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

[klem]

I wanted to post some screen shots of flaws in the landscape over pas de calais under this patch (they may already have existed) but the screen shots didn't get saved to my \1C Soft Club\CoD\screenshots\ folder.

EDIT: Just to be clear, my screen shots did save under the \1C Soft Club\CoD\screenshots\ folder up to 28th april which was the date of the first of the two recent beta patches, i.e. the two patches released after the last Steam patch update. According to file dates and times my last screenshots were before that first beta patch download time so I think it's a problem with both the new patches.

Is this a bug or has the folder been moved?

[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...

[addman]

Originally Posted by mazex

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.

I had an Athlon 900Mhz 512MB PC133 SDRAM Geforce 2MX 32MB rig when IL-2 demo was released, it ran ok at "medium settings" IIRC. Upgraded my GF2 to an Elsa Gladiac GeForce3 64MB just before IL-2 was released and it ran really well actually with most settings on "high". I don't care what some people seems to recall but I don't recall IL-2 being anywhere near the bad shape as CloD was on release.

[ReconNZ]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Troll?

How dare you.

I've been at this longer than you son. I've beta tested for the dev team in the past, I've beta tested for TD, I've flown every single version, map, plane, mission type, offline and on, since 2001. And not once in that time have I ever felt so let down as I have with Cliffs of Dover. It's a rushed (after 6 years?) Alpha build. Nothing more.

The patches fix one thing and break two more. NO substantial progress is being made. If you think so then you are nothing more than a hopeless fan boy. And I should know, I once was a fan boy of Oleg's work myself. But Oleg is out of the picture and IL2 is dead.

This title needs at least six months to a year's constant development to be at a point where it is fit for release. Do you really you think 1C is going to keep bleeding Rubles for that long?

Illya has less than a month to pull this off.

I frankly don't think it's possible.

And if you think I am happy about that, then you really have no clue.

Dude, chill out. Once again people need a sense of perspective. I went to see Fast and Furious 5 last night with the fiance. After tickets, parking and popcorn, it cost more than I have spent on ClofD. It sucked big time. I'm not about to go on the ff5 forums requesting my money back and venting how ive been a loyal fan since the original fast and the furious am I?

Just be thankful that the Devs are working to improve their product, grab a beer and have some patience, all will be resolved in time, the sky isnt falling Dude, just chill out and It'll all come good.

[Steuben]

After resetting the game to the last steam patch! Deleting the cache folder and config.ini and then reinstalled the beta patch i get really good fps even over Cherbourg. But only when i play offline! The beta patch ruined the Multiplayer part of the game once again. Stuttering, freezes, Sound is bugged heavily, Weird behaviour of the 109. I have the impression the 109 has two different FM online and offline is a huge difference (stalled at 350 when you get into a not even very sharp turn).

So offline the game runs ok for me. A decent campaign (maybe third party like desastersoft) and iam happy! But the Multiplayer part needs some seriuos work. I want the coop modus like in IL2 to fly with my old squadron mates from I/JG53. Pleeeease
My system: AMD 1055T overclocked to 1090T, 8 gb Corsair extreme DDR ram, 5870 1 Gb Vapor-X!

[Elixx]

Is it just me or does this game run alot worse after patch?

I actually put this game aside as for 3 weeks after release this game was still a joke. I tested the alst patch with run alot faster then this one does I could actually fly over london last patch, now i can but it sucks :/ Checkinh in again after a few patches.

Edit: Nevermind i just tried turning all to verry high, but buildings that is on high. I runs mutch better then it used to do. Fully playable over london with this settings.

[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...