Ive started with testing, but it takes too much time, it would use 30 mins per test to actually come into the 30fps area (estimated).

But if theres one thing i can say already now, then it is the fact, that C2 uses far less GPU Usage.

Btw, how does it come that the FPS gets over 60?

When im using C2, the fps never gets over 60.

(Note: my GPU gets hotter then using furmark)

— sounds like a good way to determine if there really is such a big gap between CC and C2.

Im very interested in the results <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

— hmm, thats an interesting post, havent seen that yet.

Link to my post

^^ This is 3 years ago

I would be interested in an 1:1 comparison w/ physics & withou physics.

lennaert , that would be an option, ill think about it ;)

Ill test my tablet with again, as soon as i completed the work on my low-performance mode, it may work then <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

lennaert thanks for the kind words.

We'll have to see how things turn out in the end about the performance. But i at least can assure that a Tegra 3 Tablet wont be able to run the game as it is currently.

— youre right about the download size, the Ram use of Node-Webkit currently is about 800MB and VRam (Crossfire system, may be relevant) ca. 400MB.

The game may could be redone in CC, but i actually after some research think, it wouldnt bring a performance increase. A comparison between CC R1.2 and C2 R45: 82% as fast as Classic.

Based on all the optimisations made by now, i think that C2 is even faster than CC.

So remaking it in CC probably wont bring any gain.

Im glad i could help.

Good luck with your game ;)

Ashley please move this to "Closed Bugs".

• Conti

Ive taken a look at it, here is my conclusion:

1. Why do you need the checkbox, it has no use (correct me if im wrong).

2. The problem is, when you checked the checkbox, then the focus is on that, and it absorbs all input.

It can be fixed, by doing this(last event):

<img src="http://puu.sh/6OtEd.png" border="0" />

-Conti

— , well, it works ok, with Socket.IO, but ill change most of it, when the official multiplayer comes out.

Jayjay thanks :)

— , it doesnt matter if youre a grumpy guy from the internet or a nice guy. Everything that matters is teh feedback :)

And hell, that is some, youve posted there, thanks for it, ill glady answer everything, send me a PM with your skype/steam name, you seem to have some great points, and i surely would love to discuss the game a bit more with you ;)

Performance & Compatibility.

The game is big, and uses much graphical performance due to the high resolution. I only use WebGL effect for the flags (wave).

65% (Based on Steam Hardware Survey) uses a gpu that can run the game with 60fps. Since an A10-(somethinghere) runs the game smoothly with 60fps and only a few dropdowns, when using snow/rain (2000+ sprites).

Im sure it can be optimised further, and every build im looking at where a possibility is. Im also working on implementing some kind of lower-performance-costs mode, it sets resolution to HD ready. Uses 50% less performance. Ill look into tweaking particles with that mode(Low Quality/High quality already included).

And well, i could tweak the game (if im slicing the map into many, many pieces) to use less than the told 110 Collision Polygons.

But currently: It runs perfect. 2-20% CPU performance costs from the physics. I will improve everything, but currently it runs smooth.

Note: im not using asm.js :)

Platform choice.

The game is too big for a normal browser too handle. It runs with ca. 40 fps in opera, so platforms like: Mobile Devices, Browser will not get the game. (I wont publish/optimise the game for it)

Limiting the platform, maybe decrease the playerbase, but i more likely want a Good Looking, Good Running game, rather then an not good loooking, not good running, piece-of-chunk. :)

Im not saying i wont make games for these platforms, but SoW isnt inteded to be such a game, and i dont want it to pretend to be, what it isnt.

Description & Story.

You got some good ideas, i would love talking some more about it with you (skype/steam/somethingelse).

Development goals.

Same as the above ;)

Multiplayer.

I wrote a Socket.IO tutorial, and thats what im primarily using, it hast most/best functions of all Multiplayer Plugins Currently available.

The game works o.k. with it, but not good. So i've chosen, to work on features/balancing while waiting for the official plugin to come out.

Then ill use Socket.IO as a Matchmaking server, that way i dont use a high-performance server, and WebRTC for the actual game handling.

Its probably a Third-Party plugin bug. Not a C2 Bug.

I suggest you try Set Timescale.

It works like pause if you set it = 0 , and checkboxes still work.

— , im trying my best, is there anything you think i could change?

pixel perfick , yeah, i tried before, and failed. But this time, i wont bow under the masses of the internet <img src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

Thanks for the kind words. Im trying to listen to the people, since feedback is the most important thing, about making a game better (at least i think so). With time, im constantly improving everything and adding new things and so on, based on feedback ;)

Hi i need some alpha testers for my game Shadows of War.

I need to get feedback on what i should change/add.

And if there are any bugs.

<img src="http://media.indiedb.com/images/games/1/29/28632/Shadows_of_War_Theme_1080.png" border="0">

Need testers for Windows.

A Steam account for communication would be great.

Please let me know if you are interested.

You can take a closer look at it here.

IndieDB: Link

Thank you for your time.

• Conti

NotionGames , i personally like the B version (Older Sandy) better.

Maybe because im not a fan of the art style from the A version ;)

I really love the "Cooler" way of Sandy.

But anyway, like some said, if you go for the Nickelodeon thing, choose A.

But the idea from Rhindon also sounds great :)

Good luck choosing.