Can someone give me hope?

[Helrza]

lol, u sure about that pulp?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20129

[Helrza]

Killa joe, try these settings in your conf.ini:

[rts]
tickLen=30
ProcessAffinityMask=15
maxTimerTicksInRealTick=20
; 0 - not use, 1 - show cursor and not capture, 2 - not show cursor, and capture
mouseUse=2
; 0 - not use, 1 - use if hardware exist
joyUse=1
; 0 - not use, 1 - use if hardware exist
trackIRUse=0
DisableIME=0
culture=en-GB

[rts_mouse]
SensitivityX=1.0
SensitivityY=1.0
SensitivityZ=1.0
Invert=0
SwapButtons = 0

[rts_joystick]
FF=1

[core]
RandSeed = 0
TexQual=3
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=0
Shadows=0
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
LandShading=0
LandDetails=0
Sky=3
Forest=2
VisibilityDistance=4
LandGeom=2
DrawCollisions=1
Water=-1
Effects=2
EffFlags.Light=1
EffFlags.SpriteRender=0
Grass=-1
CordEffect=1
UseFog=0
UseLandCube=1
UseLandConnectedObject=1
LinearObjectManager=1
Roads=1
Sun=1
Clouds=1
EffFlags.LightSpritesProj=1
ShadowMapSize=5
TexFlags.AsyncLoad=1
TexFlags.ShowTexture=0
SimpleMesh.SWTransform=0
SimpleMesh.QuadTreeClip=1
SimpleMesh.InstancingHW=1
EffFlags.LightContextSprites=1
CloudsFlags.Detailed=1
TexFlags.CreateHDR=1
Decals=2
EffFlags.SWLight=0
TexFlags.CockpitOnePass=0
MegaTexture=0
TexFlags.Reflection=0
RenderTargetQual=3
MSAA=4
MeshStatics=2
MeshStaticsDetail=0
SimpleMesh.QTNoCompose=0
MeshFirstLod=0
MeshShowLod=0
SpawnHumans=0
TexFlags.FastTransparency=1




Also refer to the nvidia control panel settings ive posted in my other post. Give them a try and let me know how u go if u can Also, turn the forests completely off in the game if you need another performance boost, and disable your mirror Another setting to disable also is clouds, which you will find in the realism settings gl

[tf_neuro]

I'm afraid you'll have to switch video card. I have the exact same one on a rig that is pretty high-end for everything else (I cannibalized the GTS250 off the old rig).

With the present configuration (see below) my rig can run Rise of Flight at high settings (not really all cranked up to max, but close), at full resolution with no stutters or glitches whatsoever, but CoD is barely playable at low resolution (2400x600 with medium-low settings), and completely unplayable at full resolution (3840x1024, with all settings as low as possible).

I ordered an nVidia 460 with 2GB RAM, hope I'll be able to play at full resolution with that one (even if at low settings)

specs:
i7 970 6-core @ 3.60
Asus Rampage 3
6G DD3 @2000
GTS250 1GB
Triple Head Analog (3840x1024 max)

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by tf_neuro

I'm afraid you'll have to switch video card. I have the exact same one on a rig that is pretty high-end for everything else (I cannibalized the GTS250 off the old rig).

With the present configuration (see below) my rig can run Rise of Flight at high settings (not really all cranked up to max, but close), at full resolution with no stutters or glitches whatsoever, but CoD is barely playable at low resolution (2400x600 with medium-low settings), and completely unplayable at full resolution (3840x1024, with all settings as low as possible).

I ordered an nVidia 460 with 2GB RAM, hope I'll be able to play at full resolution with that one (even if at low settings)

specs:
i7 970 6-core @ 3.60
Asus Rampage 3
6G DD3 @2000
GTS250 1GB
Triple Head Analog (3840x1024 max)

Your low resolution settings are not low. Try 1280 X 720 and get back to me.
I think you have an unrealistic idea of what low is. If you go down to 1280 x 720 or near there you may be suprised how good your fps is and you may be able to turn some eye candy up a little.

[tf_neuro]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Your low resolution settings are not low. Try 1280 X 720 and get back to me.
I think you have an unrealistic idea of what low is. If you go down to 1280 x 720 or near there you may be suprised how good your fps is and you may be able to turn some eye candy up a little.

You realize of course that im talking Matrox Triple Head, a three-monitor array that is detected by the OS as a single extremely wide screen (~4:1 ratio). If you look at the last line of my previous post, you'll see that I mentioned Triple Head in my specs (didnt have specs in my signature, yet)

On a 3-monitor array where each monitor is 4:3, a resolution of 2400x600px means 800x600 x3 monitors, which *is* low, compared with the native resolution of 3840x1024px. Same difference as 1280x1024 vs 800x600. Think of 3 monitors side my side: width is multiplied by the 3 monitors but height stays the same because there's only one row of monitors.

Your suggestion to set resolution 1280x720 (a regular one-monitor widescreen resolution) would produce unwanted results, namely showing the game in the top half of my 1st and 2nd monitor (if I used ChangeScreenRes=0), or not showing anything at all (with ChangeScreenRes=1) because it would try to set a screen resolution that is not supported.

Anyhow, after switching the GTS250 for a GTX460 with 2GB of memory, the game is now playable at full resolution with medium settings. Now my rig is somewhat more poweful than KillaJoe's but a couple of my gaming buddies have lower specs and their games are playable, so I guess that as long as you have a series 500 or series 400 video card and a lot of RAM on it, CoD would probably be playable on any medium-high end rig, at least at low settings.

On the other hand, it is completely possible that the game will become playable on 250GTS, after Oleg and Luthier have sorted out some more stuff...
So, IMO Killa's choices are either to get a better video card with 2GB of RAM, or wait and hope that CoD becomes playable on GTS250 (which is totally possible).

Also, dont forget that even buying the video card and getting CoD playable right away, there is still a lot of stuff to fix before it's *really* playable. Im not gonna list bugs here, but seriously, it will probably take weeks, if not months, before we can really enjoy this game, so maybe waiting could be an option, especially if budget is an issue.

[Helrza]

Originally Posted by tf_neuro

You realize of course that im talking Matrox Triple Head, a three-monitor array that is detected by the OS as a single extremely wide screen (~4:1 ratio). If you look at the last line of my previous post, you'll see that I mentioned Triple Head in my specs (didnt have specs in my signature, yet)

On a 3-monitor array where each monitor is 4:3, a resolution of 2400x600px means 800x600 x3 monitors, which *is* low, compared with the native resolution of 3840x1024px. Same difference as 1280x1024 vs 800x600. Think of 3 monitors side my side: width is multiplied by the 3 monitors but height stays the same because there's only one row of monitors.

Your suggestion to set resolution 1280x720 (a regular one-monitor widescreen resolution) would produce unwanted results, namely showing the game in the top half of my 1st and 2nd monitor (if I used ChangeScreenRes=0), or not showing anything at all (with ChangeScreenRes=1) because it would try to set a screen resolution that is not supported.

Anyhow, after switching the GTS250 for a GTX460 with 2GB of memory, the game is now playable at full resolution with medium settings. Now my rig is somewhat more poweful than KillaJoe's but a couple of my gaming buddies have lower specs and their games are playable, so I guess that as long as you have a series 500 or series 400 video card and a lot of RAM on it, CoD would probably be playable on any medium-high end rig, at least at low settings.

On the other hand, it is completely possible that the game will become playable on 250GTS, after Oleg and Luthier have sorted out some more stuff...
So, IMO Killa's choices are either to get a better video card with 2GB of RAM, or wait and hope that CoD becomes playable on GTS250 (which is totally possible).

Also, dont forget that even buying the video card and getting CoD playable right away, there is still a lot of stuff to fix before it's *really* playable. Im not gonna list bugs here, but seriously, it will probably take weeks, if not months, before we can really enjoy this game, so maybe waiting could be an option, especially if budget is an issue.

What would u regard as "playable"?

[tf_neuro]

Never mind. I just realized that KillaJoe *already* got his game playable (i.e. 'can be played', I guess), even if at low res and low settings... well, better than nothing, right?
Hopefully O & L will figure out more stuff and the game will even look good for users on GTS250

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by tf_neuro

You realize of course that im talking Matrox Triple Head, a three-monitor array that is detected by the OS as a single extremely wide screen (~4:1 ratio). If you look at the last line of my previous post, you'll see that I mentioned Triple Head in my specs (didnt have specs in my signature, yet)

On a 3-monitor array where each monitor is 4:3, a resolution of 2400x600px means 800x600 x3 monitors, which *is* low, compared with the native resolution of 3840x1024px. Same difference as 1280x1024 vs 800x600. Think of 3 monitors side my side: width is multiplied by the 3 monitors but height stays the same because there's only one row of monitors.

Your suggestion to set resolution 1280x720 (a regular one-monitor widescreen resolution) would produce unwanted results, namely showing the game in the top half of my 1st and 2nd monitor (if I used ChangeScreenRes=0), or not showing anything at all (with ChangeScreenRes=1) because it would try to set a screen resolution that is not supported.

Anyhow, after switching the GTS250 for a GTX460 with 2GB of memory, the game is now playable at full resolution with medium settings. Now my rig is somewhat more poweful than KillaJoe's but a couple of my gaming buddies have lower specs and their games are playable, so I guess that as long as you have a series 500 or series 400 video card and a lot of RAM on it, CoD would probably be playable on any medium-high end rig, at least at low settings.

On the other hand, it is completely possible that the game will become playable on 250GTS, after Oleg and Luthier have sorted out some more stuff...
So, IMO Killa's choices are either to get a better video card with 2GB of RAM, or wait and hope that CoD becomes playable on GTS250 (which is totally possible).

Also, dont forget that even buying the video card and getting CoD playable right away, there is still a lot of stuff to fix before it's *really* playable. Im not gonna list bugs here, but seriously, it will probably take weeks, if not months, before we can really enjoy this game, so maybe waiting could be an option, especially if budget is an issue.

I know I was making a blanket statement about ALL the people complaining that they cant play at uber high res. Your setup is even more extreme even if you think that its low res its not. 3 monitors on what you call low is more than high for the hardware. You have to combine all the res for total.

People who like no trees and no detail go ahead and run at 1900x1080 so it looks like a 1990 game. Smart people will lower resolution so they can have all the effects on and enjoy the game as it was meant to be.

[tf_neuro]

People who like no trees and no detail go ahead and run at 1900x1080 so it looks like a 1990 game. Smart people will lower resolution so they can have all the effects on and enjoy the game as it was meant to be.

can't. be. lowered. more.
understand?
on my system, 2400x600 is as low as it goes... I guess I could do 1920x480 if I manually added an entry to the supported resolutions ...but then it would look like 8bit

[btw we're way off topic. Killa wanted his game playable on GTS250, he got that, everyone's happy]

[AwM]

I have the C2D 8400 (3ghz) and Radeon HD 4670. With some tweaks, the game is pretty much playable with high graphic details (except buildings, forest and land shading, which are on lowest). I still really hope developers will optimize the game more, so I can turn the land details a bit upper. The main problem for me is the stuttering when getting close to the cities. The game needs to be more steamlined so it doesn't take so much ram (got 2.5gb and seems that's not enough).