OLD BETA patch 14413 - May 4, 2011(!!!) - do not install!

[Spinnetti]

So, Its unplayable for me, and just BARELY playable (but controls don't work right) at the lowest possible settings, yet all my specs are the recommended ones, except my video card which was listed as compatible (computer isn't even a year old). Do I wait and hope for a fix or how do I go about getting a refund? I hope it will get playable, but the lowest settings and practically VGA graphics are still not workable, yet IL2 (modded extensively) runs perfect with everything maxxed out at 2560x1440. Not complaining, but $50 is just wasted so far. What are my options?

i7 2.8
4gig DDR3
ATI 4850
Win 7 64 bit

[JG14_Jagr]

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

So, Its unplayable for me, and just BARELY playable (but controls don't work right) at the lowest possible settings, yet all my specs are the recommended ones, except my video card which was listed as compatible (computer isn't even a year old). Do I wait and hope for a fix or how do I go about getting a refund? I hope it will get playable, but the lowest settings and practically VGA graphics are still not workable, yet IL2 (modded extensively) runs perfect with everything maxxed out at 2560x1440. Not complaining, but $50 is just wasted so far. What are my options?

i7 2.8
4gig DDR3
ATI 4850
Win 7 64 bit

What resolution are you running? How are you setting the Video Options in game? Are you using default CCC setings or are you setting things there as well. I've seen people with similar rigs say it was running well, so there should be a way to get yours working.. Share some additional info and someone will help.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

So, Its unplayable for me, and just BARELY playable (but controls don't work right) at the lowest possible settings, yet all my specs are the recommended ones, except my video card which was listed as compatible (computer isn't even a year old). Do I wait and hope for a fix or how do I go about getting a refund? I hope it will get playable, but the lowest settings and practically VGA graphics are still not workable, yet IL2 (modded extensively) runs perfect with everything maxxed out at 2560x1440. Not complaining, but $50 is just wasted so far. What are my options?

i7 2.8
4gig DDR3
ATI 4850
Win 7 64 bit

Mmm, but that really is a three year old budget card. My son who is seven has one of them but he is whining about bad performance in Lego Star Wars... As the rest of the rig seems OK I guess a GTX560ti or similar would make Cod play nicely (and that is a rather cheap card).

On my old Core 2 Duo E8400 with 6Gb DDR2 with a GTX580 I get 40-80 fps in most situations (weird combo but I'm waiting for my new chassis so I have replaced the GTX275 that was in that rig before with the card for the new 2600k rig that is now in a pile of boxes ). With my old 275 it was good too with the latest patches - got 30+ fps on the Black Death track with everything on high...

[Space Communist]

Indeed I have a 560 Ti with only 1 gb vram and I run the game beautifully on high across the board at 1920 x 1080.

[Luftrofl]

Originally Posted by mazex

Mmm, but that really is a three year old budget card. My son who is seven has one of them but he is whining about bad performance in Lego Star Wars... As the rest of the rig seems OK I guess a GTX560ti or similar would make Cod play nicely (and that is a rather cheap card).

On my old Core 2 Duo E8400 with 6Gb DDR2 with a GTX580 I get 40-80 fps in most situations (weird combo but I'm waiting for my new chassis so I have replaced the GTX275 that was in that rig before with the card for the new 2600k rig that is now in a pile of boxes ). With my old 275 it was good too with the latest patches - got 30+ fps on the Black Death track with everything on high...

If that's true, which is unlikely, then Lego Star Wars much be horribly optimized just like CoD. It's ridiculous to expect people to have one of the top 10 graphics cards available considering what the published system requirements are.

Only when(IF EVER) this game is taking full advantage of the resources it's given can anyone make claims as to what graphics cards should or shouldn't work with it.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Luftrofl

If that's true, which is unlikely, then Lego Star Wars much be horribly optimized just like CoD. It's ridiculous to expect people to have one of the top 10 graphics cards available considering what the published system requirements are.

Only when(IF EVER) this game is taking full advantage of the resources it's given can anyone make claims as to what graphics cards should or shouldn't work with it.

Well, he complains of stuttering in some situations with large mechs etc, but it works fine most of the time... Recognize that from somewhere (and we are talking Lego Clone Wars 3, the previous Lego games work OK).

Anyway - the thing that makes people think these days that three year old budget cards should work fine in a modern "high spec game" like this are living under the umbrella created by Xbox360/PS3 limitations that has stopped serious pushing of the PC envelope the last years. CoD has maps with a size and density that is totally out of the Xbox/PS3 scope - even tough there is a lot of optimizing to do I think the patches has proven that it will be possible to fix the engine to a really nice state soon.

When IL2 came out I had this rig:

Asus A7M266 Motherboard - 512Mb PC2100 DDR - Athlon Thunderbird 1.33 Ghz - Geforce 3 64Mb

I never remember any of the performance problems people where talking about when IL2 came out on that monster rig

Back then the Nvidia Riva TNT 1 was less than three years old - and anyone trying to run IL2 on a TNT 1 would not be taken seriously if he/she said they had bad performance and where "forced" to upgrade.

[Luftrofl]

Originally Posted by mazex

Anyway - the thing that makes people think these days that three year old budget cards should work fine in a modern "high spec game" like this are living under the umbrella created by Xbox360/PS3 limitations that has stopped serious pushing of the PC envelope the last years. CoD has maps with a size and density that is totally out of the Xbox/PS3 scope - even tough there is a lot of optimizing to do I think the patches has proven that it will be possible to fix the engine to a really nice state soon.

No.

*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:

ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970

NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480

Anyone with a graphics card better than those listed has a right to be pissed that the game is stuttering and crashing on them. If the game can not be optimized to a point where these cards will work, then IMO the devs have some explaining and apologizing to do. I don't expect a 4850 to play with max settings of course, but get real, this game is not nearly optimized to the point it should be. Telling people to buy more expensive hardware to make up for shortcomings in the game code is ridiculous.

Consoles have nothing to do with people being let down. Some are reporting as bad, or worse performance with this patch than previous versions. THAT is what has people discouraged. The patches HAVE NOT proven anything to those guys. I can play the game pretty well on high with some stuttering, but that doesn't mean it won't be worse next patch. To be going DOWN in performance has to be discouraging.

I think they will get the game ironed out eventually, but don't tell people who meet the minimum requirements and still can't play the game on lowest settings(which look like garbage) that it's their computers fault.

I can run the game maxed out, but it looks rough and is not smooth on the deck, regardless of 30fps. But worse than any of that is I get screen lock-ups and have to use task manager to get out. This is on a fresh install of W7-64 on an SSD.

[mayestdo]

Originally Posted by Luftrofl

No.

*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:

ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970

NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480

Anyone with a graphics card better than those listed has a right to be pissed that the game is stuttering and crashing on them. If the game can not be optimized to a point where these cards will work, then IMO the devs have some explaining and apologizing to do. I don't expect a 4850 to play with max settings of course, but get real, this game is not nearly optimized to the point it should be. Telling people to buy more expensive hardware to make up for shortcomings in the game code is ridiculous.

Consoles have nothing to do with people being let down. Some are reporting as bad, or worse performance with this patch than previous versions. THAT is what has people discouraged. The patches HAVE NOT proven anything to those guys. I can play the game pretty well on high with some stuttering, but that doesn't mean it won't be worse next patch. To be going DOWN in performance has to be discouraging.

I think they will get the game ironed out eventually, but don't tell people who meet the minimum requirements and still can't play the game on lowest settings(which look like garbage) that it's their computers fault.

1+ I've got a Phenom II 1090T, 8 Gb RAM DDR 3 and nVidia GTX 480 and my rig struggles hard to play this sim but most times it fails. Stutters make my sim experience unacceptable. Like other people, I give up. I paid for a finished and optimized game, not for this alpha I purchased. I (and the rest of my squadron mates) are totally frustrated and unhappy. And the worst, we can't see a happy ending...

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Luftrofl

No.

*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:

ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970

NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480

Anyone with a graphics card better than those listed has a right to be pissed that the game is stuttering and crashing on them. If the game can not be optimized to a point where these cards will work, then IMO the devs have some explaining and apologizing to do. I don't expect a 4850 to play with max settings of course, but get real, this game is not nearly optimized to the point it should be. Telling people to buy more expensive hardware to make up for shortcomings in the game code is ridiculous.

Consoles have nothing to do with people being let down. Some are reporting as bad, or worse performance with this patch than previous versions. THAT is what has people discouraged. The patches HAVE NOT proven anything to those guys. I can play the game pretty well on high with some stuttering, but that doesn't mean it won't be worse next patch. To be going DOWN in performance has to be discouraging.

I think they will get the game ironed out eventually, but don't tell people who meet the minimum requirements and still can't play the game on lowest settings(which look like garbage) that it's their computers fault.

Well sorry if I sounded a bit harsh on hardware that runs most games fine - I just pulled out the old memories from the days when you had to change hardware in less than 24 months to be able to play any new game with resonable fps

The reason I have been running a Core 2 Duo with a GTX275 card so long is that the need to upgrade has never been that bad. All the fps shooters that are cross developed for PC/Xbox/PS3 with multi million budgets run real nice on high settings on my current/old rig as I'm in transition right now...

The REAL reason I upgrade is actually not because of CoD even though I thought that would be the game that would force me to upgrade but RoF!

RoF runs like crap on my Core 2 Duo with Windows 7 x64. Talk about stuttering! Like CoD on release day for me. When I run it on XP32 it runs just fine but dual core and Windows 7 x64 is a combination that simply don't work for a lot of RoF-users (though some have a combination that seems to work). Jason himself has answered me that they have tried a number of things but for Windows 7 x64 they don't recommend a dual core to run RoF...

And talking about the mega fast beta patches we have got since the release version they have really fixed the game for me and a lot of others. On my 3-4 year old rig I can now run on "high" default settings with 30+ in fps and no stuttering at all. The release version was awful with micro stutters everywhere. Under the pressure they have been it obviously seems like a lot of hardware/driver combinations don't work, mainly ATI/AMD GPU users? The thing is that the beta patches have proven to me that they don't need to pick up an axe and remove half of the trees / buildings to get it working on my old rig - so with some tuning for ATI users I am sure they will get the same results...

Just have some faith! If they can double the fps on my old rig and remove the stuttering - I am sure they will fix it for the ones suffering right now. My old GTX275 is not that much faster than a HD4850...