安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
2 
举报此帖
RTW used DX8, it's why ppl who want modern gfx performance on HD screens might prefer Remastered, it runs much smoother & slicker.
I've been trying to get this game to work to see if I want the remaster.
The gfx in Remastered meet modern HD expectations without spoiling the original game.
As reported in thread, support was telling ppl to go to 780p definition with display upscaling. That reduced lag for me in big battles like Rome, I believe it reduces the bandwidth, mitigating a bottleneck in the old game code, but that with fixes took a sloppy 17fps to a playable 25fps.
Remastered runs at 60 fps on an old laptop with i7 Haswell & Nvidia 860M choosing vsync. I can try it on an AMD R5 3400G if you like, but it's DX11 game compared to RTW's DX8 using a hack for DX9.
FWIW TW: Rome Remastered runs at 60 fps on an R5 3400G, unfortunately I had a black screen hard lockup during the tutorial battle. But RTW used to crash with the battle advisor for me, with or without the fixes both AMD and Nvidia, I had to alter it to not play the voice IIRC to stop it crashing with the advisor (but mostly I turned it off).
30 FPS on the campaign map on 1920*1080.
60 FPS on the battle map on 1920*1080, many options set to medium, huge scaling.
(^Battle between me (Jullii) vs Carthage, auto-armies, 3500 men on the field, many elephants and skirmishers. Battle went rather south on me :D)
That is NOT using the hack mentioned in this topic, running on W7.
That would be good news indeed, but would also imply that they finally made the original compatible with newer systems where that would require a new build of the game. Is that really realistic?
BTW using W7? But, why?
Nothing wrong with W7, no need to update an ancient system to run the latest OS. (Not complaining about Re only running on W10, as I find that perfectly acceptable.)
I assumed it would be to publicise the new game, but perhaps as there's an offer and the developers are familiar with the code after many ports, that they modified some dll or part of the code to improve behaviour, I think Remastered purchasers without RTW classic have that included, if so they are customers and that may justify patches developed from the porting experiences.
Having done ports of applications to new hardware, I would find sometimes long standing bugs which nobody had solved, one resulted in customers buying second machines just to run reports! Having different tools available can make diagnosis of issues much simpler and you read a lot of rushed and confused code, so have a good idea what the original developers misunderstood.
Now I can compare RTW classic performance vs TW: RR on both an Nvidia gfx & AMD, but I have other things to do so it won't be immediate.
My AMD-rig (with Nvidia GPU) runs W10, there I have a lower battle FPS but a solid FPS on the campaign map. I.o.w. a system with way more umpf shows it on the campaign map, but shows the exact opposite on the battlemap.
------------------ Campaign - Battle
I3 - W7 ======= 30 FPS ---- 60 FPS
FX8350 - W10 = 60 FPS ---- 30 FPS
It is VERY VERY likely that MS have caused the issue with changes to DX8 support.
With Rome Remastered performance is much higher with >60fps easily achievable with better animation quality, so that's still the best option on modern systems.
I used display upscaling onto a 1440p 144Hz gaming monitor, setting 720p (better quality but missing resolutions prevent use on strategy map) or 1366x768 (more artifacts) running at 120Hz refresh frequency. You have to get the Custom Resolution Utility from monitortests forum and create custom display resolutions to PREVENT GPU scaling.
Persuading W10 to set the active signal resolution to the display resolution and disabling ALL GPU scaling requires persistence, I also disabled Radeon Chill which lowers fps when you're not inputting to the game. The method involves going as deep as you can to the display adapter properties and listing all the display modes then applying the low bandwidth resolution. I might test hooking up the monitor up to an Nvidia laptop and see how well it works with the DX8->DX9 shim library (which I still have set up) to satisfy my curiosity, although I'm not sure that will be used since RTW was updated.
[Update] Tried at 1366x768 on an old A10 laptop and the game flies, I was getting about the same fps as on a Vega11 on the strategy map but 40+ fps on a simple battle map that was restricted to about 25fps before. The findings in previous post about i3/W7 and FX8350/W10 are rather contradicted by the Richland APU. I think older hardware simply runs the DX8/9 better, now RTW was updated when Remastered launched. My Nvidia laptop died a death, won't open even the BIOS menu so no tests, after the shameful lack of support of the Kepler based 860M, dropped less than 5 years after last sales with lies on their website and driver software to obfuscate, I won't be repeating the experience again.
The findings in previous post about i3/W7 and FX8350/W10 are rather contradicted by the Richland APU.
Tried on a Ryzen 5 with RX 6700xt GPU at 1080p resolution and strategy fps was in the 40's but battle map was slower at 33fps, both CPU & GPU load was in single figures, so the game itself must be throttling.