A.I Explanation

[Grand_Admiral_Pellaeon]

So far everyone has been told that slowdowns are caused by the ai. Pausing makes the game run fine. A detailed explanation would be quite handy, say the computer has to calculate the projectory of each laser. If thats too complicated for ya then in lamens terms: the computer has to 'think' where the lasers are going. I may be completely wrong but that was just an example and a bit of a guess.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

There is also the actions of each fighter group, frigate, destroyer and cruiser in combat, the effects lighting will have (n ot really AI related, but still important), the docking of the resourcers, the laser trajectory, missiles and thier trajectory, building more ships, and just general "playing" that can be divided into other areas.

I think the reason the effects are worse with the mod is that the computer builds more stuff. I've never seen fleets the size I get in Warlods while I'm playing standard Homeworld2.

[Grand_Admiral_Pellaeon]

It still eludes me though even if the ai is such a resource hog how it can make my computer slow down so much. Far cry runs near flawlessly with the exception of shadows yet this is too much. Maybe its time to invest in a new cpu though i though my 2.8 ghz would be enough, knew i shouldn't have listened to my dad and not bought the 3.0ghz cpu. Should have paid the extra 60 quid myself, oh well too late now

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Actually, you should have invested in an AMD rather than a Pentium My 2800 runs the game fine, and that's with shadows and all, at 1280x960. RAM also has a lot to do with it. A gig of PC3200 runs it quite well.

[Grand_Admiral_Pellaeon]

I got a gig of ram though not sure if its top spec though it shud be, would have got amd but twas more expensive and i was on a budget

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Yes, that is the problem. AMD has become the only competition for Intel, and since thier processors are getting better than Intel's they tend to charge more. Could be worse, though. We could have only Intel to deal with

[EvilleJedi]

heh the issue is that even though far cry has decent AI, its not calculating thousands of units at once, it only concerns itself with a local area.

 

ALSO the big issue is that homeworld doesn't lag, instead the simulation slows down to process everything. this sounds weird but instead of a FPS where it is allowed to drop frames, HW2 rendering is loosely synced with its simulation. think of it more as network delay then lag and it makes more sense, but what the rest of you guys said is basically the meat of the problem.

 

remember, the military builds super computers for tactical simulations, but trains with pretty normal networked PCs for squad simulations (difference btween RTS and FPS complexity right there.)

[Breal]

well in a sence there are diffrences between amd and intell not that ams is better

 

for games amd is better faster in calculating but that is it if you use it for other things like ripping of movies or cad intell is then much much faster

 

in terms the amd athlon is a sort of stripped down version of the intell chip

 

Dont question me beleve me

GreetZ Rob

Computer engineer

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

If the Athlon is a "stripped down" version of the Intel chip, why is it that Intel has been forced to duplicate what AMD does, due to the fact that they have fallen behind (apart from their new processor).

Also, despite having a lower GhZ rating, AMDs routinely run faster. I compared boot time, game loading time, overall speed of games, as well as general functions for running Windows, such as word processing, CD Burning, downloading (which is really based more on connection speed, but your processor does enter into the equasion), all in preparation for constructing my system. I decided on the AMD because it ouperformed an Intel chip that was supposedly "superior" to it. My 2800+ performed better than the Intel 3.2 Ghz processor on all fronts.

 

I can't say I've done any CD ripping or CAD, so the Intel may well be better for such things, but you can't say that AMD is a "stripped down" version of the Intel. Intel has been struggling because corperations are switching over to AMD for thier systems, corperations which include those using CAD programs, because they are faster, more reliable, and cheaper. Intel is duplicating AMD's technology for thier 64-bit processor, and hasn't had an original idea on the market first in recent years until thier latest 64nm processor. Even here it remains to be seen ifthey can get it on the market before AMD.

 

It sounds to me like you're an Intel supporter, or some one who uses an Intel processor, and are trying to put the competition down .

[stormfury_2]

I completely agree with Thrawn! I just bought and AMD 3000+ 3 days ago at £103 (sterling) and it has completly overthrown my friends PC who is meant to be superior in every way except the CPU (a 2.6ghz P4) I have a higer FPS and quicker load times on almost everything.

 

My PC:

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 333fsb

GF3 Ti200 64mb (2 years old i think )

512mb DDR ram 2100 (i think)

80gb HDD (only about 2 gigs left he he )

MSI KT6 Delta Motherboard (up to 400 fsb)

 

Friends PC:

P4 2.6

ATI 9000 128mb (crap i told him not to buy it but noooo)

1300mb DDR 3200 ram (2x512 1x256)

120gb HDD (formatted about a week ago)

Mainboard unknown (it's an ASUS i think)

[EvilleJedi]

in reality, the original athlon is a reverse engineered pentium III (not IV) with a entirely different approach to the cache subsystem and a lot of small improvments in other areas.

 

what intel did with the pentium 4 is pretty much a product borne of idiot marketting managers. If you ask anyone that actually worked on it they will tell you that it is a hack job done to meet the GHZ magic advetising campaign and so many things on it are just plain moronic.(I had a few professors that worked on it, or took a look at it and went to go tech rather than work on it) the only reason they are actually competative is that they have tens of billions of dollars lying around and some really really good engineers and fabrication processes people that can keep shoving coals into the hungry furnace of the pentium 4. granted there are some good ideas (the trace cache) but it was engineered to fit the marketting. (you have to remember this is intel who made you buy a 387 fpu chip for $600 that simply turned the power on to the perfectly functional, but unpowered 386 processors fpu unit (which already set you back a handsome $1500))

 

all of intels future products are pointing to it migrating to the centrino based platform, which amazingly enough is just a slighly rehashed pentium III and performs very well (better than p4 at about 1/4 the power consumption) (IE runs about the same speed as an athlon and kicks the crap out of its p4 furnace sibling)

 

the athlon 64 is just a original athlon with some 64 bit support put into it, some better FP units and an onboard memory controller, what really makes it shine is the nice hypertransport bus that gives it gobs of bandwidth.

 

the intel 64 bit extensions are a joke, they are simply responding to market pressure to put anything out.

 

 

the only reason intel stuff runs faster on video encoding and other BS like that is because intel has some brilliant compiler people and a lot of money to pay them with so that stuff like video encoding software runs better when compiled with the intel compilers for intel machines.

 

 

basically you need AMD to keep competing to force intel to not undertake more stupid endevours like the p4 and itanium, the intel people are good, they just have accountants telling them how to actually do the engineering.

[stormfury_2]

Very interesting Eville never knew all of that, thanks! (and i'm being serious too) But personally I think AMD have the correct policy, they build products to meet the standards the consumer expects and aren't too bothered about how shiny there actual component looks unlike intel and the chromium-a-like plated CPU's and what nots. And AMD are (i think) quite a bit cheaper too.

[Grand_Admiral_Pellaeon]

aye, sadly when i bought my pc they didnt have amd processors, just intels, so i ended up with a p4 2.8ghz

[EvilleJedi]

actually the 2.4c through 2.8 p4s are not bad processors, especially the 2.4, its probably the best p4 for the money (more likely the 2.6 2.8 nowdays) but they perform pretty well and have a lot of overclockability with proper cooling.