Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Green Tag

About aop

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. Biggest problem with the game is lack of players and every decision that prevents paying customers from playing is retarded. This was true over a decade ago when the SDs were first introduced. How about trying something else, like preventing free players from joining overpop side but also give them a bit more tools to fight with if they play underpop side? That might balance things out a bit and create a real incentive to subscribe.
  2. Players are the content of this game. This game is nothing without players. Even non-paying player can contribute to the game. It would be pointless to pay subscription fee if there was nobody to play with.
  3. Because capping and defending is objectively not fun. CQB in this game is absolute garbage with poor and unrealistic weapon handling, warping players, getting killed by someone you can't see because on your screen he is behind a corner, getting stuck in buildings and terrain etc. Both the capture system and the infantry gameplay need a huge revamp.
  4. There are two issues at play here. First and by far the largest issue is that the game simply performs very poorly. It has been that way since the graphics were updated for the Battleground Europe re-release in mid-00's. The engine is ancient and it's asked to do too much, the game has way too many 3D-objects for it to handle. The fully 3D buildings and city blocks are most likely the worst offenders. It was a bit sad to see that after being away for 10 years the performance had just got worse (though I'm running pretty ancient i5 2500K@4.3GHz but I have fastest possible RAM for the CPU, RTX2060 GPU and I'm running the game from a PCI-E SSD, in heaviest battles the fps can drop down to 20). Modern games utilize available hardware (CPU threads, memory, GPU resources) much more efficiently than WW2OL. Another reason for the poor performance you are experiencing is that both of your CPUs are very old and the reason why they perform the same in this game is that the 8350 actually has worse IPC than 1100T so in this game it's not any faster even when clocked higher. I think the most cost effective setup for this game would be the cheapest possible Intel CPU with unlocked multiplier, overclock it to 5GHz and pair it with 8GB of RAM and pretty much any NVIDIA GPU avaible. edit: Well, [censored] me sideways, the infantry LOD seems to have ridiculous effect on performance. I spawned infantry in offline mode until the fps dropped below 30 and then adjusted the LOD slider to half way down and my FPS went up to 80. Maybe, just maybe, the infantry LOD should default to some lower value than max and there should be huge disclaimer in the settings that this causes massive perf drops.
  5. The wiki seems to be just as abandoned as it was 10 years ago. Not much info about anything. It would be nice to see petration/range charts for different caliber ammo.
  6. Hi, I'm returning after a 10 year break and I'd like to know if there is any data base about ingame performance (mainly penetration and armor values) of stuff like ATGs, tanks, ATRs etc? From what I have read there has been some kind of armor and munition audit at some point so what I remember from 10 years ago might not be up to date.
  7. Damn, my Phenom II X3 720BE, 4GB RAM, GTX260 rig is running all other games just fine, maybe I'm finally forced to unsub because my poor rig can't simply run this masterpiece of coding.
  8. On my PC the drop is pretty big too. I get 150-200+ fps on open fields and generally less than 40 in towns.
  9. My parents PC is pretty similar to yours (A64 X2 5000+, 2GB RAM and 9800GT). It handles small battles but big battles really kill the FPS even with low visible player limit. If you are having problems even in small battles try 32-bit Windows XP, but if you have problems only in big battles then there's nothing to be done since the game is so damn CPU limited. Games generally perform a bit better under 32-bit WinXP when compared to 64-bit version:
  10. Vista or XP? Have you tried to drop visible player limit to low?
  11. Nice. What clocks are you running with that card? I run my 8800GTS 640MB at core648MHz/shader1620MHz/mem900MHz.
  12. Have you ever considered that the CPU might actually warm the heatsink more than the GDDR3 temps are? So by adding better heat conducting material between the heatsink and the RAM chips you actually bring more heat to RAM instead of cooling them down. Is that possible? GDDR3 chips run pretty cool when not overclocked but when make the VMEM mod they get really hot and need additional cooling.
  13. Some games and software tend to crash when page file is turned off even if there's enough RAM. I have 4GB of RAM which of one application can use maximum of 3GB (/3GB switch enabled in boot.ini) but still some software craps itself if PF is turned off and they use less than 1GB of RAM...
  14. This is old NF650i SLI based motherboard, I would go for something newer like NF750i based if you want SLI support or Intel P35 if you don't want it.
  15. I got as little FPS as 11 in Unkel/Remagen today with my 2.6GHz Athlon 64 X2 5000+, how ever my E4300@3GHz can produce steady 30fps+ in same enviroment. I'm not talking about top of the line Intel hardware here. E4300 is already phased out and being replaced with faster products. When I bought it over a year ago it was the cheapest C2D part avaible and cost me 114€ which was at the time actually less than X2 5000+ was. My last AMD CPU in my primary rig was A64@2.7GHz and I was experiencing similar abysmal performance with it as I'm currently experiencing with the X2 5000+ 2.6GHz. I think CRS should seriously try to remove some CPU bottlenecks in this game. I hope Unity II does it.