Video of CoD on lowest settings

[easyhomewin]

Originally Posted by Nike-it

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...0&postcount=14

Good to know that, thanks.

[Kankkis]

Yep, it allways take a time when sim is out to config all settings to final stage, when you are happy with them, testing different graphics options, what eats frames but you don't even maybe see differences and so on....

Kankkis

[Nike-it]

Please see the screen on the lowest setting but with another plane.
Feel the difference?

[choctaw111]

I saw this video last night and then saw how people complained of how badly it looked.
My first thought was that Oleg and team have done a good job making the sim playable for lower end systems, which is exactly what so many people were crying for. Then they cry that the graphics for the lower end systems doesn't look as good as it does for faster PCs.

[Bowtome]

Looks good to me

[C_G]

Originally Posted by choctaw111

I saw this video last night and then saw how people complained of how badly it looked.
My first thought was that Oleg and team have done a good job making the sim playable for lower end systems, which is exactly what so many people were crying for. Then they cry that the graphics for the lower end systems doesn't look as good as it does for faster PCs.

+1
Exactly! Well said Choctaw.

[recoilfx]

After looking at all these videos, I am increasingly convinced that the horrible stutters are caused by texture loads.

I wonder how the game would fare if it's running on a fast SSD, or entirely on a ram drive - along with a 2gb gfx card.

[150GCT_Veltro]

No trolling here. This mate has posted some wonderfull pics about CoD, but look at his statement:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...reenshots.html

"At the moment, this game is unplayable without a patch. It doesn't matter if you have super-computer because it will lag even on lowest settings. The game runs in 32 bit mode only, runs only on single core CPU and uses about 1gig of ram in quick mission over sea with one other plane. I don't know what anti-epilepsy they are speaking because I'm about to have one with additional rage from being so frustrated. There are bugs - easily visible that should not have been at this stage of a game. Frame rate oddly enough shows 30-40 fps using in game counter. But my eyes sees 10 fps, if that. Patch is needed. And fast.".

Some of my team pilots has already upgrade their PC for CoD.

So a reality question in a reality day.

Is it true?

Movie posted above is nice, but is taken from a 1 vs 1 dogfight over the sea.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by 150GCT_Veltro

Frame rate oddly enough shows 30-40 fps using in game counter. But my eyes sees 10 fps, if that.

Maybe those are fps before they go through the filter.
I wonder what other fps counter show.

Originally Posted by C_G

+1
Exactly! Well said Choctaw.

Well, enough of that " lowest minimum not bad " settings...
The real test is with top end machines like I72600K and GTX580...That would tell us how COD really performs...
Otherwise, we assume that the poor performance is allways PC's fault...
IS it reasonnable to think that there are NO top end machines at 1C ?
That they did not test it at full throttle with top gear ?...Naaaaaaa...

I am still waiting

Salute !