Can someone give me hope?

[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

[Helrza]

Originally Posted by 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

youd be quite suprised how well that card is handling the game atm im playin it 30+ AC, im able to go to the deck with forests on full. more than playable

[Ze-Jamz]

fellas im not being funny but should you be running out buying a new gfx card to play this game...NO

the whole point of these patches is to iron out the glitches and make it playable on most of rigs that people are using here..

il be F*k'd if im going to upgrade my ATI HD5770 1gig to play this game, its a sopported card or at least what they tell me on the back of the DVD case i have infront of me..

Crying shame watching people run out buying new parts when looking through these forums your see that its not just a specific piece of hardware that is to blame here, its a number of things/issues that have to be dealt with..unless your playing on a prehistoric rig i wouldnt purchase anything new untill they pinpoint the problems they have presently

imo