Campaign = Slideshow vs. Mission Generator = good FPS

[Smokin Hole]

I've played three missions in the Devil's Cross campaign all of which have performed badly on my mid-range rig. They also had cloud cover which I'm sure strained my system a bit. I was disapointed enough to give up on the campaigns and gave the mission generator a try instead. I found the few missions I've played so far to be every bit as interesting as the campaign but without the horrid framerate. Could it be that the campaigns are just a tad bloated with active units that the player will never encounter (or is one of the included campaigns considered less of a burden on older systems)? I haven't actually openned the missions to sneek under the hood but the performance difference is enough to leave me to believe that the strain comes from the number and complexity of unit activity, not textures and clouds. If that's the case may I recommend simpler campaign along the lines of Georgia Oil War?

Edited March 5, 2011 by Smokin Hole
Clarity, back at my PC

[Smokin Hole]

Well thank you E.D. 1.106 fixed the Devils Cross campaign.

 

Disregard above.

[hassata]

I noticed a drop in fps in the first mission when taxiing for take off. did you notice that SH?

[Smokin Hole]

I did. Oddly enough I could get a few FPS back by turning the taxi light off (go figure). They dropped the LOD draw distance specifically for that airport with the patch so there must be something specific with it--perhaps the large number of sheltered hangars. Anyway it wasn't nearly as bad for me since the patch. And more importantly, the FPS rates were decent both in the battle zone and during RTB, both of which made the campaign unplayable previously.