These turn times are killer

[Excalibur Bane]

Just wow. I mean, I'm playing with a single AI player and turn processing is taking upwards of 30 seconds and I'm running an i7-950 at 4.06 Ghz with 6 GB of memory.

I don't know what the hell is going on but it needs to be fixed in the Wednesday patch. There's something not quite right there for it take that long. This game isn't terribly complex when you break it down, so it shouldn't require near that much time nor that much horsepower to process a single turn. I haven't even made it past turn 200 because I get so frustrated with it.

Anyone else encountering this? I imagine it's only worse on lower end rigs.

 

[unmerged(255320)]

Probably the new feature of having AI combat in the background.

 

[s1234567890m]

...it was adressed in the upcoming patch according to the official forums

 

[Myrrdin]

Not sure that it was the turn times, rather think it was some UI optimizations, not 100% on that though.

 

[s1234567890m]

Not sure that it was the turn times, rather think it was some UI optimizations, not 100% on that though.

It might have been, it had something to do with slipping cache

 

[Agent.nihilist]

The end of turn has a fixed delay on it of around 15 seconds. The game was allowing interaction before the next turn actually started so they introduced the delay to prevent fruitless clicking.

Todays mini patch is said to address this, but we don't know to what extent.

 

[Ordo Impavidus]

Yea.

Also experienced long turn times....27-33 seconds.

In an attempt to reduce this, I doubled my system memory (from 4GB to 8GB) and I managed to shave off about 6-9 seconds per turn. :mellow:

Then I had the brilliant suggestion by someone to remove "random events"...and that worked best...(thanks whoever you were).... Leaving me with a turn time of about 15 seconds.

Then I reduced the number of AIs from 8 to 3 (on cluster map) resulting in 7 second turns.

Then I was happy.

Oh, and I meet the recommended requirements of the game on every criteria...but what put me WAY OVER the TOP of these specs is my 7 button mousy mouse.

 

[Myrrdin]

It might have been, it had something to do with slipping cache

Haha, I think we read that post on the official forums totally differently then. I thought it had to do with the game not caching what was needed for the star map properly, thus having to load the whole shebang from disk every time you exited a menu, might have been what you think too though. Shouldn't be long before we see what's what.

 

[Excalibur Bane]

Yea.

Also experienced long turn times....27-33 seconds.

In an attempt to reduce this, I doubled my system memory (from 4GB to 8GB) and I managed to shave off about 6-9 seconds per turn. :mellow:

Then I had the brilliant suggestion by someone to remove "random events"...and that worked best...(thanks whoever you were).... Leaving me with a turn time of about 15 seconds.

Then I reduced the number of AIs from 8 to 3 (on cluster map) resulting in 7 second turns.

Then I was happy.

Oh, and I meet the recommended requirements of the game on every criteria...but what put me WAY OVER the TOP of these specs is my 7 button mousy mouse.

What kind of system are running on? My turn times are NOWHERE near that nice. I have random encounters turned off as well. If there is indeed a 15 second timer or whatever, it needs to removed, along with that stupid 3 second grace period that you have to stare at before the turn actually starts processing.

 

[unmerged(402700)]

Just an FYI but this game can't use 8 gig's of ram, and I don't know of any game that can use more than 4 (a rare circumstance exists) itself. So I'm sorry but it's not the ram that changed that, that's cause and correlation mistake.

3 seconds is apparently too much time for someone to stare at a screen? Even that seems a bit nitpicky to me.

 

[Ordo Impavidus]

What kind of system are running on? My turn times are NOWHERE near that nice. I have random encounters turned off as well. If there is indeed a 15 second timer or whatever, it needs to removed, along with that stupid 3 second grace period that you have to stare at before the turn actually starts processing.

a laptop

i5 dual core @2.8GHz
W7 64bit
8GB DDR3
HD5470 1gig dedicated; DX11
...and of course my super 7 button mouse

 

[Ruanek]

Just an FYI but this game can't use 8 gig's of ram, and I don't know of any game that can use more than 4 (a rare circumstance exists) itself.

Out of curiosity, why is that?

 

[Ordo Impavidus]

Just an FYI but this game can't use 8 gig's of ram, and I don't know of any game that can use more than 4 (a rare circumstance exists) itself. So I'm sorry but it's not the ram that changed that, that's cause and correlation mistake.

3 seconds is apparently too much time for someone to stare at a screen? Even that seems a bit nitpicky to me.

You're right about the 8 gig thing, but the acquiring of more ram is not a total loss. Didn't do much for SOTSII like I had hoped but no big deal.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

Most games can't as they were written with a 32bit executable at heart, limiting them to 2GB of memory space(3GB if large addresses are enabled)
Sots II uses a native 64bit exe for those with 64bit system, and it can utilize over 4GB RAM. In fact the recommended spec is 6GB.

Mecron said the transition times are largely due to poor caching performance, and is now something they are working on.

 

[s1234567890m]

Just an FYI but this game can't use 8 gig's of ram, and I don't know of any game that can use more than 4 (a rare circumstance exists) itself. So I'm sorry but it's not the ram that changed that, that's cause and correlation mistake.

3 seconds is apparently too much time for someone to stare at a screen? Even that seems a bit nitpicky to me.

Yeah the sytem specs ask for 6...

Recommended:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
RAM: 6-GB
Video: 1-GB DirectX 10/11
Display: 1650x1080 or greater
CPU: Intel i5 equivalent or better
Sound: Any Windows Vista compatible sound device, 5.1 speaker configuration for full effect
Control: 3-button mouse and keyboard

 

[Ordo Impavidus]

Yeah the sytem specs ask for 6...

Yea 6.

This is part of the reason why I went for 8 gigs o' ram... :mellow: But I really didn't notice any significant difference after adding more.

 

[Ruanek]

Yeah, I was wondering if it was the 32-bit or 64-bit difference. I'd think SOTS 2 is capable of using more than 4 GB because it does appear to have been designed with 64-bit systems in mind, but I'm not sure.

 

[unmerged(402700)]

That's besides the point, nothing really actually USES more than 4 at this point. It isn't needed, and we don't have anything outside of intense graphic programs or video design programs that require it.

It can be 16 recommended but that doesn't mean it can use it.

It's always recommended to have more than you need but the infrastructure of our programs does not use more than 4 for much.

 

[unmerged(402700)]

That must be a VERY hot laptop.

 

[unmerged(402700)]

I will personally guarantee that you will find more of an increase in your game if you get a solid state drive and install it on it than you will by using 8 gigs of ram.