Can't we totally turn off post processing?

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Where does it do "double the things" as other games? Graphically? No. AI-Wise - yes, maybe.

Look, as I tested it the CPU only becomes the issue at large missions with more than 10 active squads. That's when it pushes the framerate down to 25, which I consider still playable. Which means WARFARE large scale is out for me, but I can still enjoy other stuff.

The graphics card performance on the other hand goes as low as 16 in ANY mission, not dependent on units on the map. As Marek explains in another thread, the whole lighting used for this game is a mix of light sources and apperture simulation, which pretty much confirms that they stacked an advanced lighting system on top of the old OFP engine by using insane amount of shaders (did so already in A1).

So basically I guess that means I should return the game for a full refund since the "Optimal System Specs" can't even run it, and a CPU better than optimal as listed is too weak? If that is the core of the problem, then they will not find a lot of happy customers since the average gamer is NOT running quad cores and i7s right now.

It's not "MY issue", it's the issue they are selling a game for medium spec-ed systems without a realistic chance of it ever running on those systems. If they had written correct "recommended" on the box (which would mean requiring a fast dual core or even quad so you can actually play the included missions) , then they'd have about 20% potential buyers.

And I'm getting a little irritated with the "It's your fault for having weak hardware" argument used in defense of a slow engine. I have a system that is nearing the OPTIMAL RECOMMENDED specs on THEIR website. If they didn't think it realistic to run the game on such hardware they should have been honest in saying so, instead of that now the users are blamed.

[Razorman 10]

Lol, if it's not your issue then who's is it mine?

You can see from my previous posts in this thread that i run another machine with the same graphic & memory specs as the one below, the only diff is cpu, that's an AMD A64 6400 @ 3.4ghz overclock, it still performs 15-20% worse than the one below, it's all about your cpu man, get over it.

Btw, what do you think controls the AI, the graphics card?

No the CPU, so there's double the things going on for starters, thousands if not millions of CPU calculations required per second.

If you're fighting on one side of the map the cpu is still calculating a bird flying overhead 10km away too!

Note: please put together the two bold highlighted words above & things should become easier to comprehend.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Razorman

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I know that the CPU has to do a lot of things, no need to point that out. But by the benchmark you posted, the first handfull of CPUs giving playable framerate (>25) in that tested missions are the Phenomeon II X4 955 and the Intel Core2Quad Q9650.

That Intel is LESS than a year old (August 2008) and the AMD has only been released in APRIL this year.

So basically BIS is selling a game that requires a CPU less than year old, or if you prefer AMD, a brand-newest model, to even get playable framerate in the included missions.

I think it's THEIR issue to fix, because the amount of potential interested customers with such CPUs ain't going to be that big.

Quoting an user comment from that review:

Thanks for the review so is no buy for me yet as I have an AMD cpu. I will seriously consider buying this game if they fix it.

So, can we stop playing the "Blame the customer" game now and rather ask BIS to fix their engine so it doesn't require a latest-gen CPU to even get 25 avg frames in a normal mission? Wouldn't that sound more logical than simple asking everyone to buy a new CPU just for one game?

Oh, and to make myself clear: I think A2 is worth an upgrade (for me to happen early next year) and I'll be playing it a very long time. But that doesn't mean we can't expect a company to release a product that actually performs with playable frame rates out of the box on hardware which is 12 months old, especially if they are putting much older HW on their system specs.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Helmut_AUT

[Razorman 10]

I totally agree with you that the hardware requirements are steep & were perhaps a little misleading as to the reccomended specs, i'm really not a fanboiy who will defend the dev's to the death, infact if you search previous posts of mine i was very upset too when i 1st ran the game & recieved a couple of warnings for expressing that to strongly.

But i tweaked, researched & now i'm happy, i guess i'm just lucky to have the hardware that i do.

Sure a lot of folks are having issues but those issues are primarily hardware related, the game won't change into something that miraculously runs great on low to mid spec machines after patching. It may however be optimized to the point that it will run smoother, i hope it does for you & the others that are having issues.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Thanks and apologies, then I have missunderstood you.

For me I think it's VITAL that BIS improves performance, for a simple fact: Most "average" gamers like me (not the hardcore guys spending every cent of disposable income in computer gaming) do upgrade their CPUs in a two- or three year cycle. I'm doing it now every two years, even if the old system is still under paid-for onsite warranty for another, which is in fact "giving away money".

If playable framerates in a lot of missions requires a CPU less than a year old, they are effectively shutting out more than 50% of potential customers from actually being able to play the included content. And that can't have been their business intent.

[Dwarden 1125]

in different part of forum Marek confirmed that it will be possible in upcoming patch(es) disable some of PP effects completely ...

closing as this thread is clone of various others