View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001033 | AI War 1 / Classic | Bug - Other | Nov 2, 2010 10:28 pm | Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | |
| Reporter | Lancefighter | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | not fixable | ||
| Product Version | 4.024 | ||||
| Summary | 0001033: Issue with preformance profiles | ||||
| Description | http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3569927/Screenshot_2010_11_02_22_20_44.png I believe it should read: "game speed 6% (Lets face it. Your already on the lowest profile: Your screwed)" | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
We are getting destroyed by performance... Okay but here are the particulars: Lance is referring to a multiplayer game with spiky, myself, dazio difficulty eight 6000-8000 wave size high-capacity ships 60 planets Bully and vicious raider spiky seems to be having the most problems( 2.8ghz single core /240gt 512dd5, 50% CPU utilization). On a core i7-930, I top out at 20 CPU, usually at around three or 10 CPU utilization. The game is unplayable, and we have to stop for the night. |
|
|
not to mention apparent desyncs every few minutes :\ |
|
|
The desyncs are obnoxious... Was it every few minutes? at the end, I couldn't even move across a planet or two without everything crashing down around us... I am attaching the saved file. and it may be that what we are trying to do is just not possible, and I understand that. May as well report it and see if there is anything to be done, and if not, I understand... Maybe this was a tad too ambitious for the hardware we have in the group. |
|
|
|
|
|
I assume it was every few minutes.. with every few minutes being a giant umbrella time that could cover anything from once a minute to once every 10 minutes. |
|
|
Wait, back up, desyncs? Iirc we haven't gotten a single report of a desync in the Unity versions. You do mean the "desync" that ends the game and you have to reload from earlier, right? If so, that's actually a much more serious problem than the performance. Which is regrettable, certainly; we can use that save when we profile for cpu hogs, etc, and try to find where's best to cut. By the way, I assume you weren't having Spikey host with that single-core machine, right? Thanks for letting us know about this. And yes, I believe Lance's suggested text for game speed <= 6% on Extremely Low is highly appropriate. |
|
|
ok, not really sure how you might define desync, but were were getting 'waiting for players', and host had to resend game to everyone.. I believe thats a desync, at least. spikey was certainly not host, machine was |
|
|
That's 2.8 dual core. :\ The game didn't SAY it was desync'd, but it was at the WAITING FOR PLAYERS status, with all of us able to chat. |
|
|
Desync is when the game literally halts with a desync message and you have to all leave and load up a savegame and resync. Those "Waiting for players" is usually due to network problems somewhere (also refered to as LAG). I did this as well with five players, but there we also had issues with one guy having a trimmed up calculator for a computer, and he was at 40% gamespeed even at extremely low, which sucked. But we did also have network lag there. I haven't had a chance to play more than 2-3 players after that, and have no issues whatsoever, so I think it was a local problem with one or more of the players. Please check your network settings and pings. There could be something, somewhere, screwing you over. |
|
|
I was hosting(my specs posted). I think what makes him call that a desync was that all the players have to be reloaded; that may not be what the correct term is. |
|
|
A desync would give a message on the game host, when looking at the player tab of the stats window. I think it might also send a text message to all the players, but I don't recall. If that's NOT what you were seeing, then what you have is actually network packet loss, which could be due to the MTU being too high, a bad network driver, or even an unreliably network connection causin someone to drop out. The host needs to look at that player tab of the stats screen to see what is happening and for who, though. It will say which player(s) are desynced, if any, as well as which ones it is waiting on (which would indicate a dropped network connection). On that screen, any player can also look at the fps for all players. If one player has super low fps and the others don't, that's whose hardware isn't hacking it. Spikey's should be absolutely fine, though; for purposes of this game, it's better than either of my computers I test with. On the other hand, if NO players are seeing severely dropped fps, then you have an entirely different problem: someone has a bad connection to the rest. You can tell who by who it says "wait" by on the host player stats tab. If one person's connection isn't cutting it, that could be causing lag while the game syncs network state, thus leading to high fps but very low game speeds. Incrreasing the network skip combats that. But if that same person is losing connection every few minutes, then really they ought to look at their connection. Common culprits are a bad modem, a bad router, an unreliable ISP, and most especially, an unreliable wireless connection. Playing ai war over a wireless connection has a good chance of leading to pain exactly like this, simply because most wireless connections are more unreliable than people think. If your wireless connection disconnects and reconnect while you are loading a web page, that web page just seems a bit slower than usual -- you probably blame it on the web page. If the same happens in ai war, you might wind up with this. I've seen it in my own group, on pre-2.0 versions even, before one of my players got his router replaced and the other stopped playing on wireless (two out of four with bad connections, unlucky). Meanwhile, te CPU usage of the game on your computers doesn't tell me a lot except how many cores you have. It will generally use one full core on the clients, and gel on the host, irrespective o the load of the game itself. It could be running at 50% while you have 60fps and an awesomely smooth experience, or the dame when you're at 6% because of a CPU bottleneck. In this specific case, since I have to guess, my money would be on a bad connection. It could also be someone's CPU/gpu not keeping up (or some inefficiency in this specific scenario that causes everyone not to be able to keep up), but those seem less likely to me. Performance for most folks has been better than ever before, although you do have an aggressive scenario. If you run into it again, the host needs to heck the things I mentioned, and then if it is a desync, there are steps stickies on the tech support forums that we need you to follow so that we can diagnose it. Desyncs are super tricky. Or, more likely, ofthe host finds out who has not been keeping up and in what way, then you can either use network skip, get that person to try fixing their connection up, use a less demanding scalenario if it's their CPU/gpu, or whatever. But with he perf profile on extremely low doing THAT badly, and the frequent disconnects, I'll be super surprised if this isn't a network issue rather than a problem with any of your computers themselves. |
|
|
This was a case of my computer failing to the high ship capacity; one to two thousand active ships tend to lag Unity quite severely, and constant 3x waves of 2002 ships were just simply freezing my side of the game. Our early and mid-game was fine, so I would be surprised if it wasn't my bottleneck. |
|
|
But.. spikey has a better system than I do :\ except that apparently spikey's cpu is 5 years old. That might do it |
|
|
Oh, that's true -- the architectures those older CPUs can make them massively less efficient than the newer ones. My Q6600 is only 2.4Ghz quad core, but way outperforms a 2.8Ghz pentium D. I'd definitely suggest Normal ship caps on all except the beefiest machines -- the added CPU load is multiplicative with more ships. 500x500 = 250,000 while 2000x2000 = 4,000,000 for example. We moved to the Normal ship caps to take advantage of this effect, and because the added benefit of having those extra ships running around was about nil for gameplay. But we left High there for those with beefy machines that want the older ship caps -- in this case, sounds like not beefy enough. |
|
|
Okay, I loaded this save up in the latest version of the game, and I'm getting 100% game speed while playing on High performance profile (I saw it was Extremely Low by default, so changed that to be sure after I had 100% game speed there). Occasionally for just under a second it's dropping to 75%, but then it bounces back up. To me, this is saying that either there was some inefficiency that has since been fixed already, or else it was simply hardware that couldn't cope (odd, given that there were only 31k ships in the game, that shouldn't be too bad of a load). It may have been poor network conditions rather than actually anyone's CPU, if it wasn't a bug that was already fixed. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2010 10:28 pm | Lancefighter | New Issue | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:44 pm | themachineissentient | Note Added: 0002582 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:46 pm | themachineissentient | Note Edited: 0002582 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:48 pm | themachineissentient | Note Edited: 0002582 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:49 pm | themachineissentient | Note Edited: 0002582 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:51 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0002584 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:58 pm | themachineissentient | Note Added: 0002587 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:58 pm | themachineissentient | File Added: Big game.sav | |
| Nov 2, 2010 10:59 pm | themachineissentient | Note Edited: 0002587 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:07 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0002588 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:22 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0002591 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:22 pm | keith.lamothe | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:22 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | new => feedback |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:24 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0002592 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:24 pm | Lancefighter | Status | feedback => assigned |
| Nov 2, 2010 11:25 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0002593 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 8:30 am | Moonshine Fox | Note Added: 0002601 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 8:49 am | themachineissentient | Note Added: 0002604 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 8:51 am | themachineissentient | Note Edited: 0002604 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 10:12 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0002608 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 4:41 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0002635 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 4:53 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0002637 | |
| Nov 3, 2010 5:04 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0002638 | |
| Dec 22, 2010 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006743 | |
| Dec 22, 2010 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | assigned => resolved |
| Dec 22, 2010 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => not fixable |
| Dec 22, 2010 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | keith.lamothe => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
