Video of CoD on lowest settings

[Shrike_UK]

Originally Posted by Nike-it

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

for a low end system like that, and its single core? then its not bad FPS at all. I remember when IL2:FB came out, with all the new water effects etc.. i struggled hitting 30 fps, many did, but we didnt care.

[Richie]

Low settings 2 gigs of ram. over the channel in dogfight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YZB...layer_embedded

[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.

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 !

[ice_crusher]

i have an i7 2600k oc and a gtx570 with 16gb of ram, but i don't have the game yet, sadly i'm not russian and i don't have a russian friend. So you have to wait till i get it on the 30. that i can tell you how it is.

[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.

[C_G]

Veltro,
what are your system specs? And those of your teammates?
This is a bone fide question, not one to start an argument.
The reason I ask is because the vids from IgroMir only exhibited serious problems when low over the ground, and we know what specs those computers had...
Cheers,
C_G

[150GCT_Veltro]

Originally Posted by C_G

Veltro,
what are your system specs? And those of your teammates?
This is a bone fide question, not one to start an argument.
The reason I ask is because the vids from IgroMir only exhibited serious problems when low over the ground, and we know what specs those computers had...
Cheers,
C_G

For ex, from 150GCT_Pag, CoD dedicated:

Intel i7 950 Quad Core 3.07
6 GB DDR Corsair
MoBo Asus Sabertooth X58
MSI GeForce GTX580 TwinFrozerII OC
2 HD WD 250 GB Sata 3
Alimentatore da 850 W





My system (i'll don't upgrade it) is:
Xenon Dual Core 3GH
4 GB RAM
ATI 5770 HD
XP 32