Game Unplayable

[Peril]

I get 60fps on what some would call a 'slow' system?

*2 x Anti-A
*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original
*Special effects etc High
*Ground detail Medium

You need to turn off the things you left on, SAO and AA do the biggest damage on my sys. Also run lower resolution, why does everyone want this max when it does so much harm to good FPS?? I run 1280x800 and it's fine, so good I can now turn up some other fancy bits like shadows.. I average 60fps now and happy as a pig in mud.

Your expectations are well above your systems capability but not if the system is set at low settings, including the resolution...

Ask yourself, 'have I done everything I can'?

I'm guessing you weren't around for WarBirds 1.11 or earlier?? Now that was unplayable on a SX 386, although not to bad on a 486 and 256 colours, and rocked on a Voodoo card and a P1. Gives you a totally different perspective on what is 'minimum' settings, heheheh.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Buchon

9800GT is a dx10 card, if I recall correctly is a dumped 8800GT.

Go here and click Specifications :

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...9800gt_us.html


Verhängnis, I strongly recommend you upgrade to Windows 7, all your problems will disappear and the game is other in DX10.

You should put that card under DX10.

Thxz for the correction.

When I was testing a 9800GTX+ I got much better fps results with DX9 settings than DX10 in CoD

My point was to the OP that he should run CoD under XP with DX9

Your suggestion of getting Win 7 wont solve the poor performance of the GPU he has.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Thxz for the correction.

When I was testing a 9800GTX+ I got much better fps results with DX9 settings than DX10 in CoD

My point was to the OP that he should run CoD under XP with DX9

Your suggestion of getting Win 7 wont solve the poor performance of the GPU he has.

Indeed, they have a very low performance in DX10, we are talking about a dump of the first generation of DX10 cards.

The nVidia 9800GTX is a dumped 8800GTX Ultra, if I recall correctly, nVidia just did a core revision of the 8xxx series in the 9xxx series.

But if you tweak down those DX10 effects, like shadows and shaders, the game should run fine in non excessive high resolutions, in 1920x1200 you can have problems with 512mb of vram.

If the game runs better with that card in DX9 than in DX10 is how should be indeed, but is weird that in some cases is just the opposite with this game, I guess is a matter of drivers or hardware.

With my ATI 5870 the performance in DX9 is terrible while in DX10 is smooth and pretty.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

When I was testing a 9800GTX+ I got much better fps results with DX9 settings than DX10 in CoD

My point was to the OP that he should run CoD under XP with DX9

Your suggestion of getting Win 7 wont solve the poor performance of the GPU he has.

That is good to know Alpha, did you benchmark the 9800GTX with WinXP+DX9 and Win7+DX10 ?
It would b bad news to all people who hope to upgrade to Win7 in order to solve the performance issues with WinXP.
I presume it is because the 9800GTX runs DX10 but NOT DX10.1
The older NVIDIA cards were running a DX10 version with shader model 4.0 and later generations were running DX10.1 with shader version 4.1

I do not know for sure what shader model CoD needs. According to an interview in pcgameshardware Oleg Maddox gave (11thMarch), CoD uses all DX10 and DX10.1 features.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,81...mulation/News/
If this is true then the GTX9800 can handle the shader model 4.0 but not the shader model 4.1 features CoD has in DX10 and this makes it slower in DX10 mode.


Hunter in Ubisoft posted a great link showing, among other information, which DX version and shader model NVIDIA cards have, worthwile having when going shopping for a second hand NV card:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132



~S~

[Buchon]

DX10.1 is a small revision of shader model and a little Antialiasing optimization, if you have plugged a DX10 card instead a DX10.1 capable card those optimizations will not appears but you should can run the game anyways with DX10 only.

So if you are using a DX10 card instead a DX10.1 capable card the game should switch to shader model 4.0, instead 4.1, automatically.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Buchon

Indeed, they have a very low performance in DX10, we are talking about a dump of the first generation of DX10 cards.

You posted it while I was writting....

Thanks, your two posts explain a lot.

One more question: If the DX10 performance of a GPU is lousy (compared to its DX9 performance), is it worthwhile to have the game in Win7 OS, but making it run in DX9?

~S~

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

You posted it while I was writting....

Thanks, your two posts explain a lot.

One more question: If the DX10 performance of a GPU is lousy (compared to its DX9 performance), is it worthwhile to have the game in Win7 OS, but making it run in DX9?

~S~

My experience doing this with other games show that the differences are minimal, depending of how the game behavior is in Windows 7 it runs better or worse.

But overall the differences are no appreciable.

The question is :

Now days, there any advantage sticking in Windows XP ?

[Spinnetti]

So, lets break this down. by what they claim:

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3
I'm on Win7 Ultimate/64 bit. - Max spec.

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+ (Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended)
I've got a i7 2.8 - Above their recommendation

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended)
I've got 4GB DDR3 - their recommendation at least

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List*
I've got a ATI4850

So according to their requirements, my machine should run this excellent - as it does EVERY OTHER GAME I've ever tried except this one (including Crysis variants, COD, etc.)

Its a slide show for me. My screens native resolution is 2560x1440, and even cutting that in half and putting the graphics on "medium" with no other changes is unplayable.

Definitely false advertising. IL2 is the best game I've ever had, so I'll stick with it, but I'm severely disappointed. (this is on all versions including the latest April 27 beta patch)...

[swiss]

You're surprised a three years old mid-end card doesn't let you play the game with all bells and whistles on?
Are you serious?

I got a 260, i also have to turn the resolution down(1200), 70% on high, trees low. ~40fps.
That's more than I expected. It was always clear the game will need a very strong GPU. Why do think some people here bought 580 SLI setups in advance?

-Trees are a killer.
-Your poor little card has to fill a 27" screen

*confused*


edit: And min specs means the game barely runs...

[Gamekeeper]

I thought I'd answer here as I saw your post on M4T which lacked any system detail.
You have a good system apart from the ATI 4850 which is an old graphics card and comes in at the low end of recommended cards with 512mb (1GB recommended), trying to run it at a resolution of 2560x1440 at medium settings is asking a bit much of it. Try low graphics settings and a much lower resolution and you should see an improvement in FPS. If you upgrade the card to match the specs of the rest of yousystem then the settings you use should work and give reasonable results.