Can someone give me hope?
 

I would like a straight answer from any of the senior members and or developers. Do I have any hope at running this game with more than 25fps average with this specs

Windows 7 Professional
Service Pack 1
Inter Core 2 Quad CPU 2.4Ghz at 2400Mhz
4Gb of RAM
Nvidia GeForece GTS 250 1Gb

not with that gfx card no...

lol, u sure about that pulp?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20129

Killa joe, try these settings in your conf.ini:

[rts]
tickLen=30
ProcessAffinityMask=15
maxTimerTicksInRealTick=20
; 0 - not use, 1 - show cursor and not capture, 2 - not show cursor, and capture
mouseUse=2
; 0 - not use, 1 - use if hardware exist
joyUse=1
; 0 - not use, 1 - use if hardware exist
trackIRUse=0
DisableIME=0
culture=en-GB

[rts_mouse]
SensitivityX=1.0
SensitivityY=1.0
SensitivityZ=1.0
Invert=0
SwapButtons = 0

[rts_joystick]
FF=1

[core]
RandSeed = 0
TexQual=3
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=0
Shadows=0
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
LandShading=0
LandDetails=0
Sky=3
Forest=2
VisibilityDistance=4
LandGeom=2
DrawCollisions=1
Water=-1
Effects=2
EffFlags.Light=1
EffFlags.SpriteRender=0
Grass=-1
CordEffect=1
UseFog=0
UseLandCube=1
UseLandConnectedObject=1
LinearObjectManager=1
Roads=1
Sun=1
Clouds=1
EffFlags.LightSpritesProj=1
ShadowMapSize=5
TexFlags.AsyncLoad=1
TexFlags.ShowTexture=0
SimpleMesh.SWTransform=0
SimpleMesh.QuadTreeClip=1
SimpleMesh.InstancingHW=1
EffFlags.LightContextSprites=1
CloudsFlags.Detailed=1
TexFlags.CreateHDR=1
Decals=2
EffFlags.SWLight=0
TexFlags.CockpitOnePass=0
MegaTexture=0
TexFlags.Reflection=0
RenderTargetQual=3
MSAA=4
MeshStatics=2
MeshStaticsDetail=0
SimpleMesh.QTNoCompose=0
MeshFirstLod=0
MeshShowLod=0
SpawnHumans=0
TexFlags.FastTransparency=1




Also refer to the nvidia control panel settings ive posted in my other post. Give them a try and let me know how u go if u can :) Also, turn the forests completely off in the game if you need another performance boost, and disable your mirror :) Another setting to disable also is clouds, which you will find in the realism settings :) gl :)

I'm afraid you'll have to switch video card. I have the exact same one on a rig that is pretty high-end for everything else (I cannibalized the GTS250 off the old rig).

With the present configuration (see below) my rig can run Rise of Flight at high settings (not really all cranked up to max, but close), at full resolution with no stutters or glitches whatsoever, but CoD is barely playable at low resolution (2400x600 with medium-low settings), and completely unplayable at full resolution (3840x1024, with all settings as low as possible).

I ordered an nVidia 460 with 2GB RAM, hope I'll be able to play at full resolution with that one (even if at low settings)

specs:
i7 970 6-core @ 3.60
Asus Rampage 3
6G DD3 @2000
GTS250 1GB
Triple Head Analog (3840x1024 max)

Helrza, hope you dont mind me just ripping off your settings :-P It worked like a charm....eye candy is gone but i guess i can live with it while the patches start rolling in. I saw your other post and i also agree with the theory that the shadow really eats up the processing power and RAM memory which is probably giving the majority of ppl on both mid range and high range desktops low FPS

I have pretty much exactly the same setup but the CPU, which is a Core Duo at 2,66Ghz.

So if I can run the game fine at 1920x1200, you should be able to as well.

Try removing shadows and turn everything down that has to do with trees, buildings and landscapes, looks how it runs and try to get in some of the details again, like trees or buildings according to your frame rate. It also helped me a lot to select "Performance" in the quality panel within the Nvidia control section. You just will have to experiment as every system is unique.

Dont worry bout rippin my settings, i posted them there for u to try :D Im glad to be of help :)

Killajoe, you should try to overclock your cpu. Im guessing its a q6600 right?
I have OC'ed mine from 2.4 to 3.6 easily, I even tried 3.8, but I get memory errors anything over 3.6.

Your low resolution settings are not low. Try 1280 X 720 and get back to me.
I think you have an unrealistic idea of what low is. If you go down to 1280 x 720 or near there you may be suprised how good your fps is and you may be able to turn some eye candy up a little.

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).

wtf?!?
im not even trying to get my gme to work on gts250! I switched card to a more powerful one that can handle 3x full res.
This whole discussion followed one guy telling me that my low res wasnt low enough for him... and now he's even telling me to play on one monitor (yeah, right...)
It was off topics when he said that 2400x800 isnt low, and it's even more off topic when anyone gets fed up by my posts... that are only trying to explain that 2400x600 is as low as 800x600...

But OK, I'm cutting it here. I should never have answered a post that goes "you have an unrealistic idea of waht <insert object here> is"
Something like that cant possibly end up in any other way than a pointless (off topic) discussion.
My bad. I should have seen that coming.

Apparently you didnt do well in math because 2400x3 monitors is7200 X 600x3=1800
which is the same as 2400 x1800 you call that low?? Oh well I guess some of us just are not good with numbers :)

Just to avoid misunderstanding, I am trying to make you understand that you are missing the point boasting about your three monitors because:
- The game does not yet support three views (left, right, centre) like IL2FB for the time being thus your view is limited by half if you try to fly that wide.
- It is good to have three monitors but not good enough if you do not have the hardware to match the demands.

(from somebody who has bene flying IL2FB on three monitors for the last 4 years...)

Oh look! We have Albert Fokk'n Einstein, here. Steve Fokk'n Hawking, even!
Listen buddy, you got it wrong right from the start.

Where you got the 7200 from? When did I say 2400x600 x3 monitors?!?. What I said was 2400x600 = 800x600 x3 monitors!

One of the 2 representations in the picture is wrong. Can you guess which one, Math Genius?

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/2280/math1.jpg



@Athos im not boasing anything. This whole discussion spawned from a misunderstanding (see above).
Also, CoD doesnt have the 3-views thing like IL-2 but unlike Il2 you can zoom out pretty much like you do in FSX or RoF. IN CoD the 'magic' key is called 'Manually Adjust FoV'. That gives me pretty much the same field of vision as I have on IL-2 with Use3Renders=1.

Exactly. The GTS250 did the trick on IL2 but not on CoD, that's why I got the 460GTX. Happy on 3 monitors now.

Heres how it is, 3 monitors driven by 1 video card, you still with me?? Let me know if I'm going to fast for you.

3 monitors @ 800X600 = 2400X1800 total lines drawn. See how easy that was. Now who here is running at 2400X1800 with good FPS??

Old is right... otherwise youd be running 800x200 on each monitor

Backfiring is a bitch :) but hey, everyone can make mistakes

800x600=4:3 is the standard of none widescreens... with your claim it would have been 4:1 wich ive never heard of. 800x200 divide each on 4 and you get 4:1

lol

No, Einstein. it's 2400x600.

With three monitors @ 800x600 each, you can do either 2400x600 (side by side) or 800x1800 (in a pile)
You'd need 9 monitors to do 2400x1800.
If you can't grasp a concept this simple, you probably shouldnt be using a computer in the first place.

I even posted a picture to explain it... looks like there's no hope (what ever happened to the school system?!?)
Just trust me, it's 2400x600, not 2400x1800.

OK, one last try. This should settle it once and for all:


http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5485/math2.jpg
This is what I meant when I said you'd need 9 monitors to do 2400x1800
(hint: as I only have 3 monitors, my setup must be one of the first 2...)


... if this doesnt convince you, I give up.
I won't explain it again.
(in fact, I can't believe im still trying)

Neuro is right technically on that point but the simple fact is there is three times the work to be done by one video card so even a "low" resolution for a three monitor setup is still comparatively higher than a single monitor setup at native res.

Point being I think that you are asking a bit much trying to run at your native (3x) resolution with the game in it's current state.

I'm really big on a min framerate of over 30 and 60+ avg to enjoy a game but it's tough for me to let go of those cockpit shadows to save FPS from having it on the trees and buildings.

Yes his pictures are pretty is all. His video card is displaying 3 monitors each with 800x600 resoulution. This is in fact 800 x3 = 2400 plus 600 x 3 =1800.
which is an effective 2400 x1800 pixels equivalent. Each monitor is doing 480,000 pixels X 3 = 1,440,000 pixels which is nowhere near low resolution for one video card.

I give up.
You can't fix stupid...

Yes your broken.

Go back and take some basic math courses. Or if you like I could teach you how to multiply.

Heres one 800x600= ???? Answer 480,000 Now multiply that by 3 (3 monitors) gives 1,440,000.
Now if we try and extrapolate that to approximate a single screen with a ratio (16:9 widescreen) that give roughly 1600X900 effective screen resolution. This is by no means "low" as normal high definition is about 1024x760 (720P).

I am not good in maths Oldschool but, why is i 2400x1800 equivalent? (2400x1800= 4,320,000 pixels).

He only runs it at 3x480,000 = 1,440,000 pixels

RGDS,

Athos

Yes. My broken... what? My broken game? My broken uh... spheres?

So far so good.
Now do 2400*1800. Does it make 1,440,000? Or is it 3x that much? Have you asked yourself why?


(I'm off to sign a petition to give all teachers a raise. I know they deserve it)

Do you just pull randoms numbers out of your bum??

I hope I don't regret getting involved in this, but here goes anyway ...

Sorry Odlschool, but neuro is correct. Your calculation of 3 x (800 x 600), which totals 1 440 000, is correct, but is not equal to (3 x 800) x (3 x 600) which totals 4 320 000 pixels, which equals 9 x (800 x 600).

This is a single picture being rendered across 3 monitors, with a height of 600 and a width of 2400 (3 x 800). The total number of pixels being rendered in this picture is 600 x 2400 (total height x total width), which equates to 1 440 000 pixels. This is close to 1280 x 1024 (1 310 720 pixels), and quite a bit less than 1920 x 1080 (2 073 600 pixels).

Hope this helps :)

Uh thats what I said... its actual 1600x900 pixels equivalents which =1.44 million pixels which isnt near the same as 800x600 performance wise. everyone keeps misunderstanding the values

3 800x600 is roughly equal to one 1600x900 monitor as far as video card is concerned,

True, but most modern graphics cards can handle that quite easily, can't they? I'm running 1080p on medium settings with shadows enabled at a playable frame rate, which may or may not be considered a 'high' resolution, depending on your point of view. Most test sites (eg, Tom's) refer to high resolution as 2560 x 1600, which is nearly 3 1600 x 900.

But anyway, I get your point.

True, and you also probably have patches which make the game more playable which wasn't the case when this whole discussion started.