I'm back after a long break ...

[Bloke]

... and the game is looking really good!

 

Much better graphics. I'm on the same PC as before, except that I plugged in more RAM (so I now have 32GB). The extra RAM makes very little difference on other games, so I assume there have been some software updates since May? So, congrats to the developers (or, everyone needs 32GB of RAM).  😀

[Gibsonm]

2 hours ago, Bloke said:

... and the game is looking really good!

 

Much better graphics. I'm on the same PC as before, except that I plugged in more RAM (so I now have 32GB). The extra RAM makes very little difference on other games, so I assume there have been some software updates since May? So, congrats to the developers (or, everyone needs 32GB of RAM).  😀

Yes 4.267 and then 4.268.

 

I have 64Mb (not purchased specifically for this) but it does seem to provide a performance boost.

 

 

[Ssnake]

RAM beyond 16 GByte can help with batch conversion of legacy maps into the map package format (as effectively each CPU core can run ints owv conversion thread, but needs a corresponding amount of RAM for it), and it can reduce the time delays when teleporting from one map location to another if the "dynamic cache size" is set to be appropriately large; this would have next to no effect in the Personal Edition but can help instructors if the exercise area exceeds 30x30km²

 

Also, you would see a longer undo queue when working on maps, especially involving terrain profile modifications such as flattening under buildings, leveling roads, etc.

But, these are comparatively narrow application fields where a lot of RAM will help Steel Beasts specifically. The visual improvements are all in the shader code, particle and lighting system, and of course the transition towards high-res terrain databases.

[Poofydoodle]

I find where the game chugs for me is vehicles kicking up lots of dust or sometimes using nvgs. Im guessing thats all shader/gpu memory stuff.

[Ssnake]

Yes, that would all be handled in the graphics card.

[SippyCup]

Yep, I went from mid-40s to a solid 60 FPS since the last time I played and my hardware hasn't changed.

[Ssnake]

I guess you last checked with version 4.0

The performance there wasn't great - the death from a thousand paper cuts.

Like I wrote back in 2016, we knew what had to be done about it, but fixing it took until 2019 with 4.1, where we had numerous improvements in a lot of places, all of which gave us 1% more framerate here, 2% more there, sometimes just half a percent - but with enough of these fixes, eventually we could pull ourselves from the swamp.

 

Then again, we have pretty much exhausted all potential for optimization with the current engine. To make true progress with higher detail levels in maps, supporting more units, bigger maps, the current engine simply won't cut it. That's why we're working on 5.0, but that one breaks with a lot of old design concepts (how could it be any different), so it's really a major undertaking that will keep us busy for a good while.

[SippyCup]

Yeah, it would have been 4.0. I only game in the winter months because it's too dark to do anything else. The rest of the year gives me all sorts of time to forget everything, making sims less than likely to be picked up again immediately. Started off easy this season by completing 3 Longbow Gold campaigns in DOSBox... good times.

 

Any news of major undertakings sounds good at my end!