Game Unplayable

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

... My dual core 2.4 with 8800gt was battling with RoF...

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.

[SEE]

I'm gobsmacked at how well my minimum specs machine performs with CoD following the patches and the last beta. It was pretty awful on initial release.

I use the settings below and haven't had the problems some report with ATI cards.

1280 x 768 60hz
Model, Visual - high
Building, Land, Textures,Damage Decals,Landshading - Medium
Buildings amount - Low
Grass - on
Shadows, Roads - Off
AA - off
SSAO - Off
Clouds - Off

Room for improvements sure in terms of visuals, but playable!

Duel Core - 4GB - Win7/64 - GTS250

[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.