Ok I run the game fullscreen at Native Resolution of 1600 x 900, although I would be happy to run it a 1024 x 768 which I think is the highest 'windowed' setting.

I am also using Windows XP but I still have Direct X 10 running.

Quoted from resident Java and Computer Expert Storebor:

"The game currently can't utilize multi core systems well, hence a hexa-core system is of no use at all.
The perfect system has a high clock speed combined with large 2nd/3rd level cache.
Dual Core 3.3 GHz will do better than quad core 2.2 GHz."

Ok just tested with only effects and models on High, everything else, low or off.It was flyable with I more than 25 fps and not much lag at all, abit of stuttering still though, this was in a Bf-110 flight of four at altitude over Land and sea together.

Now testing in windowed 1024 x 768 with ground/landscape detail high.

????

Can't believe folks are saying to throw hardware at COD to solve the issues!!!! COD does not even come close to fully utilizing the hardware, THAT'S the problem. It not fully optimized code, it needs lots more work. Simple as that. Buying expensive hardware is not going to solve anything.

I have a similar system to the OP. A Q6600 quad core processor at 2.4mhz, 4gb of RAM, Visat32, and a 1gb 9800gt.

The game runs quite fine with 8xAA, SOAO off, models High, landscape Medium, Shadows and Roads on, Grass off, Textures High, Effects High, buildings Low, trees low, resolution is 1920x1080. Occassional stutters over land and built up areas but I could always trim the visuals some more but I just love the eye candy, dogfighting over the sea is very smooth even with large formations. It's true to say the game on initial release was a total mess, but they've got it very playable in a month and I can do more with it than I thought I'd be able to do already, and I look forward to enjoying the rest of the sim's evolution.

He's not, it's impossible. This is also half his problem, because DX9 runs way slower than DX10 in this game.

For DX9 Graphics cards you need to make some changes to the conf.ini's

conf.ini
Render=D3D10_0 changed to Render=D3D9


Copy this line

D3D9

Enter here as below.

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover

[BOB]
Render=D3D9

Also in

C:\Users\Steve\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover

[BOB]
EpilepsyFilter=0
Render=D3D9

[window]
DepthBits =24
StencilBits=8
DrawIfNotFocused=0
SaveAspect=0
Render=D3D9 < replace the DX10 line
width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
FullScreen=1
ChangeScreenRes=1

Read more: http://ikg26.proboards.com/index.cgi...#ixzz1KeqqPu1L

Turn off AA
SSao off
textures low
grass off
shadows off
resolution 1024x768 max and then see how it plays

There are some people who claim they have hacks to install DX10 on XP.
Not something I would want to try though. Not that I know anything about hacks..

OK, we are coming forward....

#1. I am sorry, with 512MB VRAM you have to stay low. 1024x will be good, WINDOW MODE is a must for the time being (in order to check the performance) you may be able to go higher.
The trick is easy: run in Window mode, use the mouse cursor to extend the window the way it suits you. CoD will save automaticaly the resolution to its settings.
Your VRAM is your biggest challenge, you have a MINIMUM System (because of your GPU) so minimum is what will work for you (so setting things to HIGH is taking chances).
If you want to experiment, you need a tool like GPU-Z or GPU-Observer in order to monitor your VRAM: Is it reaching its MAX, you are in trouble (=stutter).

#2. If you use WinXP then forget about high resolutions, this game needs Win7-64bit
This is the best invesment you can do (besides investing a hell of a lot of money for a good GPU).
Besides WinXP is using DX9 as far as I know... ;-)
@KG26_Alpha: I am sorry Alpha, this beats me; How will you be able to run CoD in DX10 mode on an Operating System that does not have DX10 ???? You rewrite computer history here...


#3. I do not know what expert Storebor is but he is for sure no CoD expert ;-)
What CoD does with multi core CPUs I wrote you before so I waste no more but,
as a picture is worth more than 1000 words, here is your CoD with eight cores running (4+4virtual).
This is a screenshot 3840x Desktop resolution, move sliders to the right to see the game
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/Co...4_CPUload2.jpg

Look at the amount of VRAM (Memory Used) in GPU-Z, imagine how fast your GPU reaches its limit...



I hope this helps,
Happy Flying!

I think people get irate when their computer meets minimum specs, but then the game fails to run properly. ('Properly' meaning at decent framerates and decent levels of detail.)

The thing is though, that over and over it's been demonstrated in PC games that 'minimum spec' is not something to bank on.
If it's minimum spec, the game is going to run badly. Maybe with some tweaking it will run better, but it will never run well with the eye candy enabled.

You pays your monies and makes your choices. ;)

The code isn't optimized that's true, but older rigs will struggle regardless and that's just life.

I too tried RoF on a dual-core (Athlon-II 3.0GHz) and an 8800 and found it unplayable. I have since upgraded this machine to an Athlon-II X4, and passed the 8800 onto a nephew who was in dire need of something better than he had. I put an even older X1950pro 256MB (equivalent to a 7800) into this machine, and was astonished to find that the game was now playable, without having to reduce the resolution or turn too much of the eye-candy off. Obviously the quad-core cpu is making up for the graphics deficit, but I really didn’t think that it would make that much of a difference. The fact that RoF uses DX9 correctly also helps.

With the current work load that the dev’s have, they probably haven’t spent much time optimising the engine for DX9, but I’m sure this will come. I only bought RoF late last year, but from what I’ve read, it had very similar problems to those currently being experienced in CoD when it was released. If that’s anything to go by, they will sort it out, and most likely before the US release. If it still requires a quad-core at that stage, you may be right, but I (optimistically) don’t think so.