What next ??? We need more new DLCs !!!

[Raevyan]

We don’t need more DLCs. What we need is a working base game in the first place. After that we can talk about new DLCs and features. 4.00 was huge mess and 4.10 did not fix everything that went wrong with 4.0 and there are older issues still present. I‘d rather see those issues addressed first before any new half baked feature that’s not working makes it’s way into the game.

[Cdaragorn]

I use a 3900X. Can see the perf difference between Windows which is using max 6 some times 8 cores and Linux using 12 cores (90-95% CPU).
Players using 5950X reporting in several forums especially in CPU discussions that game is using 16 cores easily the game and much better.

That's really interesting to hear, and odd. The scheduler certainly couldn't explain why Linux is using so many more cores than Windows. There would have to be something different in the application code to cause it to use more threads or use the same # of threads more like that.

In fact I would have expected the CPU to be used more in Windows because of the Nvidia issue you mentioned. The entire issue there is that it puts the scheduler onto the CPU instead of the GPU.

It would be interesting to see in game performance metrics to see if that increased usage is actually translating to better performance or is going somewhere else.

[Panos]

I use a 3900X. Can see the perf difference between Windows which is using max 6 some times 8 cores and Linux using 12 cores (90-95% CPU).
Players using 5950X reporting in several forums especially in CPU discussions that game is using 16 cores easily the game and much better.

That's really interesting to hear, and odd. The scheduler certainly couldn't explain why Linux is using so many more cores than Windows. There would have to be something different in the application code to cause it to use more threads or use the same # of threads more like that.

In fact I would have expected the CPU to be used more in Windows because of the Nvidia issue you mentioned. The entire issue there is that it puts the scheduler onto the CPU instead of the GPU.

It would be interesting to see in game performance metrics to see if that increased usage is actually translating to better performance or is going somewhere else.

The game runs 20-25% better on Linux. More fps on stations, when I am around 60 hours mark in a campaign etc.
Same system same save (using the Steam cloud).

Imho anyone can try it. Linux is free, I use Manjaro KDE because it comes with Steam pre-installed and is a stable rolling release so all drivers are latest and updated. Is not something like Ubuntu have to wait 6-8 months for an update without hacking around.

[lbirdfly]

I use a 3900X. Can see the perf difference between Windows which is using max 6 some times 8 cores and Linux using 12 cores (90-95% CPU).
Players using 5950X reporting in several forums especially in CPU discussions that game is using 16 cores easily the game and much better.

That's really interesting to hear, and odd. The scheduler certainly couldn't explain why Linux is using so many more cores than Windows. There would have to be something different in the application code to cause it to use more threads or use the same # of threads more like that.

In fact I would have expected the CPU to be used more in Windows because of the Nvidia issue you mentioned. The entire issue there is that it puts the scheduler onto the CPU instead of the GPU.

It would be interesting to see in game performance metrics to see if that increased usage is actually translating to better performance or is going somewhere else.

The game runs 20-25% better on Linux. More fps on stations, when I am around 60 hours mark in a campaign etc.
Same system same save (using the Steam cloud).

Imho anyone can try it. Linux is free, I use Manjaro KDE because it comes with Steam pre-installed and is a stable rolling release so all drivers are latest and updated. Is not something like Ubuntu have to wait 6-8 months for an update without hacking around.

really? I will try it