The new patch will cost Nvidia and AMD sales :)

[JG52Krupi]

The problem at the moment for me is low fps, I hope this is sorted in the next patch like we expect.

But what is starting to spread doubt in my mind atm is that when i disable my cpu overclock the game runs like it did in day 1!!!

[fireship4]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

But what is starting to spread doubt in my mind atm is that when i disable my cpu overclock the game runs like it did in day 1!!!

That makes me wonder. When I disabled my GPU overclock before, it degraded performance quite a lot if I remember, even theough the overclock is not very large (from 750MHz/900MHz to 780/1040MHz). Either the game is very sensitive to clock speeds, or due to pseudo-fullscreen, graphics cards are not up-clocking (from standby to standard clock speeds) unless overclocked.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think it's going to have exactly the opposite effect.

With the new patch the improvements in frame rate and quality have show it's worth going through upgrade process.

I've actually been holding off any major upgrades untill I could see that it was going to have an effect.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to play any missions, (getting redy to go to work as I type) but I did get to run through the Black Death track. I'm not sure about top framerates but on my rig it plays smoother than the Black Death track in '46

And the detail! WoW! the gound level explosion are awsome! Damage decals! How about the rounds getting removed from the bofors gun magazine is it fires!

There is still away to go (levitating wingless Hurricanes and that annoying clipping when the camera gets too close to the Beaufort and you can see inside the wing - one of my big gripes with ROF) but I'm definately in for the ride!

Did I say this patch is Great!

Cheers!

[JG14_Jagr]

About the negativity, you need to remember that as initially released this was a mess... but in 2 weeks it has made massive strides. I think that at this point most people are in good shape in terms of being able to play.. But some people are not.. Some of them has old systems and don't seem to have any idea of what this type of game demands..others have need systems and it still won't work while it works great for people with the same gear.. thats really frustrating...

The biggest thing to remember is that people that are not having any show stopper problems are not likely to post here..you hear repeatedly from the people having issues.not the people spending their time playing the game

[Roger Wilco]

Your screen shot shows your rez using 120hz? I have looked through my settings and only see options for 60hz, are you setting something in the config file to get that working ?

[scissorss]

Originally Posted by Roger Wilco

Your screen shot shows your rez using 120hz? I have looked through my settings and only see options for 60hz, are you setting something in the config file to get that working ?

Pretty sure that is regulated by your monitor. On a side note, AA is working!

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Ok, I'm on a crap system (q6600 with 3gb DDR2) and an older video card (9800GT w/1GB). I can run it smooth at 1280x1024 (guess I got used to that res from 1946 and having the need to spot e/a early). With only around $250 to spend, will I get enough out of say a GTX 460 w/1 GB, or should I just up my RAM to 6GB, and wait til I can drop enough for one of the top of the line cards ~$450.00-$550.00?

It seems that any type of a high end card you can get is important. The RAM that is used extensively is not onbard system memory but GPU memory. IMO if one`s getting a video card built for CoD, he should get the one with close to 2GB video memory

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

They get pretty pricey at 2gb, i'd definately have to wait then. But I wonder if the 460 will be enough of an upgrade to run decent textures at 1680x1050 and have smooth gameplay? I don't need full textures yet, and massive resolutions.

Salute

The card you want is an ATI 6950, which has 2 Gigs of video memory, can be overclocked easily to nearly 6970 specs, and which costs about $250. This is the optimum price/performance card for CoD.

[Macka]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

They get pretty pricey at 2gb, i'd definately have to wait then. But I wonder if the 460 will be enough of an upgrade to run decent textures at 1680x1050 and have smooth gameplay? I don't need full textures yet, and massive resolutions.

Cheesehawk, I run 2 x Gainward GTX 460 GLH's but as you know only one is being used at the moment in CoD. They are great cards for the price. Since latest patch I run avg 40-45+ fps over land only occasionally dropping to 35s over large towns or down on the deck, and get a constant 48-60 fps over water in a furball. Very little if any stutters except low over London.....even the big boys are getting that. My settings are everything on high except buildings detail low but run them unlimited amount. Usually don't run shadows or grass though. Original textures not the scaled down ones. My CPU is only running at 2.8ghz but is a quad. The good thing about these cards is the scalability when running in SLI if your board supports it. 2 cards together in 90% of games run about 25-30% faster than a single GTX580 which is damn near double the cost of both cards together. So its a great investment to get one now then when SLI arrives you can do a single cheap card addition and get better performance than going the whole hog with a single top-end card.
Oh and your resolution is 2 levels lower than mine so bonus there as well.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Roger Wilco

Your screen shot shows your rez using 120hz? I have looked through my settings and only see options for 60hz, are you setting something in the config file to get that working ?

As hinted by others, it's the fact that my Samsung 2233rz monitor supports 120Hz that makes that alternative pop up!