LoG 2 very poor performance...

[PanzerAzelSaturn]

I just want to pop in and say I couldn't be happier with the way LoG 2 is running on my PC. I have an older PC and am able to run with decent performance on the highest settings. I have an AMD 5000+ 2.7 ghz dual core, 3.5 gigs ram (or whatever win XP limit is, I technically have 4 gigs in there), and a Radion 7770. I am super happy to be able to run something so beautiful on my PC. I do have a big problem with load times, ranging from 30 seconds (loading main menu) to over 60 seconds (loading saves). No idea if this is normal. I just bought new WD black HDs a few months ago and re-installed my OS at the same time and haven't had loading issues with any other games. Just downloaded the patch tonight and I'm hoping it will help. I hope everyone eventually can play this game with good performance, it's worth the effort.

Thanks for your report! The loading performance was reported several times, reason seems to be a generalized & more dynamic layout of everything... more things needs to be saved... hardware wise, SSD was bringing some relieve for some people. On the other hand, the absolute amount (looking on the save game size) seems not that excessive..so there seems to be potential for optimization.

I'm curious, as you have a similar system like me (CPU+GPU AMD, dualcore), how many FPS (debugInfo=true in the grimrock.cfg) do you get in outside areas like twigroot forest [15 10 2 19]?

I haven't yet checked my FPS in the game, I will when I have time to fool around with it tonight. It is not as snappy and smooth in certain areas as it is in others, but there is no control lag or UI lag at all and it's completely playable. In the outdoor areas I would guess under 30, but over 20? I have not tried lowering settings to see if that helps as it is so insignificant I'd rather have the prettier graphics. My system is somewhat helped by the fact that I run no extraneous processes and win XP isn't too demanding.

[PanzerAzelSaturn]

I do have a big problem with load times, ranging from 30 seconds (loading main menu) to over 60 seconds (loading saves).

Actually I got the feeling that the 2.1.13 patch already improved load times. To get from a running game to the main menu i count about 6 seconds and loading a save takes between 15 to 17 seconds with regular disk drives. I did not count it before the patch but it felt a lot longer then. Perhaps running defrag might help a bit.

I'm curious, as you have a similar system like me (CPU+GPU AMD, dualcore), how many FPS (debugInfo=true in the grimrock.cfg) do you get in outside areas like twigroot forest [15 10 2 19]?

His 7770 has twice the power of your 5670 while your CPU has become 50% faster then his. Your old CPU was on the same level as his.

I'm a her. You know what they say about assumptions?

[badhabit]

It matters as it shows that there in your current setup is another bottleneck, which we have to remove first before analyzing another aspect, the CPU performance (or the multicore performance). We have to bring the GPU load significantly below 99% e.g. at least 70%.

I'm not able to verify that since there's no scene in Grimrock than my GPU is allowed to breath
For my system GPU seems to hogging things up while CPU staying quiet, for other with much better GPU and lower CPU might causing the reverse.

Sounds like your system is truly GPU bound, no cure available!

PS: maybe last chance resolution 320x100? (again 50% less pixels!)

[Dr.Disaster]

I do have a big problem with load times, ranging from 30 seconds (loading main menu) to over 60 seconds (loading saves).

Actually I got the feeling that the 2.1.13 patch already improved load times. To get from a running game to the main menu i count about 6 seconds and loading a save takes between 15 to 17 seconds with regular disk drives. I did not count it before the patch but it felt a lot longer then. Perhaps running defrag might help a bit.

I'm curious, as you have a similar system like me (CPU+GPU AMD, dualcore), how many FPS (debugInfo=true in the grimrock.cfg) do you get in outside areas like twigroot forest [15 10 2 19]?

His 7770 has twice the power of your 5670 while your CPU has become 50% faster then his. Your old CPU was on the same level as his.

I'm a her. You know what they say about assumptions?

Well telling RL gender on forum nick is not an exact science but then going with "it" is a bit rude so one has to choose

Performance-wise your system should do quite well in most places as it seems.
While load-times in LoG2 are influenced by CPU power by decompessing and re-aranging stuff as needed they can surely be tweeked a bit with a defragmentation of the drive LoG is on. Also disabling the XP swapdrive might help a lot. Your system has more then enough RAM to run on it's memory alone.

[vlzvl]

It matters as it shows that there in your current setup is another bottleneck, which we have to remove first before analyzing another aspect, the CPU performance (or the multicore performance). We have to bring the GPU load significantly below 99% e.g. at least 70%.

I'm not able to verify that since there's no scene in Grimrock than my GPU is allowed to breath
For my system GPU seems to hogging things up while CPU staying quiet, for other with much better GPU and lower CPU might causing the reverse.

Sounds like your system is truly GPU bound, no cure available!

PS: maybe last chance resolution 320x100? (again 50% less pixels!)

Actually the smaller the resolution is, the greater performance i get but only on scenes involving no depth of horizon. I can get a boost from 14 fps to 20 fps by just changing from 1024x768 to 800x600 or lower if i'm looking a boulder in front of me or 2,3 quads far away, but when im looking that beautiful ship in the beach from far away then fps is going to about ~8, no matter if i have 1024x768 or 800x600 or 64x64 icon resolution (im not going to play a GIF animation)

PS. just waiting for devs getting their hands dirty on lower-end machines; i read somewhere they didnt actually tested the game on such machines, so i have a hope

[minmay]

Well telling RL gender on forum nick is not an exact science but then going with "it" is a bit rude so one has to choose

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
2. I don't think it's any ruder than assuming everyone is male until proven otherwise. That's a pretty toxic approach.

[badhabit]

Well telling RL gender on forum nick is not an exact science but then going with "it" is a bit rude so one has to choose

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
2. I don't think it's any ruder than assuming everyone is male until proven otherwise. That's a pretty toxic approach.

You are right, there are more eloquent forms to formulate a sentence and prevent a gender pre-selection.

But calling it "toxic" I find a little bit over the top... also as Dr. Disaster seems not a native English speaker (as myself) guessing from a screenshot of him of in German language. There, as far as I know, if the gender of an person is undetermined, the base form is used for both genders (meaning both gender, not assuming male), while denoting in other context specifically a male. E.g. neutral/indeterminate "Er, der Einbrecher unbekannten Geschlechts..." (literally engl.: He, the burglar of undetermined sex), when know as female "Sie, die Einbrecherin..." (engl.: She, the burglar .. ) So, for the German handling tradition he (?) was following the common approach (while not the most eloquent).

[badhabit]

Actually the smaller the resolution is, the greater performance i get but only on scenes involving no depth of horizon. I can get a boost from 14 fps to 20 fps by just changing from 1024x768 to 800x600 or lower if i'm looking a boulder in front of me or 2,3 quads far away, but when im looking that beautiful ship in the beach from far away then fps is going to about ~8, no matter if i have 1024x768 or 800x600 or 64x64 icon resolution (im not going to play a GIF animation)

PS. just waiting for devs getting their hands dirty on lower-end machines; i read somewhere they didnt actually tested the game on such machines, so i have a hope

Good news, as vlzvl pushed the pressing performance question to the devs in the Twitch interview, Antti almost promised to take a look on performance tweaks for low end systems when they start the OSX port, as they are aware that many Mac people run flimsy laptops! Thumbs up!

link to the question and answer: http://www.twitch.tv/arvaneleron/c/5361029?t=1h45m16s

[sarvrin]

How about performance tweaks for high end laptops?

Checked the game today after the recent patch, hoping it would bring some changes. Now I get power shortages on the GPU all the freaking time even though the game seems to run smoother O_o. No idea what is going on. Fingers crossed for the optimization. I am out of LoG2 for the time being

[Dr.Disaster]

How about performance tweaks for high end laptops?

Checked the game today after the recent patch, hoping it would bring some changes. Now I get power shortages on the GPU all the freaking time even though the game seems to run smoother O_o. No idea what is going on. Fingers crossed for the optimization. I am out of LoG2 for the time being

Those things should be preventable by the OS or gfx driver. In case you have an nVidia GPU: inside the nvidia driver you can set the Power Management Mode for your GPU. Setting it to "Maximum" usually clears the power shortage issue.