Combat Commander module unplayable

[pmiranda]

I have recently been using the Combat Commander module (and its extensions). It must be one of the best-looking and feature-rich modules around, but it's sooooooooooooo slow!
I mean... synching with a player or saving a log just takes FOREVER (count like 5 minutes, no kidding). What's the problem? The module? VASSAL? Is there a workaround to make it work (other than forgetting about all the automation, which doesn't help with the saving/loading times anyway, although it speeds up play a bit)?

Grateful for any suggestions.

[pmiranda]

I'm gonna answer my own post, hehe... Is there any chance the module will play faster if my PC has more RAM, a faster processor, a faster video card? Or is VASSAL limited anyway in how it can use those resources?
What are the ideal settings under "preferences"?

Just trying to get this module to work...

[uckelman]

Thus spake pmiranda:
> I'm gonna answer my own post, hehe... Is there any chance the module
> will play faster if my PC has more RAM, a faster processor, a faster
> video card? Or is VASSAL limited anyway in how it can use those
> resources?

Can you describe your machine? What processor? How much RAM?

> What are the ideal settings under "preferences"?

To what do you have your max heap set?



I can tell you that the problems you're seeing likely don't all have
the same cause. Synching with another player is probably slow because
the data has to be sent via the game server, and right now our internet
connection is saturated. The other things will hvae more local reasons.

--
J.

[pmiranda]

PC: Asus Eee Box
Processor: Intel Atom CPU 330, 1.6GB
RAM: 2GB
OS: Windows 7 32-bits

Module settings:
- prefer memory-mappe files: unchecked
- high quality scaling: checked
- disable DirectX: unchecked
- JVM initial heap: 256
- JVM maximum heap: 1500

Saving a log and synchronizing is extremely slow (several minutes). Some actions, such as activating units, are also very slow (~5 seconds).
By the way, does it mean that using the P2P option would make my online games faster?

I suspect the size of the graphical files in the module has also something to do with its performance. They allow zooming-in a lot.

[uckelman]

Thus spake pmiranda:
> PC: Asus Eee Box
> Processor: Intel Atom CPU 330, 1.6GB
> RAM: 2GB
> OS: Windows 7 32-bits
>
> Module settings:
> - prefer memory-mappe files: unchecked
> - high quality scaling: checked
> - disable DirectX: unchecked
> - JVM initial heap: 256
> - JVM maximum heap: 1500
>
> Saving a log and synchronizing is extremely slow (several minutes).

The speed of saving a log is a known problem---this is something I intend
to fix either in 3.1.15 or 3.2.

> Some
> actions, such as activating units, are also very slow (~5 seconds).

This is due to the depth of traits on each piece. We have some changes
planned which will improve the performance here, but until then, the
only thing you can do about this is use a faster machine.

> By the way, does it mean that using the P2P option would make my online
> games faster?

It might. You could try it.

> I suspect the size of the graphical files in the module has also
> something to do with its performance. They allow zooming-in a lot.

Is zooming slow for you?

--
J.

[pmiranda]

> Is zooming slow for you?
Yes, zooming is very slow too.

> This is due to the depth of traits on each piece
The module's designer is apparently not aware of any problems.

I'm looking forward to see the next release coming out. In the meantime, I am curious to see if performance will improve with the new PC I will get next week. Thanks for your support.

[mkiefte]

You're running the module on a very limited computer. I also have an Asus Eee and I find it unbearable for playing VASSAL. What is more, the CC module is very heavy on unit traits and is probably one of the toughest modules you could have picked to run on an Eee.

- M.

[pmiranda]

Probably, but VASSAL cannot be compared with the latest first person shooter either. I think it should run reasonably well, even on a simple computer. Actually, most modules run quite well. The only ones I've had problems with, so far, are Combat Commander and Twilight Struggle.
SunTzu, for example, doesn't seem to suffer from such problems, even on my PC, but I can't really compare, as the is no Combat Commander module for SunTzu (unfortunately).

[Tim M]

You're running the module on a very limited computer. I also have an Asus Eee and I find it unbearable for playing VASSAL.

M.

Probably as a large result of it's processor. The Atom's are not famed for speed and efficiency - just energy consumption.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Int ... ,1981.html

[mkiefte]

They're not terribly robust either. Mine stopped working properly after 1 year. The sound device stopped cold and the tab key is no longer functional.

- M.

[mkiefte]

Argghh... One of my posts got lost. I'm not having a lot of luck with the forums.

I'm going to have to paraphrase myself.

All of those applications your talking about (including SunTzu) rely a lot on the GPU instead of the CPU. VASSAL doesn't do that because it's written in vanilla Java to preserve platform independence.

I think that's what I said. Only better.

- M.

Probably, but VASSAL cannot be compared with the latest first person shooter either. I think it should run reasonably well, even on a simple computer. Actually, most modules run quite well. The only ones I've had problems with, so far, are Combat Commander and Twilight Struggle.
SunTzu, for example, doesn't seem to suffer from such problems, even on my PC, but I can't really compare, as the is no Combat Commander module for SunTzu (unfortunately).

[uckelman]

Thus spake pmiranda:
> Probably, but VASSAL cannot be compared with the latest first person
> shooter either. I think it should run reasonably well, even on a simple
> computer. Actually, most modules run quite well. The only ones I've had
> problems with, so far, are Combat Commander and Twilight Struggle.
> SunTzu, for example, doesn't seem to suffer from such problems, even on
> my PC, but I can't really compare, as the is no Combat Commander module
> for SunTzu (unfortunately).
>

I would agree with you when you say that VASSAL cannot be compared with
the lastest first person shooter, because they're doing completely
different things. Modern video hardware is optimized for doing matrix
multiplication, not handling huge bitmaps. I think you're underestimating
how much computing power you need to handle an image which is several
thousand pixels in each dimension. You won't find any 3D game which loads
images as large as the ones VASSAL has to handle.

As far as ZunTzu, it's also not an apt comparison. If you had a CC module
for ZunTzu, it wouldn't be anything but a board, pieces, and cards. The
VASSAL module has hugely more functionality than that. If you want to make
such a comparison, you should compare a completely bare-bones VASSAL module
with a ZunTzu module.

--
J.

[uckelman]

Thus spake mkiefte:
> Argghh... One of my posts got lost. I'm not having a lot of luck with
> the forums.

It's not your fault, it's my list bridge. I haven't had time to look into
the problem yet.

--
J.

[pmiranda]

The point is that if all the extra functionality brought to the module slows it down to a crawl, I'd rather stick to a bare-bones module. Anyway, don't get me wrong, VASSAL is great, and I'm using it for 99% of the games with satisfaction. I'm just a bit frustrated by the ComCom module... and by my Eee Box!
Let's see how it works on my brand new PC in a few days.

[uckelman]

Thus spake pmiranda:
> The point is that if all the extra functionality brought to the module
> slows it down to a crawl, I'd rather stick to a bare-bones module.

You could always *make* a bare-bones module.

--
J.