Holy VRAM ****

SnoopyTRB

So apparently my GTX 580 with 1536MB of isn't quite up to stuff enough. Check this out.

First, My preferences file, you can see I use a mix of High and Ultra settings.

write_preferences_at_exit true; # write_preferences_at_exit <bool>, Write preferences at exit #

x_res 1920; 
y_res 1080; 
x_pos 0; 
y_pos 0; 
vfs_log_level 0; 
unit_test false; 
campaign_unit_multiplier 1; 
naval_fleet_multiplier 0.75; 
gfx_first_run false; 
gfx_dx11_checked true; 
gfx_video_memory 1610612736;[COLOR=red] [/COLOR][COLOR=red]I set this myself, and yes it equals 1536MB, the game would only acknowldge 1423MB when it is set to auto[/COLOR]
gfx_fullscreen true; 
gfx_vsync true; 
gfx_hdr true; 
gfx_shadermodel 4; 4=SM5
gfx_aa 3; # 3 = MSAA_4X,
gfx_texture_filtering 3; 3- anisotropic 8x #
gfx_texture_quality 3; 3 - ultra #
gfx_ssao false; # 
gfx_enable_directx11 true; 
gfx_distortion true; 
gfx_depth_of_field 2; 
gfx_hardware_shadows true; 
gfx_tesselation true; 
gfx_sky_quality 3; 3 - ultra #
gfx_unit_quality 2; 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_ship_quality 2; 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_building_quality 2; 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_water_quality 3; # 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_unit_scale 1; Set unit scale. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_shadow_quality 4; 0 - off, 4 - ultra #
gfx_tree_quality 3; 0 - off, 4 - ultra #
gfx_grass_quality 4; 0 - off, 4 - ultra #
gfx_terrain_quality 1;0 - low, 1 - high #
gfx_gamma_setting 2; 
gfx_brightness_setting 1.2; 
gfx_screenshot_folder ./screenshots; # gfx_screenshot_folder <folder>, Folder to where save screenshots relative to Empire directory #
gfx_gpu "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580"; 
gfx_effects_quality 2; # 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_vignette true;
gfx_picture_in_picture false;

Keeping my video card in mind and those settings this is what my gfx.log says

Downgrading, Over budget by 380 MB
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 2
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 1
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 0
Downgraded Shadows to 1
Downgraded Shadows to 0
Downgraded Sky Options to 0
Downgraded Water Details to 0
Disabled Distortion
Downgraded Texture Quality to 0
Downgrading, Over budget by 155 MB

I'm flabbergasted... This 1536MB isn't enough memory to run this game as a hodpodge of high/ultra? That blows my mind. I don't know whether to ask if there is some kind of leak or texture optimization that needs to be done or just be slack jawed that this game could be that demanding. Anyone else see these kinds of issues? what kind of VRAM do you guys have?

I'm half tempted to sell this GTX 580 so I can go get one of EVGA's 3GB models, lets see you go over budget on that monster...

Snerk

Here are my preferences and log for you to compare, and I have a 1280MB GTX570

Major differences are that you've got a higher resolution than me, have hardware shadows (soft shadows?) on, and have tesselation and DoF activated, but I have a few detail settings set to ultra that you have at high.

write_preferences_at_exit true; # write_preferences_at_exit <bool>, Write preferences at exit #
app_multirun false; # app_multirun <bool>, Allow multiple instances of the application #
x_res 1680; # x_res <int32>, Fixed window width #
y_res 1050; # y_res <int32>, Fixed window height #
x_pos 0; # x_pos <int32>, Window position #
y_pos 0; # y_pos <int32>, Window position #
vfs_log_level 0; # vfs_log_level <int32>, 0 - off, 1 - mod-user, 2 - dev #
unit_test false; # unit_test <bool>, unit test (for daily build) #
campaign_unit_multiplier 0.75; # campaign_unit_multiplier <float>, Set default unit multiplier for campaign #
naval_fleet_multiplier 0.75; # naval_fleet_multiplier <float>, Set default fleet size for battles #
gfx_first_run false; # gfx_first_run <bool>, First time application run #
gfx_dx11_checked true; # gfx_dx11_checked <bool>, Have we checked that user wants dx11? #
gfx_video_memory 0; # gfx_video_memory <int>, Override available video memory (bytes) #
gfx_fullscreen true; # gfx_fullscreen <bool>, Run the application in fullscreen or not #
gfx_vsync true; # gfx_vsync <bool>, vertical synchronization #
gfx_hdr true; #  gfx_hdr <bool>, Use high dynamic range rendering pipeline #
gfx_shadermodel 4; # gfx_shadermodel <int>, Set shader model, 0-SM3LQ, 1-SM3, 2-SM4, 3=SM4.1, 4=SM5 #
gfx_aa 3; # gfx_aa <int>, Set antialiasing, 0-no, 1 = MLAA, 2 = MSAA_2X, 3 = MSAA_4X, 4 = MSAA_8X #
gfx_texture_filtering 4; # gfx_texture_filtering <int>, Set texture filtering, 0-trilinear, 4- anisotropic 16x #
gfx_texture_quality 3; # gfx_texture_quality <int>, Set the quality of textures. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_ssao false; # gfx_ssao <bool>, Enable Screen Space Ambient Occlusion buffer #
gfx_enable_directx11 true; # gfx_enable_directx11 <bool>, Enable DirectX 11 rendering #
gfx_distortion true; # gfx_distortion <bool>, Enable Distortion Effect buffer #
gfx_depth_of_field 0; # gfx_depth_of_field <int>, Set depth of field quality 0 - off, 2 - high #
gfx_hardware_shadows false; # gfx_hardware_shadows <bool>, Enable hardware shadows #
gfx_tesselation false; # gfx_tesselation <bool>, Enable tesselation #
gfx_sky_quality 3; # gfx_sky_quality <int>, Set the quality of sky. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_unit_quality 3; # gfx_unit_quality <int>, Set the quality of units. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_ship_quality 3; # gfx_ship_quality <int>, Set the quality of ships. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_building_quality 3; # gfx_building_quality <int>, Set the quality of buildings. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_water_quality 3; # gfx_water_quality <int>, Set the quality of water. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_unit_scale 2; # gfx_unit_scale <int>, Set unit scale. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_shadow_quality 4; # gfx_shadow_quality <int>, Set unit scale. 0 - off, 4 - ultra #
gfx_tree_quality 3; # gfx_tree_quality <int>, Set unit scale. 0 - off, 4 - ultra #
gfx_grass_quality 4; # gfx_grass_quality <int>, Set unit scale. 0 - off, 4 - ultra #
gfx_terrain_quality 1; # gfx_terrain_quality <int>, Set unit scale. 0 - low, 1 - high #
gfx_gamma_setting 2; # gfx_gamma_setting <float>, Set gamma correction #
gfx_brightness_setting 1.2; # gfx_brightness_setting <float>, Set brightness #
gfx_screenshot_folder ./screenshots; # gfx_screenshot_folder <folder>, Folder to where save screenshots relative to Empire directory #
gfx_gpu "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570"; # gfx_gpu <path>, The GPU description #
gfx_effects_quality 3; # gfx_effects_quality <int>, Set effects quality. 0 - lowest, 3 - ultra #
gfx_vignette false; # gfx_vignette <true|false>, Enable vignette #
gfx_picture_in_picture false; # gfx_picture_in_picture <true|false>, Enable picture_in_picture #

Downgrading, Over budget by 65 MB
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 2

lordmaximus77

Forcing the game to use 100% of the VRAM is not a good idea. You should leave a few % for the OS.

And yes. Shogun 2 is one of the game that's actualy capable of filling up your graphics memory. And various test have shown that having a 1.25GB or 1.5GB card won't suffice when playing on Full HD (or higher) resolutions with high AA & AF.

Getting a 3GB GTX 580 model or a AMD HD6970 2GB (or 2x a HD 6950 2GB.) would probably solve this.

If you do want High AA you might want to try lowering one of the texture settings to save some VRAM.

I haven't checked the gfx.log myself. It would be interesting to see whats going on for my cards. Will check that when I get home tonight.

Bear'sNecessity

lordmaximus77 wrote: »

Forcing the game to use 100% of the VRAM is not a good idea. You should leave a few % for the OS.

And yes. Shogun 2 is one of the game that's actualy capable of filling up your graphics memory. And various test have shown that having a 1.25GB or 1.5GB card won't suffice when playing on Full HD (or higher) resolutions with high AA & AF.

Getting a 3GB GTX 580 model or a AMD HD6970 2GB (or 2x a HD 6950 2GB.) would probably solve this.

If you do want High AA you might want to try lowering one of the texture settings to save some VRAM.

I haven't checked the gfx.log myself. It would be interesting to see whats going on for my cards. Will check that when I get home tonight.

Lord this is not an attack on you but I think that notion is BS... I have a similar thread below in which I noted this subscript lowering settings. I replaced the VRAM setting with about 3gb of ram, even though my card only has 1gb of DDR3 memory, and the game now runs smoothly with all the features maxed out with the exception of v-sync and AA (set to MLAA). If these calculations which lower settings are occurring then I think those calculations are wrong, and personally I feel like it's a cheap way to ensure the game runs smoothly.

lordmaximus77

Well I don't believe my notion is BS. If your running the game on a Nvidia card you could even check it yourself since Nvidia cards allow you to measure real VRAM usage. (Rivatuner allows you to measure VRAM)


Your claim that setting the available VRAM to a value higher than the actual amount of available VRAM helping improve gameplay is interesting though. That might show there's something wrong with the games interal VRAM usage calculations. (e.g. the game thinks its using more than it actualy is)

Dingo

lordmaximus77 wrote: »

Your claim that setting the available VRAM to a value higher than the actual amount of available VRAM helping improve gameplay is interesting though. That might show there's something wrong with the games interal VRAM usage calculations. (e.g. the game thinks its using more than it actualy is)

I am also using a higher VRAM setting because the game lowered my graphics automatically before. I have played about 5 hours so far and experienced no problems (GTX560 1GB VRAM + 1680x1050 + ultra graphics + 4xMSAA + 4xSSAA forced with nvidia control panel + medium soft shadows). The game settings benchmark shows 35fps.

my settings:

lordmaximus77

Dingo wrote: »

I am also using a higher VRAM setting because the game lowered my graphics automatically before. I have played about 5 hours so far and experienced no problems (GTX560 1GB VRAM + ultra graphics + 4xMSAA + 4xSSAA forced with nvidia control panel + medium soft shadows).

Could you (and other Nvidia users in this thread) do me a favor and measure "actual" VRAM usage with Rivatuner?

Bear'sNecessity

lordmaximus77 wrote: »

Could you (and other Nvidia users in this thread) do me a favor and measure "actual" VRAM usage with Rivatuner?

I am running an ATI card maximus, but I agree... it is interesting and I'd like to know what the deal is.

Dingo

lordmaximus77 wrote: »

Could you (and other Nvidia users in this thread) do me a favor and measure "actual" VRAM usage with Rivatuner?

Sure, will do tonight (in about 8hours).
Since I am using a Vertex 3 SSD with up to 500MB/s read speed, maybe it's swapping the textures fast enough for me not to notice, lol.

alQamar

hi there, i experienced a lot lot problem forcing the game with dedicating vram in preferences.txt

1. while playing windows popped up ask me to disable aero
2. more crashes (CTD) in game

my tip is better leave the preferences.txt alone on all settings the game does.

Dingo

@alQamar: in which kind of situation did your crashes occur (e.g. large battle/zooming in/campaign map/...) ?

And why are you saying "more crashes"? Do you experience crashes even without a modified VRAM value?

alQamar

1. after the patch 2.0 the game ran great in any situations, on wednesday it started to crash to desktop (perhaps 12 times in the last 2 days including yesterday, not tested today yet)

2. i had CTD on deployment zone esp in siege battles, while using match-maker, starting Shogun
3. currently i am trying to sort out the reasons. i posted a topic that i suspect latest evga precision doing the issues.
4. the windows 7 message on reducing the overlay (disable aero) never happened again since setting vram to 0 again.

Bear'sNecessity

I've had no such problems... but this should be a temporary fix as the current method in which the gfx log file disables settings is inaccurate and cheap.

Snerk

lordmaximus77 wrote: »

Could you (and other Nvidia users in this thread) do me a favor and measure "actual" VRAM usage with Rivatuner?

I have a GTX570.
Checked VRAM usage with Evga Precision using the following settings:
4x MSAA
16x Anistropic
Unit, Building, Tree, Grass, Water, Sky, Shadows on Ultra
Texture Quality on Ultra
HDR, Distortion Effects - ON
Soft Shadows, Tesselation, Depth of Field, SSAO, Vignette - OFF

In-battle with 2 sides, max units on both sides
987 MB used with Texture Quality on Ultra
768 MB used with Texture Quality on High

Campaign Map
831 MB used - Texture Quality Ultra

Menu Screen
1258 MB used (help?)

alQamar

same for other game (world of tanks) problems with the VRAM seem to cut down graphic settings. it is not a bug. perhaps we also facing the limit of 32bit here, as shogun 2 is compiled in 32bit still. any tech mods available to this idea?

why i think this: applying a 64bit patch on World of Tanks exe removed capping of VRAM, instantly and reproducible.

the problem also did only occur on systems using a 64bit OS, while having much RAM / VRAM

see more information here
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112556

havent tested yet if Shogun 2 suffers this aswell. in any case before applying LAA on Shogun2.exe plz do a copy of the original file.

i will do some intensive tests and report back here.

Snerk

alQamar wrote: »

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112556

havent tested yet if Shogun 2 suffers this aswell. in any case before applying LAA on Shogun2.exe plz do a copy of the original file.

i will do some intensive tests and report back here.

I'll be interested to hear what your results are with this

lordmaximus77

alQamar wrote: »

same for other game (world of tanks) problems with the VRAM seem to cut down graphic settings. it is not a bug. perhaps we also facing the limit of 32bit here, as shogun 2 is compiled in 32bit still. any tech mods available to this idea?

why i think this: applying a 64bit patch on World of Tanks exe removed capping of VRAM, instantly and reproducible.

the problem also did only occur on systems using a 64bit OS, while having much RAM / VRAM

see more information here
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112556

havent tested yet if Shogun 2 suffers this aswell. in any case before applying LAA on Shogun2.exe plz do a copy of the original file.

i will do some intensive tests and report back here.

That worked on empire.

But the warscape engine based games (ETW, NTW TWS2) should be LAA by default since ETW patch 1.5.

alQamar

hi there i could not see a noticable change using Shogun 2 with LAA or not. i cannot say this finally about the important topic of chopping graphics (dont have much time for have a look on that ingame either

but the performance is the same, or at least in a tolerable area of minority that could be also measurement differences.

LAA does not work for Shogun 2 so far i can say.

Dingo

Snerk wrote: »

I have a GTX570.
In-battle with 2 sides, max units on both sides
987 MB used with Texture Quality on Ultra
768 MB used with Texture Quality on High
Menu Screen
1258 MB used (help?)

Menu Screen 1258MB WTF?!?!? I will have to check that later at home.

LOL, that would at least explain why the automatic configuration in the settings menu thinks the card doesn't have enough VRAM because the menu itself uses already 1GB of VRAM.

Hmmm, or the configurator simulates the VRAM usage depending on your settings while you are in the settings menu. Maybe you can check whether the VRAM usage in the menu changes if you lower the texture resolution?

lordmaximus77

Snerk wrote: »

I have a GTX570.
Checked VRAM usage with Evga Precision using the following settings:
4x MSAA
16x Anistropic
Unit, Building, Tree, Grass, Water, Sky, Shadows on Ultra
Texture Quality on Ultra
HDR, Distortion Effects - ON
Soft Shadows, Tesselation, Depth of Field, SSAO, Vignette - OFF

In-battle with 2 sides, max units on both sides
987 MB used with Texture Quality on Ultra
768 MB used with Texture Quality on High

Campaign Map
831 MB used - Texture Quality Ultra

And thats just on 1680 x 1050.

You can imagine what VRAM usage will be like on Full HD (1920 x 1080) or higher resolutions.

Dingo

lordmaximus77 wrote: »

You can imagine what VRAM usage will be like on Full HD (1920 x 1080) or higher resolutions.

Actually, there should be not too much of a difference. The textures are the same, whether they are drawn on a 1280x1024 or 2560x1600 screen. The difference will be the screen buffer size (multiplied by the AA level).

lordmaximus77

Dingo wrote: »

Actually, there should be not too much of a difference. The textures are the same, whether they are drawn on a 1280x1024 or 2560x1600 screen. The difference will be the screen buffer size (multiplied by the AA level).

I was not talking about the textures. Stuff like AA, AF & HDR do have an increased memory usage at higher resolutions. switching from 1680 x 1050 to 1920 x 1080 could increase VRAM usage by 100 - 150MB.

alQamar

my usage in game varies from 1080 to 1180 MB, i have a high load on the menu screen aswell, dont forget the scene in the background is live, not a vid so thats why shogun loads up as slow, he is simply loading this scene like he would in a map.

the usage still does not reflect if he uses all the vram, it may be also include reserved, like windows does it either.

if i am alt tabbing out in the menu if have a load of 625 MB, same after a game it is over 1000 MB, so he is caching something.

Jace11

Wow I finally found an intelligent discussion about this. The VRAM thing has been driving me insane and may explain why Shogun 2 did not have DX11 and AA at release.

I spotted the downgrading in gfx.log before the patch. What I noticed was that after a long period of playing (campaign / battles etc) settings would be downgraded. This looked like a leak to me. Stable at start, but unstable as you play longer.

In terms of expense, someone on twcenter measured performance on a GTX580 and found that shadows high - ultra are the most expensive while on an ATi card, these only give a 6FPS decrease. Setting textures to ultra + MLAA or MSAA and having shadows at high / ultra is seemingly taking a lot of cards over budget.

I am using the preferences script edit with 2x my real vram, (medium shadows) and I can maintain AA and high textures for several battles before downgrading occurs.

Anyhow, in my opinion, the vram is botched and there may also be a leak.

I don't understand why CA use this system cause many players are finding that the graphics settings they input are not doing anything. Surely they should be able to add extra features and reduce performance (FPS). If I run at 60 FPS and want AA but know it will cost me 20-30 FPS, should I not be allowed to do this. And if they insist on using this system, it should be stable and not leaky AND we should have some indication of the VRAM usage. So we know what features we can pick and keep without the game turning stuff off.


This hard-capping sucks bigtime, I think CA know that though, the boards are full of graphics issues....

Have they made any kind of comment on this..? If not I wonder why? ATi cards seem slightly better optimised from what I read. Shadows on nVidia cards may need fixing.

This whole thing is incredibly frustrating though...

Bear'sNecessity

Jace11 wrote: »

This hard-capping sucks bigtime, I think CA know that though, the boards are full of graphics issues....

Have they made any kind of comment on this..? If not I wonder why? ATi cards seem slightly better optimised from what I read. Shadows on nVidia cards may need fixing.

This whole thing is incredibly frustrating though...

It does... I haven't seen any other game do this. It seems pretty dodgy.

AlJabberwock

Ack... LAA... Hopefully this is irrelevant for 64 bit users, but read on if you aren't afraid of long posts...Sorry!

If you ARE, then LAA is without a doubt already active for this program, although if you are a 32 bit system user, you may have to flag this in your bootup ini as I am not aware if this can be macro'd from the application.

[Sigh] This topic brings back some very unpleasant memories, and the whole rather dicey idea of continuing to demand more from an application that may still not have 64bit native code.


We didn't test for VRam caps:
We have run rather a lot of tests using the canned benchmarks, and some custom internal tests using only NVidia cards.
We had not seen significant capping of our DX11 cards, but we were not looking for that as our main concern was finding the limits of a single 580 and single 570 on 3D stereo vision arrangements, and DX10 card performances with various CPU and system permutations from Intel and AMD.

Since this usually does not mean prolonged playing SP or MP, and loads of restarts with different drivers, we neither saw nor had we expected leaking and/or other -lets say it- bizarre treatment of VRAM settings.

I am not a software expert by any means, being basically a hardware guy who has to understand SOME software parameters to optimize system builds. So let me say the following things that I _can_ contribute before I go back to the salt mine, and we will run tests (when there are a few more bodies about) aimed at this possibly new and interesting glitch we had heretofor entirely neglected.

Large address aware (LAA) and Total War for conspiracy theorists:
LAA is basically a program setting that allows an increase of the percentage use the user account gets as opposed to kernel/system within the maximum 4gb of 'address space' available within a 32 bit application. This is not related directly to physical ram available in a system, although obviously if you have more than 4 gigs, you can't use more than 4 gigs in a 32 bit application, and if you have less than 3 gigs, you probably don't need this setting.

This is a simplification, but effectively 32 bit operating systems already have a similar physical limitation whereas 64 bit systems do not... But because the original code for the APPLICATION is written in 32 bit code with massive need for address space as it becomes ever more demanding a title, it _is_ a design built for painting oneself into a corner until it can be run in 64 bit native (which is, oddly to say 'unsafe'64bit). The address space is required for not only the system ram but cache and vram (and a few other things) that require an address to be useable for the application in question. One can see that if you have ever-more capable systems to handle more demanding applications, then 1, 1.5 or even 2gigs of vram that needs addressing in addition to everything else from harddrive caches to some drivers, that any space left over and available for _System_ ram can get squeezed.

In the case of ETW, because this larger address space was not initially available, it caused havoc with upper-level systems. Such upper tier systems in particular were liable to have large Vram and cache and other variables that caused loads of space to be needed on the user's side of the equation, hence limiting system ram to a very small space indeed, which inevitably resulted in crashing as ram with addresses was insufficient, or address space was insufficient.

Would LAA help me or have an effect?
Without any doubt, this is already contained within the code for S2. This was one of the lessons learned form ETW...If you have a 64 bit system, nothing needs to be done. 32 bit systems have to have this flagged in the ini at bootup. I do not know if this is possible to macro from the application and may need to be done manually.

Would it help if S2 were written in Native64 bit code?
Well it would help 64 bit users.
Because the system/kernel needs within an application are usually smaller than the space allowed them by default, LAA allowed TW games to continue to use the 32bit code engine by expanding user space at the expense of system space, but obviously, this is a limited game that must come to an end when the new LAA space is no longer sufficient, and kernel/system space cannot be squeezed any further. For 32 bit systems, this is the 3gig mark, with some rare exceptions such as PAE capable systems. For 64 bit operating systems, this is the 4gig mark, because kernel/system address requirements are removed from the process entirely.

If it had been written in native 64bit or something called 'agnostic' (using visual studio '05) 64 bit users would be released from the 4 gig limit, and have something like a theoretical limit of 8 terabytes. 32 bit users though are still limited to their 3 gigs...

Here's the conspiracy theory part-unlikely though...
In this 32 bit case, the settings might be deliberately programmed to underreport Vram, to actually reduce its use of limited user address space within the application-which remember, is limited to 3 gigs with large address awareness. This might be a sneaky underhanded "trick" to keep the system ram from being shut out, and causing all the ruckus it caused with ETW. On the other hand, if I don't crash and still get to play, well, thats a better result isn't it? On the other hand, if at least 64 bit safe code was employed to allow for 64 bit system users to at least get the 4gig total application limit, then 64 bit users should be able to override it with less ramification (heh heh heh-sorry) as they are not as address-limited within the application, so long as they use a reasonable number...

What if its not a conspiracy?
What if, as reported by some here, the issue is not deliberate but either a program glitch as some have supposed, or comes about as the result of address space being inadequate for the demands put on the application adresses available? In the latter case, addresses are taken and given as needed and when there is an overrun, what gets left out in the cold is the VRam as it is what is being called and cleared most often and in greatest numbers. Unable to find the address it needs within the application, as time progresses, and the game is played longer, VRam becomes more likely to be odd man out when the music stops on the next cycle. Hence, over time, allowed settings are degraded, and we get the results as reported by Jace 11 above...

Like I said, I'm a hardware guy, not a software guy, so I will not try to support this with programming knowledge, and if someone can fill me in on something I might have wrong, have at it. What I will be doing tonight, is looking to see if I can see more support for this idea or some other from the hardware results side.

SnoopyTRB

Wow, lots of activity, should have checked back sooner!

I have EVGA Precision so I flipped on the VRAM monitor and fired up a customer battle with medium funds, wound up being a 15v15 match. EVGA stated I never went over 844MB used. the gfx.log did not show any downgrading happening. I am wondering if there may be a memory leak like some of you have suggested. When I looked at the gfx.log file again the log was last modified about 1am when I was just about done with an epic session of S2 where it had been running for several hours straight.

I understand that CA got all chumy with ATI to make this game, so I expect the game to run better on ATI cards, but some of the numbers I'm seeing for how badly Nvidia users are taking it in the shorts with certain high/ultra settings is really disappointing. I hope Nvidia and/or CA will do a little work here to make things run smoother.

abram730

GTX 470 1280 MB

Downgrading, Over budget by 135 MB
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 2
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 1
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 0
Disabled Depth of Field

Other report it on 2GB cards.

I'd like to add that I read about deferred rendering. Massive memory usage and high bandwidth usage is a common issue and a difficult one to solve.. Also hardware AA can't be done.
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/424979-forward-vs-deferred-rendering/

Perhaps SRAA would of been the way to go? But that's NVIDIA not AMD.
http://www.ngohq.com/news/19681-nvidias-subpixel-reconstruction-antialiasing-demo.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51975624/Nvidia-SRAA-Whitepaper

SnoopyTRB

Those are good reads and I've seen them before. Very informative, However, they were written in 2006 so there are a few things that are not correct. The biggest one being no hardware AA. DX11 specifically allowed for AA to happen with a deferred rendering engine. That is why there was no AA at launch because we did not have the DX11 engine available to us.

Hopefully the next batch of drivers from Nvidia and ATI will include some tuning for this game to make it run a bit better.

abram730

Conspiracy theory
AMD made sure SG2 used more memory so their cards did better by shooting for a 1.5-2GB usage on max settings.


I hope it's just a leak or oversight in the menu code... 1280MB should be enough.. right?

Rumpullpus

does this game only use the memory on your GPU???? what about all the RAM i got plugged into my motherboard. that should be more then enough VRAM.

btw i dont think its just NIVIDA users i have an ATI 4800 series and my log said this:

Downgrading, Over budget by 258 MB
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 1
Downgraded Anti-Aliasing to 0
Disabled Depth of Field
Disabled SSAO
Downgraded Shadows to 3
Downgraded Shadows to 2
Disabled HDR
Downgraded Sky Options to 2
Downgraded Water Details to 2
Disabled Distortion
Downgraded Texture Quality to 2
Downgrading, Over budget by 7 MB
Downgraded Water Details to 1
Downgraded Texture Quality to 1