Load times

[McMuffin]

You misunderstand me I think - sorry for not being very clear.

The larger maps are already out. When you play a skirmish, that is a fight on a 4x4 km battlefield. There's no loading between different skirmish rounds as, again, you are already on the entire battlefield.

There is currently no way of reducing load times apart from recreating all skirmish areas in small "normal" levels (one level for dunker church, one level for bloody lane, etc) and even then you'd still get the long loading times on maps such as the drill camps where all regiments are available and when historical battles come out.

Unless you want us to remove a large section of the regiments and the character variations within all regiments that is - this is not something we are prepared to do.

- Trusty

What I meant by larger maps were the stitched together playable maps, like putting DUnker and other maps together, and loading them as separate levels to reduce loading times by loading only the regiments involved in the maps that are put together.

[TrustyJam]

What I meant by larger maps were the stitched together playable maps, like putting DUnker and other maps together, and loading them as separate levels to reduce loading times by loading only the regiments involved in the maps that are put together.

Yes, that's what I talked about in my initial reply.

It'd be a massive task, it would not solve the load times on the drill camp servers nor would it help load times when we open up the large maps for historical battles.

- Trusty

[Jason99vmi]

Something must have gotten corrupted during the last update. I completely uninstalled. Restarted then reinstalled on a different SSD and now everything is fine and load times are in line with what you were talking about.

hour and 45 min later i got in game. I was getting worried i wouldn't be able to play this awesome game anymore. Thanks!

[McMuffin]

Yes, that's what I talked about in my initial reply.

It'd be a massive task, it would not solve the load times on the drill camp servers nor would it help load times when we open up the large maps for historical battles.

- Trusty

I don't think many people really care if it takes a while to load into the drill camp, but most people care about load times for the skirmish server. And judging by what I'm hearing, the load times are pretty bad for some people.

[A. P. Hill]

I don't think many people really care if it takes a while to load into the drill camp, but most people care about load times for the skirmish server. And judging by what I'm hearing, the load times are pretty bad for some people.

Again, this has to be sorted to the point that players without a current updated system with a good chunk of ass, are always going to have this problem, as the programming and gaming uses some of the latest state of the art software that mediocre or barely there computers are not going to be capable of handling.

I see no point in reversing the game programming to the needs of people with lesser computers. This is not a fault of the game or the programming, it's a fault of the players trying to get by with a minimum spec machine.

Again, I don't think load times are going to be affected by reducing anything. As was mentioned and apparently missed, currently there are only two large all encompassing battle maps, (Antietam and Harpers Ferry,) and these maps contain 16 square kilometers of battlefield. The skirmish areas are all on the same 16 square kilometer map, its just that they have a boundary around the area that's limited as a skirmish area, so there is no need to "stitch" anything together as there are no separate entities to 'stitch'.

Maybe game loading times increase when the skirmishes aren't considered because that'll be less programming to have to download, time will tell.

Also one has to keep in mind the type of connection any given player has with the internet. If you're on a connection where you have multiple members of a family pulling information from that connection you're going to experience some delay, as all incoming information is fed in small chunks and not one great big large load. Single use connections will experience faster response times due to the lack of multiple needs. Along with this, connectivity speed is also to be considered.

All of these things are not related to the game itself, but are all on the player side, and being misdirected toward the developers and the gaming programming.

[McMuffin]

Again, this has to be sorted to the point that players without a current updated system with a good chunk of ass, are always going to have this problem, as the programming and gaming uses some of the latest state of the art software that mediocre or barely there computers are not going to be capable of handling.

I see no point in reversing the game programming to the needs of people with lesser computers. This is not a fault of the game or the programming, it's a fault of the players trying to get by with a minimum spec machine.

Again, I don't think load times are going to be affected by reducing anything. As was mentioned and apparently missed, currently there are only two large all encompassing battle maps, (Antietam and Harpers Ferry,) and these maps contain 16 square kilometers of battlefield. The skirmish areas are all on the same 16 square kilometer map, its just that they have a boundary around the area that's limited as a skirmish area, so there is no need to "stitch" anything together as there are no separate entities to 'stitch'.

Maybe game loading times increase when the skirmishes aren't considered because that'll be less programming to have to download, time will tell.

Also one has to keep in mind the type of connection any given player has with the internet. If you're on a connection where you have multiple members of a family pulling information from that connection you're going to experience some delay, as all incoming information is fed in small chunks and not one great big large load. Single use connections will experience faster response times due to the lack of multiple needs. Along with this, connectivity speed is also to be considered.

All of these things are not related to the game itself, but are all on the player side, and being misdirected toward the developers and the gaming programming.

Well considering that many people who play this game do not have high end comptuers and have medium to low end, which are the ones that have the issue, my question was asked to Trusty about reducing the load times because of the amount of low to medium end systems which seem to struggle with loading. so my question is not asked with no basis on the actual community. However, the system variation may very well change when it goes into Early Access and many more people can play.

The high load times are something that was introduced by the devs, and for good reason, so it is not all just on the fault of the players for having poor system specifications and therfore they cannot load in quickly so we should not do anything about it because that's their problem. And you seem to have missed what I said as well, I was talking about putting these skirmish areas together as one larger playarea and not partitioned up into smaller sections and loading only the regiments within that play area, yes they do all share a map, but in that match it might as well only be that one area for the map. So, by putting those larger skirmish sections together into one that combines 3-4 of them, you can load only the 16 or so regiments for that "map" (the stitched together play areas), you could reduce load times, which Trusty said would in fact do it, but it does require lots of work.

I am not asking for CG to implement this system, but I was asking if it was something that could be considered or if it's even possible at all.

[Lightfoot]

Again, this has to be sorted to the point that players without a current updated system with a good chunk of ass, are always going to have this problem, as the programming and gaming uses some of the latest state of the art software that mediocre or barely there computers are not going to be capable of handling.

I see no point in reversing the game programming to the needs of people with lesser computers. This is not a fault of the game or the programming, it's a fault of the players trying to get by with a minimum spec machine.

Again, I don't think load times are going to be affected by reducing anything. As was mentioned and apparently missed, currently there are only two large all encompassing battle maps, (Antietam and Harpers Ferry,) and these maps contain 16 square kilometers of battlefield. The skirmish areas are all on the same 16 square kilometer map, its just that they have a boundary around the area that's limited as a skirmish area, so there is no need to "stitch" anything together as there are no separate entities to 'stitch'.

Maybe game loading times increase when the skirmishes aren't considered because that'll be less programming to have to download, time will tell.

Also one has to keep in mind the type of connection any given player has with the internet. If you're on a connection where you have multiple members of a family pulling information from that connection you're going to experience some delay, as all incoming information is fed in small chunks and not one great big large load. Single use connections will experience faster response times due to the lack of multiple needs. Along with this, connectivity speed is also to be considered.

All of these things are not related to the game itself, but are all on the player side, and being misdirected toward the developers and the gaming programming.

I am seeing very high load time, up to 5 minutes, when servers are busy. My system while not high ended should easily handle a game. With a Core i7 2.67 GHZ process with acceleration up to 3.2 Ghz, GeForce 1070 video card, two SSD drives and supposedly 300 Mb Xfinity connection, it should perform better than this but I don't know where the choke point is. I do have a 2560x1440 screen and I don't know how that effects the games file sizes or where those files reside (server or PC). Once I actually manage to get on a server the fps times are reasonable, 30-60.

If what I am seeing is typical then Campfire has a serious problem. If its just me, I have a serious problem but probably not one I can fix since I have no apparent way to isolate the cause. Hopefully they have tools to measure how long it is taking players to connect and enter a server and are aware if there is a problem on their side.

[Poorlaggedman]

The amount of high detailed character models and players featured in WoR makes precaching an absolute necessity.

- Trusty

I guess I don't understand the relation between a more full server and a longer load times if files aren't being downloaded from the server.

Is it possible for a client setting which severely limits the types of player models to something more vanilla rather than drawing on the greater multitude of models? It's that or writing off enormous swaths of otherwise good gamers as deficient.

I see no point in reversing the game programming to the needs of people with lesser computers. This is not a fault of the game or the programming, it's a fault of the players trying to get by with a minimum spec machine.

Purism is just going to result in this being a perpetual complaint for the rest of time as well as limiting the player base significantly. You might want to check out Steam's hardware spec surveys before limiting the game to a fraction of its potential players. How could the servers possibly have a prayer of expanding beyond 150 counts without something to compensate? I shudder to think of the load times. It takes me 10 seconds to get in any other game's server and about two minutes in this one and that's after significant upgrades that let me play at the highest levels.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsur...lcome-to-Steam

[Fancy Sweetroll]

When in the main menu. You can turn it off by opening the console and type

g_eq_preloadmode=0

You can also add it to the user.cfg file in the game folder. You will need to create that file yourself though. But let us know of how much of a difference it makes.

[TrustyJam]

When in the main menu. You can turn it off by opening the console and type

g_eq_preloadmode=0

You can also add it to the user.cfg file in the game folder. You will need to create that file yourself though. But let us know of how much of a difference it makes.

Keep in mind though that this will have an impact on the amount of stutters you experience in-game however.

- Trusty