For those having trouble with "laggy" graphics, i have the solution!!!

[Snoochems]

http://img.neoseeker.com/neo_image.php?imageid=145896&type=article

Works wonders for me.

My point being, stop whining that your x1300/6200gt isn't pull 100+ frames on max detail.

No, this isn't cotn... this is a game that isn't even out yet...

[truebrit71]

Cool...I'll have to check it out....I started another thread elsewhere asking for the best/most reasonable card out there....

[Keith]

The game runs not perfectly, but reasonably well enough on my 3 year old ATI Radeon 9800 Pro w/128MB. I have no graphic anomalies, and only a ever so slight pause in the animations on very high custom settings.

Putting the game on the middle speed button of the three provided seems to smooth things out a bit for me and makes the demo run a little quicker for me, which is what I prefer.

[Gizza]

I think most ppl are probably having troubles becuase their cards dont support DX9. That and a lot of ppl may be under the impression that they should be able to go max graphics for a CB game.

[Azeem]

Just so people looking for new video cards would know: do NOT get an ATI 9700 (which I stupidly did). ATI 9700 is horrendously unstable on any game (even crashed Medieval: Total War :rolleyes: ). :p :o

[Gizza]

Just so people looking for new video cards would know: do NOT get an ATI 9700 (which I stupidly did). ATI 9700 is horrendously unstable on any game (even crashed Medieval: Total War :rolleyes: ). :p :o

Not to mention that card is about 4 years old. :p

[Azeem]

Not to mention that card is about 4 years old. :p

I'm nearly broke. I can't get any new stuff. :p

Although I can run the Caesar IV demo quite smoothly for a while. :) Oddly enough, it's the only game aside from Civilization III that will actually run with much more stability with my crappy ATI 9700. "More stability" meaning that it won't crash my computer until a half hour later. :p

[Pharaoh Pepy]

Nvidia cards have always served me well. I have used no other.

[Snoochems]

Lol... the 9700 is ancient. Wasn't it the first DX9 card ever?

Anyways, i think it might be just dieing. A 9700 is still 'not-to-bad'. Check the heatsink isn't coming loose. It could also be a driver problem. Maybe the new ATI drivers done support the older cards.

[Agamemnus]

Lollers.... I remember people here saying that C4 would run better than CoTN...

[Ghost517]

well i am runnig the game on a geforce 62000 128 MB and the game runs smooth on medium graphics setting

[triggercut]

Lol... the 9700 is ancient. Wasn't it the first DX9 card ever?

Anyways, i think it might be just dieing. A 9700 is still 'not-to-bad'. Check the heatsink isn't coming loose. It could also be a driver problem. Maybe the new ATI drivers done support the older cards.

First DX8 card, I believe. It can't run the fancy dx9 stuff.

[dorn]

I think most ppl are probably having troubles becuase their cards dont support DX9. That and a lot of ppl may be under the impression that they should be able to go max graphics for a CB game.

I think most have problems with havin too old drivers, install the latest for your graphic card and you will be able to play.
With my system of 3500GHz and with an 6800GS i can play on best quality but its not so fast like it shuold be, i think so i only use the 2nd highest option.
But i also tested the best performance option, and i have to say TM you did a great job: the game still looks very good compared to CCR e.g.
Even with less details and textures and water its fine to look at, better details would only be nessesary if we could zoom in and look at the soooooo cool animations of our people. But without this option we will not need so many details, or even HDR.
Its not needed to build a great city. Though it looks better- my advice: turn it on, when making screens and then go back to the normal
style you use!

(A ati-radeon card with 128 mb and dx9 support costs less than 100 euros. nvidia is more expensive)

[Kuplo]

Well, I have no idea how much that X1900XTX card costs but a ATi X1800XT in my area runs about $359.00 So I think I'll probably be passing on the x1900xtx for a while anyway.

I am however looking at the ATi X1600 PRO (512MB ddr2 ram) and the X1800XT which as mentioned is about $359.00 but to be quite honest I dont think that I can really justify purchasing a x1800xt to play games and then need to upgrade it again next year when the next uber card is released and Im not so sure that any of my games are really going to run any noticibly better for *me* with a X1600 Pro.

I was looking at the Nvidia cards yesterday when at the electronics super store but all they managed to do was to confuse me with all the different naming conventions that the different vendors are using such as 7600 GT OC, or 7600 LS or 7900 se etc. etc. etc So it didnt exactly make me want to buy an Nvidia card and find out that while the series number might be the highest, it may have been a special edition model that is considered to be the weakest and a very budget minded card.

I sincerely wish that both ATI and Nvidia would stop putting the darn lettering onto the ends of the numbered series so that way I would be assured that any 7600 or any X1800 is going to be the same regardless of which vendor is selling it and then I would know that any 7900 is going to be better than any 7800 becuase I remember back when the 400 series was out for Nvidia and the mx was the budget card and the TI was the sort of high end card but many people bought the mx cards thinking that it was still in the same series so it must be somewhat close to the other that was an extra $50 or so.

[Christbowel]

I personnaly have a Intel P IV 2.5 GHZ, 6600 GT 128 mo, 1 Go Ram.

I have some problem running the game entirely smoothly... so that I have to decrease almost all the grafical options... its BAD !

Dont tell me its time to upgrade... mates... its not a FPS... I run some FPS better... lol

[Kuplo]

Well.... I just got done updating my drivers *again* (just updated them last week now I see there was a newer one) so I thought I'd try C4 again and see what types of framerates I can get with the newer drivers before I run out and spend $350.00 for a new card.

So.... As reported by Fraps, I get the following

Best Performance: 36-37
Next level: 36
Next level: 12
Next level: 11
Best Graphics: 6

Seems that the biggest jump between FPS happens between the 2nd lowest and the next level which seems like a very drastic jump compared to the Best performance and the next level
While 36 FPS is more than acceptable to me, I'd of course like to see that same 36FPS be available at perhaps the 3rd level of the graphics settings instead of at the BP and 2nd level.

Heck, if I had to, I could live with the 11 FPS if the game didnt tie everything together. And what I mean by that is that while I may be seeing 11FPS visually, the game seems to lag in things such as mouse button clicks, such as putting down a new insulae, when at the slower FPS then the action of placing a new insulae on my maps doesnt register with the click of the mouse, but instead I have to click and hold down the mouse for a second or two before it registers with the game that I am placing an item on the map. I dont know if this could be fixed or not, and since Im not an expert in these matters I dont understand why an action such as clicking to place an object on the map would require me to click and hold the mouse button down for a second or two when at the best performance settings a simple click will place the object on the map.

Im pretty sure it's not my CPU that would be causing this. I have an AMD 64 Athlon 3500+ with 2GB or system memory.

Is it that the FPS is tied into doing things such as clicking to place an item on the map? Im guessing that it must be since the low FPS causes the game not to register the mouse click when placing an object.

Any thoughts on what causes this issue? (And I don't really need to hear, "get a x1900xtc or an Nvidia 7900 GT OC FU DA card and it wont do it" as that is not an answer as to why the game doesnt register the click when placing objects when the FPS is low compared to the game quickly registering the click when placing items on the map when the FPS is higher).

I'd really like to buy the game when it comes out but unless something happens to fix the performance to be anywhere between 15 and 36 at the highest level and or fixes the mouse click lag (with my current video card) then I dont think that purchasing it would be worthwhile to me personally. And Im rather leary about spending $350.00 on a video card that might only still see 15FPS on the highest graphics settings for the game since that would seem like a waste to spend 350.00 just to boost the best graphics settings up by 9FPS. If on the other hand spending the 350.00 for a new video card would boost the FPS on the best settings up to or over 35FPS on the best graphics settings then it would certainly be a worthwhile purchase to me personally to buy the new video card and the game when it's released.

[taraxacumoff]

Kuplo
What was your resolution when you ran the tests?
T

[candelarius]

http://img.neoseeker.com/neo_image.php?imageid=145896&type=article

Works wonders for me.

My point being, stop whining that your x1300/6200gt isn't pull 100+ frames on max detail.

No, this isn't cotn... this is a game that isn't even out yet...

That's cute, but, I don't think the problem is with many people's cards...I think the demo has not been fully optimized. I have a relatively brand new PC (bought it in January). As I discussed in the Tech Support forum, I have a 3 gig processor, 1.5 gigs of RAM, and an ATI Radeon x300 128 card. I admit my card is not top-notch, but, I can run the Sims2, Rome Total War, CivCity Rome, and Dawn of War all at near-max (and max in RTW) settings, with no noticeable lag whatsoever. This demo is the only PC gaming product I have that has HEAVY lag on a blank, empty map with no buildings on it yet!

Personally, I plan on pre-ordering the game anyway next weekend, but, I really hope that the devs will spend a little more time optimizing the games graphic settings. Buying a new video card is good advice for those who still have a Voodoo2 card, but, for many people, like me, who just bought a new video card less than a year ago, it is sorta silly that the game would not run properly on their system when their specs exceed the mininum requirements.
I can play every single setting in the demo to near max, but, as soon as I turn the shadows on, the game just CHUGS along. So, I think there is something weird going on under the hood. But, this is a demo, and it is not really that unusual for demos to be a little un-optimized. Personally, I do plan on upgrading my video card, hopefully by Christmas, so, if I have to, I play with no shadows until then.

[Kuplo]

Kuplo
What was your resolution when you ran the tests?
T
It was set at 1024x768

[Norante]

I just bought this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102022

I doubt there is any card with so much performance for that price. Be warned that it run hot so see about cooling on your case.

Runs the game at maximum settings without breaking a sweat, and trust me - it looks gorgeous :D

***I posted this on the wrong thread last night, due to chronich sleepness, apologies :) ****

[Kuplo]

Nice price. Too bad I dont shop online anymore. If I could find that card locally for that price, I'd more than likely go and pick it up this afternoon. But the equivelant of that card locally is about $359.00

[Kuplo]

Alright then......

So I took the plunge and spent the $346.00 to purchase a ATi X1900GT card this afternoon.

I just loaded up the demo and took down the numbers as reported by Fraps. And here is what they are with what I would consider to be a very good card.

Best Performance 57
Next Level 54
Next Level 27
Next Level 22
Best Graphics 13

This was done at 1024x768 with NO buildings on the map.

So the answer is obviously not purely that a new video card is needed for people, but rather than the game still needs optimizing. As most of now know, they are still putting in optimization to the game before release (or will it appear in a patch?) but it seems to me that if Im starting off with a bare map at 1024x768 and only 13FPS at best graphics, then what will happen when the map has a full city on it? I suspect that unless they do some serious optimization then I will be looking at about 3FPS on best graphics with a full city. The total FPS will however not really be known until the full game is released with any optimizations the devs see fit to include.

So..... The moral of this experiment is this.....

Don't let *anybody* tell you that you need a new video card, because even a top of the line $350.00 video card still can't run C4 demo at best graphics and only 1024x768 at an acceptable frame rate and with a map completely devoid of any buildings.

Scrolling is however, substantially improved with the new card, although the mouse zoom is the same as it was on the old x1300 pro card. Its rather like the game is not recogonizing the rolling of the mouse wheel unless I roll the mouse wheel extremely slow. If I roll it at what I would consider to be a normal pace, then the game misses that Im rolling it and zooms in and out very slowly and jerky.

Will there be another demo with the optimizations in it so that I can see if I want to buy the game? While I can return the video card within the next 30 days, I'd like to keep it but I'd really rather not spend $40 or $50 for the game if it's still going to get low FPS with a good card on the best settings and not even using my full resolution.

Thanks.

[Amenirdis]

Even with 'low' (18 - 27) Fps rates it runs smooth for me. No lag whatsoever, highest graphic settings, resolution of 1280 x 1024 at 32 bit.
But if they can optimize it to run smoothly for most people, all the better.

[Kuplo]

Even with 'low' (18 - 27) Fps rates it runs smooth for me. No lag whatsoever, highest graphic settings, resolution of 1280 x 1024 at 32 bit.
But if they can optimize it to run smoothly for most people, all the better.

Yes, I will agree that between 18 and 27 the demo does indeed run smooth.

It's when the Fps is down at 13Fps that it's chuggy.

Just makes me wonder what type of video card the devs used when testing it on the highest graphics settings and if it was chuggy for them at that low of a FPS or if they even got that low of a FPS on the highest settings.

If they also get that low of a FPS on the highest graphics settings, then maybe they designed the game so that on tommorrows (or whenever) technology it will be able to run great on the highest graphics settings?

I guess I should test it at 1280x1024 and all the settings to see if that improves the Fps. I can't see how it would, but you never know.

[cindichaos]

I have a GeForce 6800GT 256MB, 3 GHZ CPU, 1 GB RAM and there is quite a lag switching to the advisor panel and back. Plus every now and then, one of my buildings will turn bright yellow (not on fire) and won't turn back to normal. I do have the latest drivers for video card.

[Keith]

Every one has the advisor lag. The code is unoptimized in the demo.

You have the 91.31 drivers. You can try dropping back to one of the earlier versions or try the unofficial 91.33 (http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_winxp_2k_32bit_91.33.html) drivers. I have had a few people on the Sierra Caesar IV board try them and it helped them.

That audio driver could use some updating. It's 3 years old.

[B1gGuN]

http://img.neoseeker.com/neo_image.php?imageid=145896&type=article

Works wonders for me.

My point being, stop whining that your x1300/6200gt isn't pull 100+ frames on max detail.

No, this isn't cotn... this is a game that isn't even out yet...

Don't give me that crap. I got a 7800GT, 2GBof RAM and an Athlon 64 3500 processor. This game is laggy as hell even with high frame rates. It's never smooth no matter what. It's the actual game code.

[C Franziskus]

I tried 'Alt-tab' then ctrl-Alt-delete to bring up windows task manager - click on the 'processes tab' - find and right click 'caesarIVdemo.exe' and set priority to high; ok the warning and go back to the game - it will not change the 'advisor lag' but the game does run a bit 'smoother'.
All the above done on XP.
Hope that helps a some a little...;)

[chazsi]

I play mostly on my laptop when at work. It has some MINOR lag only... not bad at all. Easy to play on.

Here's what it has...

Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64
Processor 3700+
2.41 GHz 1.00 GB of RAM

I'm not sure what I have at home computer but I know it's the best RADEON (tm) card they make now. On that computer I've never experienced any lag, skip, or jerk. It runs like a game published in 2003.

[Gizza]

Don't give me that crap. I got a 7800GT, 2GBof RAM and an Athlon 64 3500 processor. This game is laggy as hell even with high frame rates. It's never smooth no matter what. It's the actual game code.

Wot scroll speed do u have it on? I found putting scroll speed to max helped a lot. The only lag i get is opening the advisor panels. And even thats only a couple of seconds.

[dorn]

Don't give me that crap. I got a 7800GT, 2GBof RAM and an Athlon 64 3500 processor. This game is laggy as hell even with high frame rates. It's never smooth no matter what. It's the actual game code.

Ha? Why is the game laggy?????:confused: :confused:
I have no problems with my 1,5gb ram, amd3500+ and my 6800gs
I play on best quality with max.camera and i have absolutely no problems, only the advisors panel takes 2 sec. to open, but i don't call this 'lag'!

It rans very smooth on my system.

[Snoochems]

Don't give me that crap. I got a 7800GT, 2GBof RAM and an Athlon 64 3500 processor. This game is laggy as hell even with high frame rates. It's never smooth no matter what. It's the actual game code.


Unfortunately, i now know what you mean.

[JuliaSet]

Min. settings still have wonderful graphics. I'd like to "up" the settings if I was taking pictures, but to PLAY it, but the graphics are great at lowest settings!

[Agamemnus]

I personnaly have a Intel P IV 2.5 GHZ, 6600 GT 128 mo, 1 Go Ram.

I have some problem running the game entirely smoothly... so that I have to decrease almost all the grafical options... its BAD !

Dont tell me its time to upgrade... mates... its not a FPS... I run some FPS better... lol

FPSes are generally less graphically intensive that simulation games 'cause of the amount of calculations required for each building....