If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
I have an old AMD1700 PC with only 256MB RAM. So when I got the game I only dared to go with large DB with England and Scotland loaded. Now I have finished the first season, and done shockingly well. But then made two new games as a test. Fired up only Scotland on large and huge db, and there was a BIG difference in number of players. Found 4000 in players search on large vs 8000 on huge. 650 0-1K players on large vs 120 on huge. No wonder my scouts can't find cr@p in a sh!tter!
Has there been any testing done to how much huge db effects speed compared with only large database? If it's twice as slow it's not really feasable for my old scraphead, but it would be nice to know. I always give my soul into a save, so if I have to start over, a part of me will die
Did a little more checking in the same banned player search window. This time a search for free players with assman filtering out the good stuff, presumably. 1(!) bloke on large, and 53 chaps on hube. No doubt what's best for longterm gaming here.
Would be grat if anyone had inputs to gamespeed between these two databases.
Originally posted by mkus:
We could a contribute £1 to your additional RAM required fund.
Thanks
Anyway, no doubt for gameplay it's advantageous with huge database, all it depends on is how feasable it is. Answering my own question here, but still. Did a little test in Scotland with normal detail level with huge v large database on holiday mode. Took 71 minutes from august to january on huge database, and 51 minutes on large database. That's quite a difference to be honest, so I think I'll stick with my large db game.
In my farewell to FM05 save a month usually takes about 50 minutes of gameplay, unless I must do some time consuming task as preseason team needs and assessment of squad, signing a player or tweaking my tactics after signing of said player.
This is on a large database with 11 divisions from 4 countries.
Same setup on huge usually took around 75 minutes of gameplay for a month.
Originally posted by Pangaea:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by mkus:
We could a contribute £1 to your additional RAM required fund.
Thanks
Anyway, no doubt for gameplay it's advantageous with huge database, all it depends on is how feasable it is. Answering my own question here, but still. Did a little test in Scotland with normal detail level with huge v large database on holiday mode. Took 71 minutes from august to january on huge database, and 51 minutes on large database. That's quite a difference to be honest, so I think I'll stick with my large db game. </BLOCKQUOTE>
You quite clearly have way too much time on your hands!
Fastness of Large DB v Huge DB 
Linear Mode
