Set 200 years before, it expands both the detailed fighting system and the world of Calradia. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord is the eagerly awaited sequel to the acclaimed medieval combat simulator and role-playing game Mount & Blade: Warband. All those immovable objects I mentioned before? Surprise! They also get dynamic shadows, those double-dippers.Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. It also seemingly covers any shadows cast by the sun and moon, as Mount & Blade 2 has a day/night cycle.
Games Like Mount And Blade PS4 LIN WarbandAnd sure, Mount & Blade 2 looks uglier without dynamic shadows, but it's a small price to pay for being able to run the damn game.Mount & Blade: Warband MaMAC PC + 3 more XONE PS4 LIN Warband is a stand-alone expansion for Mount and Blade. Even the campaign map benefitted. Every battle, no matter how many soldiers. Moving from "Static Only" to "Static & Dynamic" though? I've seen it boost framerate by as much as 25 or even 35% in my tests. Moving from "Off" to "Static Only" has almost zero impact.And sure, the 8700K isn't the most powerful CPU on the market, but it's no slouch either. That was at 1920x1080, no less! Our Intel Core i7-8700K was likely to blame, as all our GPUs topped out around 45 frames per second in that scenario. Everyone wants their own personal Helm's Deep moment.But the reality? With a 1,000 person siege, not even the mighty 2080 Ti could reliably do 60 frames per second at max settings in our testbed. Everyone wants a PC that can handle a 1,000 person siege. Mount & Blade 2 is defined by its scale, and by the feeling you get when smash two lines of Battanian and Khuzatian cavalry together like kids playing with armfuls of action figures. I have to, though! Nothing makes more of an impact on your framerate, not even the Shadow Type setting I just mentioned—but Shadow Type is something you can adjust without affecting the game.Battle Size? Not so much.Dipping the former is worth a 35% bump to framerate. If you're really struggling, say on a GTX 1650 or below, I find that 300- or 350-soldier battles can net you back some frames without overly compromising tactical depth or the chaos that is the hallmark of Mount & Blade.Situational Settings: Those are the big two, Shadow Type and Battle Size. For now though, a 750-soldier cap seems like a decent compromise for people with decent CPUs and high-end cards on par or above the RTX 2070 and RX 5700 XT, and the default of 500 is fine for anything below that, especially if you dip the graphics as well. I'm running the Very High performance settings too, but at 2560x1440.Maybe the requirements change as Early Access progresses and TaleWorlds spends time optimizing. This is with performance set to Very High at 1920x1080.Our baseline recommendation is the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti or AMD RX 5600 XT.James Davenport: With my i9-9900K and an RTX 2080, the siege mostly hung around 40-50 fps, though depending on how busy the scene was, I witnessed an even wider range from 30-60 fps. (Turning off dynamic shadows would get me about 50-55 fps except in the really congested areas of the siege).If you're falling down to 40 frames per second when scrumming in the melee mosh pit, it's unlikely anything will help short of reducing the number of bodies on-screen. If you're around a lot of fires (if for example you've just set someone else's fort aflame) setting this to "Low" can increase framerate by another 4-5%.Again, these are very situational though. This effect is most noticeable around fires, as it governs the stream of sparks flying off the top. The catch? You need to be near water to take advantage, obviously.Particle Quality is similar, albeit less rare. On maps with lakes and rivers, dipping "Water Quality" to Low and disabling "Screen Space Reflections" results in a 4-5% increase. That setting alone is responsible for basically the entire 25-30% difference between "Low" and "Medium." There's little difference in performance between "Very Low" and "Low," and likewise less difference between "Medium," "High," and "Very High."The takeaway: If you can run "Medium" at 60 frames per second, you can probably run "High" or even "Very High" at 60 as well. To further eliminate outliers, I ran the test three times at each setting and collated the results.You can check out our graphs for details, but as I said: The main difference is that Shadow Type setting, which kicks in between the "Low" and "Medium" presets. I locked the battle size to the default cap of 500 soldiers, used the winter form of the "battle_terrain_001" map, and did my best to ride the same route every time. While the Average gives you an overall idea of performance, the 97th percentile scores demonstrate how low you can expect the framerate to drop. Anything on par or above the RX 5600 XT and GTX 1660 Ti handled 500 soldiers well enough though, and as long as you have a six-core CPU (and on up) you should be able to push the cap to 750 soldiers.I'd like to draw your attention to the 97th Percentile figures though. This time I locked the graphics to the "Very High" setting (the maximum) and ran the same "empire_castle_004" siege with two soldiers, 500 soldiers, and 1,000 soldiers.As I said earlier, even a 2080 Ti wasn't enough to pull off a 1,000-person siege at a steady 60 frames per second at max settings in our testbed—especially when I hit a chokepoint. Both managed to average 60 frames per second at Very High even with 500 soldiers on the battlefield.My second test was designed to stress-test the Battle Size setting, which is both CPU and GPU dependent. Mac tlc video driver for tvHell, some only come to build kingdom-spanning trade empires. While the fights are undoubtedly one of the draws in Mount & Blade 2, many come for the RPG mechanics and strategy layer as well. It's just that kind of game.Lastly, I did a quick test of the campaign map. By yourself on an open plain? The framerate might be easily double what you get in close-quarters fighting. And the reverse applies, as well. It's a pretty stock-standard recommendation for modern gaming PCs (and a generation old at that), but if you're running an older processor with fewer cores, your results might suffer. That said, as mentioned our testbed uses an Intel Core i7-8700K processor. We're mostly set up for GPU testing here. Otherwise, all our GPUs managed to easily clear the 60 frames per second floor on the campaign map, though none were a stranger to stuttering. Disable those and the framerate more than doubles, from 50fps up to 130.That's the only card you need to worry about though. In my experience, AMD GPUs currently run slightly better than their Nvidia counterparts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorKevin ArchivesCategories |