So I have built my own computers since 99'. I currently use an I5 3570K over clocked a bit. I am now looking at the new i7's for my next build (next year).
Ahem,.. 8 core processors, Lots of ram (32?) and a 500 gig SSD to play on. Oh and I guess two Nvidia 780 gtx in SLI but ill see what the market has then.
Will Gal Civ III make use of all those idling extra cores or threads? I really want the game to make use of all the resources it (potentially) could have available.
I want the AI to OUT THINK ME and beat me till I whine and cry here on the forums and go back and lower the difficulty settings. Well I do that now so perhaps just optimizations for fluid gameplay?
One can hope....
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
47% have 2 cores, 44% have 4 cores. So i imagine it will be optimized for that, but with a scalable design to take advantage of future increases in average cores. Lot's of notes here and there from devs about "this and that has it's own thread" etc.
I think that was one of the sellings points was multi core use. IIRC they used multi core in GC 2 as well.
In 8 years since galciv2 and still not half of all gamers have 4 cores?!?
DARCA, I have been watching the processor usage since Alpha 1 (I have the "all core" monitor), and as far as I can tell, it looks like the game already takes very good advantage of all of my I7-4770 threads (4 dual thread cores for a total of 8 threads).
Oh, I was saying I thought it was weird that not half of all gamers have 4cores according to eleventhstar.
Some of us have to spend our money on other things.
Wait I can't just ignore my 4 kids and upgrade my computer whenever I want... no wonder the wife is always mad at me
But the way Brad likes to have things programmed, it involves a lot of different threads and so multi-core support is almost a given for them.
No shit right, I had to work the streets to afford my laptop. Lol
You mean like digging potholes, right?
So HE'S the s.o.b that has been making all those potholes in my neighborhood!?!
Yea...people pay alot for me to fill their pot holes...
(really I'm joking)
There was a dev journal post by Frogboy a while back on AI coding for Fallen Enchantress where he specifically talks about how nice it is to have multiple cores so that the AI could use one for long-term strategy, one for short-term strategy, one for diplomacy, etc, etc. You can hunt around for it if I'm too lazy to find it. If I find it I'll edit this post with a link...
edit: this isn't the one I was thinking of, but hints at what you're getting at: https://forums.elementalgame.com/448105
If you want an answer to the above inferred question: read this ENTIRE post (there's like 14 pages, but totally worth it). It should leave you convinced if the AI is anywhere near that of GC2 (still one of the best games in existence, IMHO).
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/161570/blog/galciv-2-war-report-final-entry/?site=pcg
Hope this helps, I don't think you'll be disappointed with any of Stardock's products - I never have been (well, Elemental:WOM - but they made things right).
-tid242
I am pretty sure they will use a scalable design for multi-core support. Steam survey shows also a surprising amount of laptops having at most 1 GB video RAM and running at 1366x768 or lower resolution. I think it's safe to say it's a good tool from where you can go from, your lowest denominator so to speak. From there only the sky is the limit.
Games like Civ5 already can attempt to obliterate all your cores via DX11 pipeline optimzations
http://slideplayer.us/slide/1609359/
Look at slide 16 to see 90% utilization of all cores of a 12 core system
Stardock is one of the leaders in multicore optimization. They've been doing it since GalCiv II. You have no worries here.
And remember Sins of a Solar Empire was created by Ironclad with Stardock as a publisher. Hence why it is single core.
Is there actually a causal relationship between both? Not sure if Stardock would have refused to publish a title in 2008 based on lack of multi-core support. I think the concept itself counted for more than a design doctrine at that time. But if they had developed the whole game inhouse then probably it would have shipped natively with multi-core support, heck, just using a second core would have made things less sluggish in huge games.
Ironclad was an indie developer and began the game in 2006 with a low budget. By the time Stardock came in to help Iron Engine was already developed with its 32 bit architecture and single core in place. While Stardock helped with a lot of things (better graphics and the like) I think both did not think that Sins would be as successful as it is. 6 years is a long time for a game to still be around. All in all, if they do try for a Sins 2. I think we can safely be assured it will have what is needed. Hopefully.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
