• Announcements

    • SNIPER62

      64-bit is LIVE   03/27/2020

      CHIMM: 64-bit client is now LIVE and Campaign 172 continues!  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bubbles2

Framerate problems (moved to Community Support)

28 posts in this topic

I'm having some bad framerate issues with this game. I just recently re-subscribed hoping that after a few months maybe the situation had improved. Unfortunately it's even worse. When I started this game back in April 05 or somewhere around there, I used to get 60-90fps on the offline practice mode running at 1280x1024. From what I remember the fps wasn't bad either even in big city fights. They used to average somewhere around 25-30 which was very playable. Now I'm getting about 8-15 fps in city fights and at most 30-35 anywhere else (as in the middle of nowhere attacking some fb with at most 5-10 players scatered over a 3km area). Even in the offline mode I'm only getting 25-30 fps!! Now I've played around with the settings but this game just doesn't seem to scale very well. I've turned it down to the lowest settings and the difference in fps is pretty much not even noticeable.

Normally this would mean that my video card can handle the game but my cpu/ram cannot. But in that situation wouldn't the offline mode still have significantly higher fps considering there are pretty much no dynamic objects being loaded? Since I first started the game I have bought a new video card (recently too, I payed $400 CND) and a cpu/mb upgrade but the fps is still about 1/3 - 1/2 of what it used to be. Now I think this is mainly caused by the new trees / bushes because whenever I'm in an open area without many trees / bushes close enough to render in 3D and am looking down range at a forest far enough away that it's rendered in 2D I get very high fps. 50+

But if I take out my binoculars and zoom in on that forest (at which point the trees are rendered 3D) framerate goes from 50 to 5-10. Again, put away the binoculars and framerate spikes up when I'm looking at the 2D models again. Now is there a way to disable or seriously reduce the range before trees switch to 3D? I don't see any option in the settings. Or is there some trick I've missed to help boost up fps?

Now I don't have a terrible computer. I can run any game on the market on medium - high settings with very solid fps. I'm not just talking about your typical quake 3 type fps games that run at 99 fps on anyones computers now adays either. I mean games like Oblivion (with HDR and settings on high), F.E.A.R, Farcry (and this game has just as many if not more foliege and trees and crap then wwiiol, and much higher quality), World of Warcraft (on 1680x1050 with medium settings in areas where I can see 80-100 people at the same time, each with very detailed weapon / armor models and spell effects going off all over the place), Rome: Total War (with highest unit settings so there literally are 3000-5000 units on screen) and even at the most system intense times I still get better performance then wwiiol. Not just slightly better, I mean ridiculously better in terms of fps and graphics quality.

Now I know wwiiol is more cpu/ram intensive then most games out there but some of the above mentioned are pretty darn cpu/ram intensive as well.

I'm not one of those people that has their coffee cup in their CD ROM, so I already have the latest drivers, latest microsoft updates, spyware/virus free, I got rid of useless services, utilities and programs running in the background, etc. Again, I wouldn't be getting good performance in other games if I didn't. The problem is with wwiiol and I'm wondering if there's anything I can do about it short of upgrading my computer further even thought it can already handle every other game out there.

AMD 64 3000+

1 gig DDR

ATI Radeon X1600 Pro 512 DDR version

ASUS K8V SE Deluxe

WinXP Pro SP2

Latest DX, drivers, servicepack, patches, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the exact same problem and a very similar system and suffer with horrendous fps. About 5 months ago I had 20-30fps, now I'm lucky to get past 15 fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet AI get 20(+) with a celeron 2, and 9600xt.

go to the community help forums - read

some of the stuff will work, some won't.

one of the biggest issues (thankfully) with this game is the viewing distance. all those games you mention at best have a viewing/rendering distance less than wwiionline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 EXTREME fps hogs. The first one is if you have a built in soundcard on your motherboard.. Changing to a "stand alone" card will give you a nice boost in fps. (I gained 35 fps by putting one cheap soundblaster in on one of my "sparecomputers"). Just remember to to disable the built in card in bios othervise you hardly notice any difference.

Another FPShog is if you run the game in different resolution than you run your windows in. (I know it sounds wierd but ist a fact)..

Dunno If this helps you, but it might be someone that read it and get some extra fps out..

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a poor or onboard sound card can dramatically reduce frame rates. If you have a fairly good SC, then the bottle neck is probably your CPU. I Just recently I upgraded from an AMD X2 4200 with 1.5 Gb of 400 mhz RAM, to a Core2 Duo 6600 with 2 GB 800 Mhz RAM and jumped 20-30 FPS (using the same Radeon 1800XT 512 VC). Maybe this game favors Intel CPUs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last patch screwed my fps. Before that, I got usually 40s and 50s in town, now any time I LOOK toward a town the framerate drops to single digits. I can look away and the fps goes up to 30s or so. I was running to Kalmthout the other night to rtb and when I got within 2k of town the fps dropped to 9... I don't play much since the last patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMD 64 3000+

Unlike all those other games where you say you get "solid fps", this game is cpu dependent. No, none of those games are as CPU dependent as WWIIOL is.

That CPU you have is pretty outdated, and you should really have no reason to expect good FPS with it.

Let me make this clear; No offense intended, but your CPU is sub-par and I say again, you have absolutely no reason to "expect" good FPS with it. You can't expect much from a CPU that currently retails for about $60.

Your video card is *decent*, perhaps a step above your CPU, but it isn't that great either.

You want more FPS? You have to upgrade that CPU; it just doesn't cut it anymore.

I know you say your PC can handle almost every game out there at high settings (including Oblivion with HDR).....but, not to call you a liar, I'm extremely skeptical of that. I can't imagine how you could be running Oblivion "well" with a low-end CPU and a lower midrange video card.

On my system, with an overclocked 7900GT and an overclocked Core 2 Duo E6400, I run Oblivion at max settings with HDR and I get about 25-30 FPS in most outdoor places; that's hardly what I'd call "good FPS" and my system is significantly superior to yours.

Also I notice that you didn't post what soundcard you're using. If you don't have a soundcard, it will only make your sub-par CPU work even harder.

Bottom line:

- Upgrade your CPU

- Buy soundcard (if you don't already have one)

No amount of tweaking or settings changes will have a greater impact than upgrading your CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rough guide I would say you need a AMD64 3500 / 3700 processor to keep frames around 20 - 30 in towns.

I have a 3700 and get 18 - 26 in large towns and often higher away from towns.

This is why so many many squaddies / players have looked forward to the "jaeger performance" routines that for so long were rumoured to be nearly there.

Unfortunately that side seems to have gone very very quiet from the rats and maybe Jaeger left or is busy with other work projects hence on hold..........

OR there has been amazing great surprises in store been quietly worked on by the rats.

I really hope the latter. Frame rates and lag are the two biggest complaints I hear on an almost daily basis by players on TS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 2 EXTREME fps hogs. The first one is if you have a built in soundcard on your motherboard.. Changing to a "stand alone" card will give you a nice boost in fps. (I gained 35 fps by putting one cheap soundblaster in on one of my "sparecomputers"). Just remember to to disable the built in card in bios othervise you hardly notice any difference.

Another FPShog is if you run the game in different resolution than you run your windows in. (I know it sounds wierd but ist a fact)..

Dunno If this helps you, but it might be someone that read it and get some extra fps out..

.

I have a seperate sound card and my onboard sound is disabled. I will try the resolution thing though, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike all those other games where you say you get "solid fps"' date=' this game is [u']cpu dependent. No, none of those games are as CPU dependent as WWIIOL is.

That CPU you have is pretty outdated, and you should really have no reason to expect good FPS with it.

Let me make this clear; No offense intended, but your CPU is sub-par and I say again, you have absolutely no reason to "expect" good FPS with it. You can't expect much from a CPU that currently retails for about $60.

Your video card is *decent*, perhaps a step above your CPU, but it isn't that great either.

You want more FPS? You have to upgrade that CPU; it just doesn't cut it anymore.

I know you say your PC can handle almost every game out there at high settings (including Oblivion with HDR).....but, not to call you a liar, I'm extremely skeptical of that. I can't imagine how you could be running Oblivion "well" with a low-end CPU and a lower midrange video card.

On my system, with an overclocked 7900GT and an overclocked Core 2 Duo E6400, I run Oblivion at max settings with HDR and I get about 25-30 FPS in most outdoor places; that's hardly what I'd call "good FPS" and my system is significantly superior to yours.

Also I notice that you didn't post what soundcard you're using. If you don't have a soundcard, it will only make your sub-par CPU work even harder.

Bottom line:

- Upgrade your CPU

- Buy soundcard (if you don't already have one)

No amount of tweaking or settings changes will have a greater impact than upgrading your CPU.

What you and I consider good computers obviously differs. I'm not willing to go out and pay thousands of dollars just for a slight fps boost in wwiiol because frankly the game is just not that important in my life, expecially when I can run everything else out there. I'm looking for a cost effective way to improve fps and by cost effective I mean.. little to no cost at all. While the game is CPU intensive there is no reason why it would run at 30 fps on the offline map even with the lowest visibility settings (and no, v-sync is not enabled), when 6 months ago on a GeForce FX5600 Ultra I was getting 60-90 on higher settings and the game to me was looking pretty much exactly the same as now.

As for Oblivion, I'm getting 20-30 fps outside with HDR / Medium settings and 40-60 anywhere indoors. If I take HDR off and put everything else to high settings I get 40-50 outdoors and 70+ indoors. Id post screenshots but to be honest I don't really want to re-install the game just to prove a point. Most likely I'm going to have to leave wwiiol again, this time for good probably. I'll try all the tweaks I can but if those don't help I'm not willing to go out and buy a top of the line cpu/mb/vid card when I haven't had any problems with any other game out there. Now the games I mentioned above are not as CPU intensive as wwiiol, but a lot of that has to do with them being far better designed and coded as well. In large PVP raids in world of warcraft (40 vs 40 players) even when almost everyone is on the screen, and a view distance far enough that it would take me 2-3 minutes to get to the furthest point I can see, I'm still getting 30-60 fps. Now even if I was in an open field, if I had to look at 80 people in wwiiol I highly doubt it would even go past 15-20, even considering every infantry has pretty much the exact same model, all Tiger tanks have the same model etc, while WoW everyone has completely differen't models for each player.

Like I said, I'm looking for cost effective methods to try and get this game running as fast as possible, before I even come close to considering any kind of upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you and I consider good computers obviously differs. I'm not willing to go out and pay thousands of dollars just for a slight fps boost in wwiiol because frankly the game is just not that important in my life, expecially when I can run everything else out there. I'm looking for a cost effective way to improve fps and by cost effective I mean.. little to no cost at all. While the game is CPU intensive there is no reason why it would run at 30 fps on the offline map even with the lowest visibility settings (and no, v-sync is not enabled), when 6 months ago on a GeForce FX5600 Ultra I was getting 60-90 on higher settings and the game to me was looking pretty much exactly the same as now.

As for Oblivion, I'm getting 20-30 fps outside with HDR / Medium settings and 40-60 anywhere indoors. If I take HDR off and put everything else to high settings I get 40-50 outdoors and 70+ indoors. Id post screenshots but to be honest I don't really want to re-install the game just to prove a point. Most likely I'm going to have to leave wwiiol again, this time for good probably. I'll try all the tweaks I can but if those don't help I'm not willing to go out and buy a top of the line cpu/mb/vid card when I haven't had any problems with any other game out there. Now the games I mentioned above are not as CPU intensive as wwiiol, but a lot of that has to do with them being far better designed and coded as well. In large PVP raids in world of warcraft (40 vs 40 players) even when almost everyone is on the screen, and a view distance far enough that it would take me 2-3 minutes to get to the furthest point I can see, I'm still getting 30-60 fps. Now even if I was in an open field, if I had to look at 80 people in wwiiol I highly doubt it would even go past 15-20, even considering every infantry has pretty much the exact same model, all Tiger tanks have the same model etc, while WoW everyone has completely differen't models for each player.

Like I said, I'm looking for cost effective methods to try and get this game running as fast as possible, before I even come close to considering any kind of upgrade.

You and I obviously have different concepts of how much "decent" hardware cost.

Nobody is suggesting you spend "thousands of dollars". I spent under $1000 for my current system (yes, it's true; I could give you a part-by-part list if you want).

A good CPU will cost in the ~$200 range. That's hardly "thousands of dollars".

You have some flawed conclusions in your post. Whether or not models are different or exactly cookie-cutter identical has nothing whatsoever to do with how much work your system has. What you're referring to is total polygons; it doesn't matter whether one model is the same as another, what matters is the total number of polygons. If your graphics card is rendering the same model multiple times, it doesn't somehow take away any stress on the card.

None of those games you mentioned has a view distance of multiple kilometers in which all of that distance must be rendered at all times. Certainly not WoW.

You are correct, WWIIOL is not as well optimized or coded as those games; regardless, it can definitely be playable on mid-range hardware at high settings.

My intention is not to appear hostile or critical towards to you; I am only stating the bare facts. The cause of your FPS problems is hardware; your current hardware doesn't cut it. I'm trying to explain to you that your CPU is simply incapable of giving you the performance you desire; there are no tweaks, no shortcuts, no other ways of significantly boosting your performance when you have a fundamental hardware limitation.

I'm looking for cost effective methods to try and get this game running as fast as possible, before I even come close to considering any kind of upgrade.

This is an oxymoron. I'm offering you a cost-effective method; upgrading your CPU. Yet you insist on not considering any upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an oxymoron. I'm offering you a cost-effective method; upgrading your CPU. Yet you insist on not considering any upgrades.

That is assuming your computer is running at 100% efficiency which is never the case, not even close. There are a lot of things you can do to boost performance without spending any money. Low performance can often be attributed to bugs or bad settings. Like having your video card set to force anti aliasing in a game and you don't even know it. Or rendering in a way your video card isn't capable of doing well, but does terific under a different setting (openGL, D3D etc). Often times one wrong setting or lack of a key driver/patch can reduced performance considerably. When I first disabled my onboard sound card and put in a real sound card I too noticed a difference in fps. Now if I didn't know that and I went out and bought a new CPU thinking that was the ONLY way to improve performance, wouldn't you find that kind of stupid? There's always one way or another to boost performance, or rather, increase the efficiency your computer is running at and I've learned from past experiances to try to find those before going out and spending money on new hardware and realise that the item I replaced wasn't the cause of my problems to begin with.

While I do acknowledge that a new cpu would make things better I'm not 100% convinced that that is the only thing holding me back. Again, why am I getting 50 fps looking at a forest in offline (where there are no other players/models or balstic calculations going on) and as soon as I zoom in with binoculars/sniper my fps drops to 10? It's not like im getting good fps when nobody is around while getting terrible fps when a lot of people are around and shooting their guns. No, instead I'm getting pretty terrible fps in either case.

And yes, you're right, it has nothing to do with how many different models are around it has everything to do with how many polygons each model has. Which leads me to belive that the models were badly designed. Kind of like the models you can download for different weapons in most fps games like counter-strike. At first, the game runs at 100 fps on the highest settings, and after you install some of these models made by people who have no idea what efficiency is (ie. 4000 pylogon pistols, where the originals were like.. 150) the framerate drops to 20. It's a very detailed model, but completely overkill. And after reading some other posts on framerate problems and checking out the kind of fps people are getting from different machines it's pretty obvious that wwiiol is not a cpu intensive game because of all the cool features it offers, but because it's a very badly designed game. CRS even said their team is something like 2 programmers and 8-9 art designers. Other games are not as cpu intensive because they don't kill their games with overly complicated damage calculations.

Take gernades for example, CRS always boasts about how realisic the calculations are and how the game takes into account shrapnel and all the crap.. but is it really that realistic? Gernades explode on impact and always have since the start of the game... they are pretty much modeled as a slow moving bullet not a gernade. Also you need to hit an EI pretty much dead on to kill them and I've been through countless situations where I hit an EI point blank with a gernade, he dissapears completely in the smoke and when it clears, he's still there perfectly healthy. Other times I throw a gernade at a wall that an ei is right next to and he lives but I die even though I was 100x further away from the impact point then he was. The simple methods other fps games out there use to model gernades are arguably FAR more realistic then wwiiol.

I guess from typing all of this I kind of answer a lot of my own questions. The only way to get higher fps is to pay money for upgrades to make up for CRS's bad game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike all those other games where you say you get "solid fps"' date=' this game is [u']cpu dependent. No, none of those games are as CPU dependent as WWIIOL is.

That CPU you have is pretty outdated, and you should really have no reason to expect good FPS with it.

Let me make this clear; No offense intended, but your CPU is sub-par and I say again, you have absolutely no reason to "expect" good FPS with it. You can't expect much from a CPU that currently retails for about $60.

Your video card is *decent*, perhaps a step above your CPU, but it isn't that great either.

You want more FPS? You have to upgrade that CPU; it just doesn't cut it anymore.

I know you say your PC can handle almost every game out there at high settings (including Oblivion with HDR).....but, not to call you a liar, I'm extremely skeptical of that. I can't imagine how you could be running Oblivion "well" with a low-end CPU and a lower midrange video card.

On my system, with an overclocked 7900GT and an overclocked Core 2 Duo E6400, I run Oblivion at max settings with HDR and I get about 25-30 FPS in most outdoor places; that's hardly what I'd call "good FPS" and my system is significantly superior to yours.

Also I notice that you didn't post what soundcard you're using. If you don't have a soundcard, it will only make your sub-par CPU work even harder.

Bottom line:

- Upgrade your CPU

- Buy soundcard (if you don't already have one)

No amount of tweaking or settings changes will have a greater impact than upgrading your CPU.

I think the guy asked what could he do short of upgrading. Heres my answer, do a fresh install of everything. MAke sure you have the most update drivers for your mobo including up to date audio drivers ready to go when you do a clean install. Dont bother with the CD that came with your mobo, get new ones off the net. You should not be getting this kind of performance because with my Athlon XP overclocked to 3200+ with 1gig ddr(dual channel) and 6800gt (overclocked too) I never seen a single digit FPS. The worst I get is down to 16, and thats for a split second. It hovers anywhere from 16-37 fps in town to 40-55 in the open. All very playable, could be better but playable as most time I check the FPS its in the mid to high twenties when Im battling. Last I checked a 64 3000+ beats my xp 3200+ in all benchmarks, so Its not his CPU. Its the setup. If you have to go to a pc shop and have them reinstall everything for you if you cant do it or dont know anyone. Pop in a sound card as last resort, dont count on it, I tested my onboard sound card and it used a fraction less CPU cycles then a SB AUdigy2. Thats just fiction, or some people had some really screwed up on board sound drivers, because if its true Im going to make a motherboard with a decent onboard sound and claimn 30% performance gains in gaming and get rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way to have a game "succeed" if you must have such high end equipment. If after each patch, it is necessary to have recently (within past 12 mos.or so) released equipment, the game can not possibly appeal to enough players.

Just on equipment attrition alone the game is losing too many players. There has to be a middle ground the RATS can find. I desparately hope they work toward this as the priority over toys following the December (soon) patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CRS really overcomplicates everything and goes overboard in their pursuit of making a realistic WWII simulator and often it's the performance that suffers (and sometimes the realism too ironically) in the end. Again with the gernade example, the way the gernade explosions are calculated in game is very realistic, on paper. It takes into account all kinds of things that other games don't. But what's the advantage in the end? Like I said, you can't just easily throw them through a window or through a door (which is largely what they were used for) for fear that they might hit the side of the wall, instantly explode and kill you. In Call of Duty if I throw a gernade in a small room, anyone in there is going die guaranteed. When I throw a gernade into a 20' x 20' room in WWIIOL, often times nobody dies, so what's the point of all those complex shrapnel calculations if they don't even work and they just use up more system reasources?

Artillery like the Flack 36 still can't do area effect damage and neither can tank HE shells. This takes a lot out of the gameplay and realism when you shoot an EI with an HE round and he dissapears in the large explosion effect yet when the dust clears he's still standing there. Now area effect damage isn't very complicated to do, unless you make it complicated. Almost every game out there has area effect damage, like gernades, rocket launchers, gernade launchers etc, modeled and CRS could follow in their foot steps and make a simple and effective area effect damage system as well. Instead they chose to make a complicated one, which in the end didn't even work and slowed everything down completly. So instead of having a simple and effective system (that might not be 100% realistic on paper, but is realistic in practice) we have nothing.

CRS also goes overboard with graphic updates, mainly in the form of trees and bushes every patch that do nothing but slow down the game even further. We still don't have basic things in the game like being able to deploy a machine gun in a window, making them almost useless. We still don't really have a proper mission system. We don't really have any kind of features to improve teamwork (in game voice chat for example) like the ones found in BattleField 2, America's Army, etc so the game is still pretty unorganized where people just spawn in and wander off randomly in whatever direction they hear gunfire. I mean there are so many things I can think of, and I'm sure everyone can think of. Like Medics? Maybe a resupply vehicle where people can get ammo without having to sit there for 10 seconds, despawn, and then respawn just to get a few more magazines and some gernades. But hey... who cares about that... we get the latest bushes every patch!! Nothing beats that... right?

I mean it's been over a year since I've started playing and the only thing I've noticed in a 60% + drop in my frame rate. The gameplay is still exactly the same almost. The game still looks almost exactly the same. CRS needs to balance graphic updates with performance. What's the point of making the game look great if nobody can run it? Or if you are losing customers every patch because they can no longer run the game without spending even more money on upgrades. And while realism is a key in WWIIOL, I think a little needs to be sacraficed for gameplay improvement and funfactor. It doesn't have to be 99% realistic to work and be enjoyable. The more CRS works on the game the more of a neiche game it becomes. While other companies strive to add content that will appeal to more people and attract new customers, CRS seems to be doing the opposite and just making what they want rather then what the players want. Seems like 1 step forward 2 steps back approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:cool: I am sorry to tell you this but the only way I could push my FPS up in this game was to invest $1250 USD in a new CorDuo 6700; 2 Gig DDR mem and a Nvidia 7950 512M Video card.

FPS at 40 to 116.

Just wait till I SLI two 8800 after Christmas price drop.:)

The only way to make it in this game is to be at the top of the scale in video. This game has always pushed the limits of equipment. I had to upgrade over and over just to keep playing. You could make some really nice machines with the old video cards and machines I have laying around (ATI 9800, Nvidia 6800GTX just to name some laying collecting dust) The only way to keep playing it is to stay on top of the horsepower curve.

If you cant afford to do that then this game will not get better just by going away for some time. It is just not in the possibilities of the code and game environment.:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angriff-

I agree, I think your statement/s are right on. But CRS surely realizes that to be able to maintain a viable player base and expand (continued revenue) they can not continiuosly force the player base to upgrade their PC.

Its unsustainable for too great a % of their paying player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:cool: I am sorry to tell you this but the only way I could push my FPS up in this game was to invest $1250 USD in a new CorDuo 6700; 2 Gig DDR mem and a Nvidia 7950 512M Video card.

FPS at 40 to 116.

Just wait till I SLI two 8800 after Christmas price drop.:)

The only way to make it in this game is to be at the top of the scale in video. This game has always pushed the limits of equipment. I had to upgrade over and over just to keep playing. You could make some really nice machines with the old video cards and machines I have laying around (ATI 9800, Nvidia 6800GTX just to name some laying collecting dust) The only way to keep playing it is to stay on top of the horsepower curve.

If you cant afford to do that then this game will not get better just by going away for some time. It is just not in the possibilities of the code and game environment.:confused:

Again the neiche gets tighter. How many people fall into the category of wanting to play a realistic WWII game and already have or are willing to buy that kind of hardware and spend that kind of money on a regular basis? And the less people that fall into the category the worse it gets because eventually low population will make this game completely unrealistic and just a simple capture the flag between a few people on a very large map, which will further reduce the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bubbles I had close to the same set-up and was having fps troubles also.

I paid 90 bucks for a 3700 cpu and bumped my ram up to 2 gigs from 1.

The cpu alone didnt help completely but when I added the extra ram,it made all the differance in the world.

I know the old saying"buy more ram" but in my case it was a huge help.

Might be a low cost option for ya....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again the neiche gets tighter. How many people fall into the category of wanting to play a realistic WWII game and already have or are willing to buy that kind of hardware and spend that kind of money on a regular basis? And the less people that fall into the category the worse it gets because eventually low population will make this game completely unrealistic and just a simple capture the flag between a few people on a very large map' date=' which will further reduce the population.[/quote']

But if you are willing to pay montly for a game, it starts to become a hobby. I know of hobbys, who are ten times more expensive than BGE.

You can have it cheaper, for around 600-800$ you have something that would last the next 12-18 month, plus you can upgrade it easily. Its not only for this game, even todays top titels you can only play with drastical reduced settings, with your rig.

I experianced the same, and will soon buy me a new one. Sell your old stuff as long you can get some money for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, hobbies can be more expensive- but this is a video game and CRS is a company whose livelyhood depends on this game.

The game must have a specific level of players paying x amt of money per month to break even, and even that is not sustainable as a profit is needed to move forward. Beyond the base amt of paying players, you have a base amt of players actually playing- because less affects the next months subscriptions (negatively) as less players= less fun.

I know its a vicsous(sp?) cycle- but what I am trying to get to is that CRS will hopefully work on the performance of the game as to attract and maintain enough of us.

Think of attriting the AB- everytime there is a patch that puts a hit on performance there is an attrition affect on the paying player base.

Again- vicsious cycle. We demand more "toys" and effects in this game, and pay the price in performance- so yes we are partly to blame.

PS- I am not *****ing, nor ranting about the RATS, but appealing to them to take a turn towards enhancing performance above all else in the short term to keep players. My system is probably too old to get a benefit. I understand that, but I also understand that a recently bought system should be viable for roughly 2 years and playable on yr 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To cut through some of the interesting advice and comment, I have an AMD 64 3000+ CPU and was getting good fps everywhere in game at all times BEFORE THE LAST PATCH. What exactly occurred in that patch that killed fps, anyway? I just don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that is often overlooked when updating drivers is the motherboard (or chipset) drivers. Please post your entire DxDiag specs (instructions here), so we can see how up to date all your drivers are. If you post the contents of your wwiionline.cfg file, we might be able to give you a few other pointers that can improve your frame rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.