Game Unplayable

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro

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

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..

[335th_GRAthos]

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


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!

[Rattlehead]

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.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

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...


!

What are you talking about.







.

[Avala]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

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


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!

You ARE Cod expert than? I see . . . (you don’t know sh... what you are talking about )

By the way, Luthier just called and asked again what your bank account number is. He will make the payment at the monday he said

[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

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by 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

Why not turn off grass and turn on roads and buildings higher

[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.