Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About ness

  • Rank
    Lifetime Builder
  • Birthday 11/30/1985

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Oh hay I havent slept in forever, but I made this. Featuring ww2ol. Hope it helps. View full screen 1080p for best results. bVayJIhSwpo?hd=1
  2. I have never been comfortable with the OEM heatsink/fan coupled with the intel processors. The temps really crawl up there, and great air cooled heatsinks can be had for ~$30
  3. JUst to narrow down the easy stuff, give these drivers a try. They are beta, but im running them with no issues. I even got the 32bit link for you: Try that first. Second, do you have your CPU or GPU overclocked at all? BSOD's and driver failure like that is something that I experienced when one of my GTX 670 ftw's went out on me. It got worse and worse until I had to RMA it. No problems since. I have also noticed that if you have overclocked your CPU, an incorrect BCLK will cause driver failures like this. Before messing with anything, I'd suggest making sure you have EVERYTHING set to stock clock speeds and frequencies. How hot are your 580's getting? At idle? At load? Does the game run at all/5 min/30 min/random crashes? Try removing one of the 580's all together and playing for a long while, then switching to the other card and testing. One of your cards may be going bad. When you try and force SLI usage on a game that does not support SLI, odd things can happen. For ww2ol, you will max out at ~30fps. Make sure all SLI settings are disabled, such as SLI AA or SLI Multisampling. Are you having any issues with other games? Do you get driver failure notifications while just at your desktop?
  4. What motherboard are you using, and are you overclocked at all? Also make sure that in your nvidia control panel for ww2.exe (detected as ww2 fighters- which is fine) you have it set to single GPU mode. Driver failure seems like there is hardware instability. Also check this. Right click on my computer, go to manage, and look for Event Viewer. Go to Custom Views and Administrative Events, and look for WHEA errors, with the yellow triangle icons. Those will tell you whats failing. Post up your findings here. This is sorta what you should be seeing
  5. What timing! 305.68 WHQL just released, but not much feedback on them yet.
  6. This game isn't very GPU hungry, but i'm not sure how IGP's handle video memory. If anyone DOES have a CPU with a IGP, look up the Lucid MVP technology. You can basically sort of SLI your IGP and your dedicated video card.
  7. 301.42 WHQL are the latest official. Not sure how this would benefit a gts 240, but across the board there is a performance increase vs 296.10 for most cards. I'm running these atm since the more recent betas didn't seem to like my gpu overclocks. Keep in mind that after installing new drivers, the nvidia control panel resets to nvidia recommended settings, which may not provide you with the best performance. Driver performance for your card would best be compared with a DX10 benchmark, such as 3DMark Vantage. *ww2ol in specific only appears to use the settings from The GLOBAL SETTINGS tab when you run the game ONLINE. Setting up a specific 3d profile for ww2ol ONLY applies to offline mode for some reason, however this is what I have experienced so far with these drivers and my specific hardware. (It was forcing SLI on, which cuts framerate down to ~33fps) Setting up a custom profile for ww2.exe would only be useful if you want to test various settings in a consistent environment before using them for your global profile. *[i'd like to do some more testing on this to confirm the effects of the nvidia profile settings. Due to the fact that recent drivers are detecting ww2.exe as "World War II Fighters" the drivers will attempt to use nvidia recommended settings that are optimized for "World War II Fighters" and may have an adverse effects on Battleground Europe. I deleted the "World War II Fighters" profile using nvidia inspector and created a new one which gave me these results.]
  8. I'm actually curious to see how IGP works with this game, as the HD4000's do surprisingly OK with most games. I'm also curious about lucid MVP and this game. I'll disable some cards at some point and check it out.
  9. If you have that setup and you are getting those frames, you are doing it wrong. I understand that it SHOULDN'T be necessary, but unfortunately it is. You have equipment that is currently capable of running fine, but you don't have it configured to do so. A lot of things in this game SHOULDN'T happen, but they do. I completely agree with you, but for the time being, you can either try and play at 10-13 FPS, or you can do something about it.
  10. I have spent hours.. and hours.. using various hardware configurations, drivers, game settings, and even some bizarre software tweaking to figure out what makes this game tick, and what it needs to run. I have managed to finally find a configuration that is able to run in most conditions at a constant 60FPS with everything maxed out. (I'm using adaptive vsync since setting it off will let my gpu run at it's highest oc'ed boost clock, and 140+fps tends to heat things up a bit.) My current rig consists of parts that I would say MOST people wouldn't consider spending the money on. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but with my schedule I pretty much only have time to use my computer and go to work, so dropping some $$$ on my computer makes sense. Flat out, it's around 4k in parts for the tower and its contents alone. Throw in peripherals and a few decent monitors and its just under $5,000 (rough guess). As far as how I usually have it configured, see here: Still pushing it, but its a long drawn out process. I highly doubt the average person (or Rat) spends the time or has the desire to push their hardware to the limits of stability. That being said, if you are running the game with maxed settings, and you don't have a setup similar to mine, don't expect similar results. Why is the game performance now less than what it was before? Now, if anyone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me, but I imagine that much of the code which powered the game back when I built my first rig solely to play ww2ol in 2002, is still in the engine today. I know some of the 3d models are The game has attempted to scale visually, add more features, more models, all while retaining the basic functionality of the game. It has done so while essentially being on the same engine for most of its life. There is only so much that you can do to an older engine (or a newer engine with older code) before it starts to crap its pants. If you've ever noticed how some big name companies use software that looks like it was created in the early 90's, like airline reservation systems for example, this is because the software probably was developed in the early 90's. The very nature of the constant need for the software to be in use, maintained, and updated prevents its ability to be easily replaced. I imagine that this game is in a similar situation. For one, the game runs on Playnet's proprietary Unity 3D game engine- not to be confused with the Unity engine. AFAIK, this game has always ran on Unity 3D, with few upgrades to the engine itself. Take into consideration the tools used to develop different parts, such as Granny3D, the knowledge required to use these tools, and how the formats produced by said tools play into compatibility. I don't think the task of moving the entire game to a different engine, or updating the engine to something that would solve everyone's problems is something that CRS has the budget, staff, or time to accomplish. That's my speculation anyway. Whether I'm wrong or right about those details, we are all for the most part in the same boat. The game doesn't run how we would expect. The solution? Lower the in game settings. The visual difference is minimal, and in the long run, you are going to get more enjoyment out of the game with it running smoother than you will with it looking slightly better. If you can't do that, overclock the living hell out of your processor. Even though this game never uses 100% of any single core, frame rate greatly benefits from higher CPU clocks more than anything. As an example, tonight my friends and I were playing attacking Chevron. One of my friends was using my old rig with an i7 930 @ 4.0ghz with a Nvidia GTX 465 and was getting ~50 FPS. I was sitting right beside him on my new rig with my i7 3770k @ 3.7ghz (stock CPU clocks for now as I've been testing the max OC of my video cards and didn't want any CPU instability to play a factor) with a Nvidia GTX 670 FTW and was getting ~35fps. The offline benchmarks like .benchinfantry and .benchvehicles are whack. For one, I don't think that it's using the infantry models that are currently used in game, the LOD setting doesnt change how these are drawn, and appears to be just stressing the game engine. This also doesnt factor in any online representation of the game. In fact, offline mode appears to act completely on its own when compared to online mode. Using global defaults in the Nvidia control panel for antialiasing set at 32xCSAA for example, will work in offline mode, however in online mode you actually have to set those specific settings for the game profile (which btw reads this game as World War II Fighters according to Nvidia) so that they work online. I have pretty much given up the tweaking approach with this game, since only god knows what the game engine is doing at any given time, and how its communicating with modern hardware and drivers. All I do know is that by pure brute force, shoving higher processing speeds down this games pie hole lets it run nicely (and by that, I mean that it shows 60fps on the screen, even if it doesnt look fluid). But if I'm able to find any new tricks, I'll let you know. P.S. My recent interest in DayZ has revealed to me that the ArmaII engine is complete horse ass, is extremely exploitable, and will likely carry over its problems to ArmaIII. So not all relevant games played today are leaps and bounds beyond ww2ol in terms of performance.
  11. Are you using onboard sound? Are you plugging your headphones into a front jack, or directly into the back I/O ports? The most common problem is that with most cases, even newer and high end name brand cases (Antec) the front I/O bay that have USB/headphone/mic do not have independent grounding for the devices. So anything that is connected to the motherboard from the front I/O bay can transfer static sound to the stereo jack. You can sometimes frequently hear static more pronounced when you move your mouse, or when there is activity on the HDD. If you have ever worked with car audio, you can also hear transmission noise through the speakers due to incorrect grounding. Solution? Plug your headphones into the rear jack.
  12. Well, I've had time to play with my new setup and get a stable configuration going. p16064 in 3DMark 11 Intel I7 3770k @ 4.6ghz Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3 2100mhz c11 2 GTX 670 FTWs in SLI overclocked (145% power target, +65mhz GPU offset, +400mhz Memory offset) z77 FTW motherboard WD Velociraptor (10,000rpm) 1TB HDD OCZ Vertex 4 128gb SSD (1.5 firmware) Corsair AX1200 PSU So how does the game run? I've managed to max out all settings and stay at 60 fps almost 95% of the time (using target framerate @60fps in Precision X) with small instances of framerate drop to high 40's-mid 50's depending on the situation. That being said, how does the game look when running at 60fps consistently, or even at ~120fps with target framerate off? Well, at least from an nvidia standpoint, not too much different to be honest. Just as I suspected, but could never confirm, the engine in this game makes infantry navigation look choppy. There is something to do with moving and looking around the world that causes some sort of lagging effect. The effect is reduced when you are a TC in a tank for example moving your head around, or when flying. It looks considerably more fluid. I recall several years ago, that the ground would seem to jitter slightly, but only when running east/west, so perhaps infantry movement just doesnt play well with this engine. If you turn on freelook (n key by default) and look around, you can see that its slightly more fluid panning your head around the world, as opposed to doing it with free look off. It's kinda hard to explain. At any rate, I still cant quite pin down what this game requires in terms of a graphics card. Running my older GTX 465, average framerate was about the same as my 670 FTW, however I got higher peak framerate and a higher minimum framerate with the 670 FTW. Ive tried several different driver level settings, such as FXAA, adaptive vsync, etc, but the game doesnt react to these settings like you would imagine. I've been running with 16x anisotropic filtering, 16x CSAA (FXAA is nice, but makes everything blurry) and multisample transparency antialiasing. The game really likes a high clock speed. The difference between 4.3ghz and 4.6ghz was noticeable in average framerate. The game still seems to tax core 1 (out of core 0,1,2,3) primarily, but other cores are active during gameplay. Just not as much. The most difficult part is finding a good benchmark, as the offline mode tests don't seem to provide any feedback that reflects in game scenarios. The benchinfantry and benchvehicles commands appear to do less on the GPU and CPU and just bog down the engine instead. This is all speculation for the most part of course. tl;dr New computer- woo! Game engine- boo!
  13. Nah, it sounds about right. Don't use this game to gauge your performance, as its a heart breaker. Just lower the settings that hardly make a difference as far as visual quality vs framerate.
  14. A guide I wrote up a while back. Keep in mind the date.. and the offline tests arent really conclusive, but if you are looking for a starting point..