations might be preventing optimal solutions.2) This engine can NOT do multi-threading. This has been an issue since the days of HoI2. Clausewitz tried, and ... somehow failed.
I can faintly remember a Paradox dev explaining that no matter how many threads you use to disperse your tasks, at the end of the day, all threads have to wait for slowest one to finish. Which means, I guess, that there is something fundamentally ancient about how this engine distributes workload. But I'm no coder. I merely observe.
Thank you for your example and insight. I think you cut right to the core of the issue, pun intended.It's correct that if you're splitting work across multiple cores for a particular operation you still need to wait for the last thread to complete before you can go onto the next operation. However, if this is a "big" issue that is severely limiting the benefits of multiple cores then from my own programming experience I would say "You're doing it wrong!", though of course architectural limitations might be preventing optimal solutions.
But it's not like Stellaris is an old game, built before multi-cores were common. It's something they should have reasonably considered since the start. Perhaps the rate of change in terms of adding new features got in the way? My general impression is not that Stellaris's performance couldn't be significantly improved but more that the management team don't want to allocate the developer resources because they don't consider it to be a serious problem. From a business perspective I would say this is very stupid if this is causing most players big problems (which seems to be the case) as it's a LOT more expensive and difficult to get new customers/players than it is to retain your existing playerbase.
Thank you for your example and insight. I think you cut right to the core of the issue, pun intended.
As to the motivation of the dev team, I would rather think that there is no one aboard who knows how to revamp the Clausewitz engine (anno 2007) for Stellaris' needs. Maybe they are not even allowed to tamper with the common trunk of Paradox proprietary assets. Whatever the root cause, I simply assume it's above their pay grade. The alternative would sound much darker, i.e. no resources allocated on purpose, not allowed to outperform other internal workgroups...
Bottom line, as long as Clausewitz is in the room, we won't go anywhere fast. And I'm truly sorry for all the modern CPU users out there.
At the state of things, a 4x improvement would still be massive. But, your argument from the financial point of view is a stinging one.[... For something like Stellaris though I'd be surprised to hear that you could realistically get much better than 4X.
Yep. Maybe we should organise some community polls? That being said, I suspect there'd be quite a bit of tension in this. Eg, those who feel that paying extra for a properly working game is unfair. But then again, if the DLC itself is relatively simple and the base game sees a big improvement then those who feel that paying extra for a properly working game can simply skip the DLC.I suspect it's less "don't know how" but more along the lines of "not allowed to". Basically unless you can show management that fixing the engine will net them MORE money than releasing another paid DLC then the odds are good the next big thing the team will work on is ... paid DLC.
You don't even need to be clever. There's a group of algorithms that are considered to be "embarrassingly parallel" - and yeah, many forms of video processing would fall in that category.FYI: In terms of tasks one of the easiest / best-suited tasks to parallelized would be video processing. As mentioned by the other poster if you have 8 cores / 16 threads you might be able to write a tool that increases speed by 10X compared to "single core processing" -- you just need to be clever. For something like Stellaris though I'd be surprised to hear that you could realistically get much better than 4X.
It certainly feels to me that while the current Stellaris is a lot more complex than it used to be, it's not that complex relatively speaking. An individual pop is not that complex an object and processing 10,000 of them shouldn't be that big an overhead, especially when not much changes per day from a pop's point of view. It does feel like the underlying processing is very inefficient, to the extent that there's perhaps more to be gained in performance there than from multithreading.I don't know much about Vicky 2 but I've been told that they deal with MORE pops, jobs, factions, etc. in that game and the performance is just fine. If that's the case maybe existing code could act as a template to improve what we see in Stellaris???
So I build a new Pc with a Ryzen 5 and 16GB of ram. But the game runs fine, until I come to mid game. I start off with a stable 120 fps and mid game it becomes 70 fps, MY cpu is working his ass of. I love the game, relaxing and building an empire in my spare time, but the slow down is a drag. I support the idea of a poll, and a Q&A. I don't want to talk trash about paradox maby they listen they did that with Imperator. Please Paradox fix this. Make it multi-proccesing (I know it isn't an option, but a man can dream alright XD)