You realize of course that im talking Matrox Triple Head, a three-monitor array that is detected by the OS as a single extremely wide screen (~4:1 ratio). If you look at the last line of my previous post, you'll see that I mentioned Triple Head in my specs (didnt have specs in my signature, yet)

On a 3-monitor array where each monitor is 4:3, a resolution of 2400x600px means 800x600 x3 monitors, which *is* low, compared with the native resolution of 3840x1024px. Same difference as 1280x1024 vs 800x600. Think of 3 monitors side my side: width is multiplied by the 3 monitors but height stays the same because there's only one row of monitors.

Your suggestion to set resolution 1280x720 (a regular one-monitor widescreen resolution) would produce unwanted results, namely showing the game in the top half of my 1st and 2nd monitor (if I used ChangeScreenRes=0), or not showing anything at all (with ChangeScreenRes=1) because it would try to set a screen resolution that is not supported.

Anyhow, after switching the GTS250 for a GTX460 with 2GB of memory, the game is now playable at full resolution with medium settings. Now my rig is somewhat more poweful than KillaJoe's but a couple of my gaming buddies have lower specs and their games are playable, so I guess that as long as you have a series 500 or series 400 video card and a lot of RAM on it, CoD would probably be playable on any medium-high end rig, at least at low settings.

On the other hand, it is completely possible that the game will become playable on 250GTS, after Oleg and Luthier have sorted out some more stuff...
So, IMO Killa's choices are either to get a better video card with 2GB of RAM, or wait and hope that CoD becomes playable on GTS250 (which is totally possible).

Also, dont forget that even buying the video card and getting CoD playable right away, there is still a lot of stuff to fix before it's *really* playable. Im not gonna list bugs here, but seriously, it will probably take weeks, if not months, before we can really enjoy this game, so maybe waiting could be an option, especially if budget is an issue.

What would u regard as "playable"?

Never mind. I just realized that KillaJoe *already* got his game playable (i.e. 'can be played', I guess), even if at low res and low settings... well, better than nothing, right?
Hopefully O & L will figure out more stuff and the game will even look good for users on GTS250 :)

youd be quite suprised how well that card is handling the game ;) atm im playin it 30+ AC, im able to go to the deck with forests on full. more than playable :)

fellas im not being funny but should you be running out buying a new gfx card to play this game...NO

the whole point of these patches is to iron out the glitches and make it playable on most of rigs that people are using here..

il be F*k'd if im going to upgrade my ATI HD5770 1gig to play this game, its a sopported card or at least what they tell me on the back of the DVD case i have infront of me..

Crying shame watching people run out buying new parts when looking through these forums your see that its not just a specific piece of hardware that is to blame here, its a number of things/issues that have to be dealt with..unless your playing on a prehistoric rig i wouldnt purchase anything new untill they pinpoint the problems they have presently

imo

I know I was making a blanket statement about ALL the people complaining that they cant play at uber high res. Your setup is even more extreme even if you think that its low res its not. 3 monitors on what you call low is more than high for the hardware. You have to combine all the res for total.

People who like no trees and no detail go ahead and run at 1900x1080 so it looks like a 1990 game. Smart people will lower resolution so they can have all the effects on and enjoy the game as it was meant to be.

can't. be. lowered. more.
understand?
on my system, 2400x600 is as low as it goes... I guess I could do 1920x480 if I manually added an entry to the supported resolutions ...but then it would look like 8bit

[btw we're way off topic. Killa wanted his game playable on GTS250, he got that, everyone's happy]

Play with ONE monitor!! Problem solved.

Sorry for being a bit off-topic as this thread was started by sombody else, with something else in question but, I got a bit fed up reading your posts:

Here is your Matrox TrippleHead2Go on Win7-64 doing 3840x resolution running one Window 1280x of CoD at acceptable frame rates.
3840x resolution, move sliders to the right to see the game
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/Co...5_ground01.jpg

Trying to fly CoD on ultra resolution and ultra-wide (your three monitors give 3x1280 wide but ONLY 1024 height) is just not sensible
as long as the possibility to use 3renders is not active in CoD.

And here is your CoD at 3072x resolution with a very P O O R view due to the very low height of your screen:
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/Spit_mem_2.JPG

Compared to a more normal 4:3 or wide view
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/B_3.JPG



Happy Flying

I have the C2D 8400 (3ghz) and Radeon HD 4670. With some tweaks, the game is pretty much playable with high graphic details (except buildings, forest and land shading, which are on lowest). I still really hope developers will optimize the game more, so I can turn the land details a bit upper. The main problem for me is the stuttering when getting close to the cities. The game needs to be more steamlined so it doesn't take so much ram (got 2.5gb and seems that's not enough).