Lets address these Optimization Issues

[CNFish]

First, I wanna say my computer is by far from being a potato of a machine. its decent enough to play VR games (albeit not all of them, but a plethora of them) when your in the performance settings it gives you an estimated amount of RAM usage. on VERY HIGH SETTINGS!~!! its supposed to use like what? 3gb? or roughly close to that amount? I did have 8 (more on that later). but I couldn't play the game, it was too demanding for my machine. I turned the settings all the way down to where it was only supposed to use like 1.5 to 2 gbs of ram, I could play it, but I still had lag spikes when soldiers would clash, rendering me almost useless in battle.

I figured it had to be my RAM, so I went and picked up an extra 8gbs of ram for a total of 16GB, now heres the kicker.. I opened my task manager on a separate screen to see how much power the game was using, on Very high settings it was using nearly 9gb of my RAM... 9!!! no wonder I couldn't play the game before...

long story short, they really need to rework the optimizations of the game, because saying its only using 3GB and then using 3x that amount is pure garbage!

by the way, I play the game now on High settings, it uses roughly anywhere from 6 to 7.5 GB of RAM depending on battle size, and I dont experience any frame rate drops anymore.

still though, its incredibly annoying.

 

[CNFish]

Bump.

 

[WCGamer]

I dont know a whole lot about computers and how it all works but I am confused why my subpar computer can handle a custom battle just fine but cant handle a campaign fight with many less combatants.

Last patch seems to have made it worse for some reason as it was working decently on medium settings last week.

 

[SmattlePattle]

There's certainly some funny stuff under the hood. The beta patch was a huge performance downgrade for me.
As far as I can tell, the game pre-beta was pretty RAM hungry, especially if you have a HDD. Post beta it thrashes my GPU which wasn't at issue before.
I'm curious to see how it runs off a SDD & 16+ gigs of ram but by the time I get access to those upgrades the optimization will likely change.

 

[paladinx333]

I would have to say that 8GB of ram is simply not enough in 2020. Less than 8 threads on your CPU isn't so great either.

 

[CNFish]

I would have to say that 8GB of ram is simply not enough in 2020. Less than 8 threads on your CPU isn't so great either.

I would agree if the game itself didnt advertise that it was only going to run on about 2-3GB but instead run triple that.

 

[Swadianborn]

8GB RAM is enough for me. My 1050 ti surprised me, I play on very high and on large battles (100+) I disable dynamic shadow or just lower terrain and environment detail.

 

[SmattlePattle]

8GB RAM is enough for me. My 1050 ti surprised me, I play on very high and on large battles (100+) I disable dynamic shadow or just lower terrain and environment detail.

Can I ask if you have an SDD or an HDD? I'm running a 1050ti with 8gigs ram (and an i5-8400 CPU). Most of the time I get good performance but I get stuttering that seems RAM/HDD related. Also running the beta patch thrashed my performance so I reverted.

 

[vicwiz007]

I dont know a whole lot about computers and how it all works but I am confused why my subpar computer can handle a custom battle just fine but cant handle a campaign fight with many less combatants.

Last patch seems to have made it worse for some reason as it was working decently on medium settings last week.

I have a decent PC i7 7700k, gtx 1080, and have the same issue. That's not an issue special to lower specs. For example I can run 400 man battles pretty well ~60fps in custom battle but then even as low as 200man battles will drop to ~40fps with tons of stuttering in campaign battles. Albeit my performance is worse than people with similar specs for whatever reason.

I'm curious to see how it runs off a SDD & 16+ gigs of ram but by the time I get access to those upgrades the optimization will likely change.

In a few days I'm upgrading from single channel 2400mhz 16gb, to dual channel 3600mhz 16gb (in anticipation of an upgrade over summer) so I'll do some tests and report if that matters.

 

[SanicK]

There's certainly some funny stuff under the hood. The beta patch was a huge performance downgrade for me.
As far as I can tell, the game pre-beta was pretty RAM hungry, especially if you have a HDD. Post beta it thrashes my GPU which wasn't at issue before.
I'm curious to see how it runs off a SDD & 16+ gigs of ram but by the time I get access to those upgrades the optimization will likely change.

Yeah, for me too. I suspect that it's gpu too. I can play on medium settings in patch 1.0.11 very smooth, in the beta I have to downgrade the settings a lot and doesn't matter a lot too.

 

[Mount On Blade]

I've had memory leaks on Bannerlord which is a problem with 16gb of DDR4 but every optimisation patch so far has improved performance.
I would suggest just waiting since TW is prioritising performance and errors above everything else.

 

[Swadianborn]

Can I ask if you have an SDD or an HDD? I'm running a 1050ti with 8gigs ram (and an i5-8400 CPU). Most of the time I get good performance but I get stuttering that seems RAM/HDD related. Also running the beta patch thrashed my performance so I reverted.

Yes, I have an SSD and I play on Beta too. My CPU is AMD Ryzen 3 2300x 3.5 GHz.

 

[Kevinslevi]

I have a decent PC i7 7700k, gtx 1080, and have the same issue. That's not an issue special to lower specs. For example I can run 400 man battles pretty well ~60fps in custom battle but then even as low as 200man battles will drop to ~40fps with tons of stuttering in campaign battles. Albeit my performance is worse than people with similar specs for whatever reason.

In a few days I'm upgrading from single channel 2400mhz 16gb, to dual channel 3600mhz 16gb (in anticipation of an upgrade over summer) so I'll do some tests and report if that matters.

If I was a betting man, I’d wager that change you are making to your ram will make the world of difference.

Even changing to a duel channel 16gb at 3200mhz would be enough. Please let me know if it does help though!

 

[Smithers945]

I'm having to run on medium settings to get 60fps at 4k on the beta. The exception to that rule is sieges and oddly some tournament scenes where there are a lot of mounted cavalry.

My specs are below.

 

[Calathar]

not that problematic on GPU, my CPU is not that stellar (AMD FX) but my issue is with massive memory leaks

 

[UniversitasMetal]

More ram usage is actually good otherwise it would be idle. There's also a trend of ppl with 5+ year old parts complaining about optimisation. I have 6700k with 980ti and I get about 100-110 fps at medium. If you can't get more than 60 fps at medium it's time to stop crying to tw and upgrade pc tbh.

 

[zacko13]

I'm curious to see how it runs off a SDD & 16+ gigs of ram but by the time I get access to those upgrades the optimization will likely change.

I'm having to run on medium settings to get 60fps at 4k on the beta. The exception to that rule is sieges and oddly some tournament scenes where there are a lot of mounted cavalry.

My specs are below.

I'm running on:
GPU: ASUS Strix GeForce® GTX 1070 Ti 8GB
CPU: Intel Core i7-8700 @3.2GHz
RAM: 16GB XPG Z1 DDR4 3000MHz
SSD: Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SSD

I have to say that from day one I had very little issues with FPS playing on max settings at 1080p. Only really noticeable problem I had was the sieges and for some reason whenever troops AI bugs out. It seems to happen when they're piling up and getting stuck, I'm assuming a pathing problem as lowering the settings had no impact whatsoever (tested A LOT).
I had a couple of little hiccups at huge battles in the field (700+) but nothing that would make me want to lower the settings right away.

By all accounts, Smithers945 you should be able to run the game just as good as me on 4k...there has to be something that's causing this to make you downgrade to medium, even though it's 4k. I wonder if those dynamic shadows are killing it as that's what caused a few lag spikes for me in field battles (weirdly not in sieges, those have entirely different problem.)

I am also running beta and I have noticed some improvements actually, especially on the world map, everything also seems to load faster for me.
Running with around 15 mods at a time.

 

[Smithers945]

I'm running on:
GPU: ASUS Strix GeForce® GTX 1070 Ti 8GB
CPU: Intel Core i7-8700 @3.2GHz
RAM: 16GB XPG Z1 DDR4 3000MHz
SSD: Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SSD

I have to say that from day one I had very little issues with FPS playing on max settings at 1080p. Only really noticeable problem I had was the sieges and for some reason whenever troops AI bugs out. It seems to happen when they're piling up and getting stuck, I'm assuming a pathing problem as lowering the settings had no impact whatsoever (tested A LOT).
I had a couple of little hiccups at huge battles in the field (700+) but nothing that would make me want to lower the settings right away.

By all accounts, Smithers945 you should be able to run the game just as good as me on 4k...there has to be something that's causing this to make you downgrade to medium, even though it's 4k. I wonder if those dynamic shadows are killing it as that's what caused a few lag spikes for me in field battles (weirdly not in sieges, those have entirely different problem.)

I am also running beta and I have noticed some improvements actually, especially on the world map, everything also seems to load faster for me.
Running with around 15 mods at a time.

Apologies I was mistaken, I'm running on high settings, with battle size set to 1000...sound quality at 128bits and shadows set to static. No mods running for me. When I do get 60fps on the battle map, it is glorious. Reading most of the comments in this forum makes me want to invest in a 1440p monitor.

 

[Sir John Murder]

I would agree if the game itself didnt advertise that it was only going to run on about 2-3GB but instead run triple that.

I believe its not talking about your normal ram but instead your vram usage.

 

[SmattlePattle]

Yes, I have an SSD and I play on Beta too. My CPU is AMD Ryzen 3 2300x 3.5 GHz.

This makes me think if you have lower end ram (8 gigs) fast disk speed is a big factor in good performance.