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!
USA General of the Army
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.
Last edited by McMuffin; 11-18-2018 at 03:08 PM.
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.
Lightfoot
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.
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
Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 11-20-2018 at 08:08 PM.
Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY
Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n