TymK

I think you'll be fine as long as you reduce graphics card settings (no AA/AF) and in-game settings until you can get a dedicated VGA.

It really depends on your desired video settings (resolution, detail level, etc.), and on the budget, of course. However, I wouldn't recommend getting an integrated video card, and certainly not the X1200, which is a very (very) low-end chipset. Considering how cheap last generation cards have become, I'd recommend getting a GeForce 8800GTS or, if that's above your budget, a 8600GTS. Alternatively, if you prefer ATI, I'd look at a Radeon 4850 or 3850.

I remember having a similar issue (and with a similar setup) in the past. AFAIR, apart from the dual-core problem, there are two possible OpenGL-related causes. I know you've tried the various tips and tricks, so please ignore this if I'm just repeating what you already know, but make sure "Threaded optimization" is set to "Off" and (if you are using a dual monitor setup) "Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration" is set to "Single display performance mode" in the nVidia Control Panel.

Thank you for your answers I do have a few more questions though. That's good to know, please keep us posted when you can disclose some more details. </font>

I have to admit that my overall impressions of the game (as a long-time CM player) are very good (well, who am I kidding, I’m hooked). However, I would like to address a few issues which I find to be detracting from the overall game experience, as constructively as I can. Also, I would like to ask if members of the dev/publishing team could refer to the specific points and indicate whether such issues are on the fix list and are ‘patchable.’ LOS/LOF issues With respect to LOS, I am aware of certain simplifications/approximations which are necessary with current hardware. In fact, I am used to them as a CM player, but a mistake on BFC’s part, in my view, has been that these issues have not been explained properly. Please comment on whether my understanding of the issue is correct. A point that many seem to be missing is that while a target may be completely ‘obstructed’ by a tree, for example, it will still be visible through branches and foliage (this is LOS, not LOF I’m referring to, and whether it can be shot at is another issue). However, no matter how detailed alpha textures you use to simulate tree branches, foliage, bushes, etc., they will still become solid and opaque at a certain distance, hence you cannot ‘see’ the object in the game, whereas you would see it IRL. Regarding LOF, the hottest issue is where you explicitly target a vehicle which you can see and which can fire at you, and you still get the “no clear line of fire” message. From my limited experience, in involves hull-down targets in most cases. Generally, it helps to manually adjust the unit’s aim ‘high’ to target the turret explicitly. While this can get very annoying, it seems that what many see as a fundamental flaw in LOF calculations is in fact a bug in the friendly AI. It appears that gunners cannot deal with partially obscured and explicitly designated targets (they do seem to fire at them when no specific orders are given). So, my question to the dev team is whether this can be fixed by simply updating the gunner AI to automatically adjust their aim to the specific part of the enemy vehicle which they can see (you really shouldn’t be forced to micromanage aiming unless you want to). Vehicle movement/movement orders The first issue, and one already discussed, is the pathfinding. Without waypoints, plotting a correct route is almost impossible, and the AI does nothing to speed up movement by sticking to roads or avoiding obstacles such as trees. While falling trees may look spectacular, they slow down the advance considerably. If the AI can be programmed to avoid buildings, can it be upgraded to avoid trees, walls, etc. unless explicitly ordered to move through them? Another issue is that when you order a vehicle to move to a specific point, it sometimes stops on the way without any reason (it does not engage enemies, and the issue remains if you set it to hold fire), then starts moving again. As a result, rapid, coordinated armor movement is not possible in many cases. Also, vehicles always stop when you adjust the destination. While I do understand command delay considerations, the vehicle should nevertheless continue on its previous course until ‘receiving’ the order and only then adjust movement to the new destination. Can this be fixed by a patch? Target prioritization This issue is most visible if you are engaging armor and infantry at the same time, where tanks have to be explicitly ordered to fire at individual soldiers who are approaching them and should be dealt with as a priority. I had an extreme example in the “Heart of Resistance” mission of the French campaign. At some point, a small group of German armor and infantry flanked my units, but was quickly dealt with (one tank destroyed, the other immobilized and ‘degunned’). At the same time, a large number of enemy infantry stormed my trench line, so I sent an S35 and a B1 to deal with them. However, instead of gunning down the swarms of infantry 30 meters in front, they kept turning their backs at them to engage the damaged tank at the rear, hundreds of meters away. Hold position, set direction, nothing. I had to target individual infantrymen, and what was even worse, the B1 refused to deploy its coax MG. So, can target priorities be adjusted in to deal with immediate threats first? Hiding The last issue would be the ability of the infantry to hide, or at least keep down when ordered to. This is particularly problematic with entrenched units, as you may order them to hold position, hold fire and go prone, and they will still pop their heads out of the trench. Not a good idea during barrage or under heavy MG fire... Well, this post got much longer than I expected it to... I hope both devs and other gamers you may provide some comments on the issues, and please let’s try to keep it constructive.

Then go ahead, provide some concrete, justified criticism instead of making ridiculous, prejudiced comments. This is a point on which I might have just agreed with you if you had bothered to make it in your original post. Still, it's actually not that simple. I haven't encountered the issue, just like many other people. Now don't get me wrong, I hate it when people say "I don't have this issue so it's a problem on your end". I have had my fair share of such issues with other games where the majority kept saying they didn't exist. Still, this just shows you it is possible to miss it as it does not occur on many configurations. So, in this case, it IS the matter of resources involved (the more testers, the more chance to catch it). That's one thing I did not refer to in my previous post because I do agree. What this has to do with the developers being Russian, however, I have no idea. Haven't you seen recent 'Western' games with clunky interfaces? Great, it's just that insulting people is hardly valid criticism. I take stuff as it is... You made no attempt to convey it as something to be taken with an inch of salt. And here comes this attitude again . If you were, then you should have known better than to make such half-assed comments. Besides, knowing the industry so well, you should be aware that games with issues which, I agree, should have been ironed out before release are becoming more of a rule than an exception thoroughout the industry. And this certainly has nothing to do with developers being of any particular nationality... Then formulate valid criticism instead of racist crap... Nobody would have had any issues with your post if it were reasonable and contained substantiated points.

Right, could you be any more patronizing? Besides, what glaring issues are there? Features? OK, please share some of your ideas with us. Gameplay? Lots of people find it addictive, and it’s really a matter of personal preference... not a thing to blame developers for. Mission balance? Well, war isn’t exactly fair, and ‘balanced’ often means unrealistic. I much prefer a tough challenge than an easy victory, and I don’t think I am than much of an exception among strategy fans. And with respect to bugs... OK, there is the multicore issue which they are already working on, and a perfect workaround exists in the game options. There are some crashes for a small number of people, and 1C/BFC are very active and helpful in addressing them (plus they are open and transparent in that respect, which is a real exception in the industry nowadays). Besides, I have seen games with huge budgets made by well-known developers which were much buggier... Hell, it took Valve months to address sound stuttering/memory management-related CTDs in HL2 (which were a real showstopper) -- now compare the resources involved. You forgot to add they are unwashed and smell of vodka ... Jeez, I haven't read such prejudiced BS in a long time on a game forum. Hasn't it occurred to you that they usually work on non-mainstream, innovative products, and hence have incomparably smaller budgets than the well-established big players who feed you with the 11937th iteration of the same franchise every year? This game, too, while it is a big thing to us strategy fans, is a niche product when you look at the big picture, developed by a relatively small group of people whom you chose to insult here. It’s not a crowd-pleaser, and they may simply lack the resources to perform tests against each possible hardware/OS combination there is, or implement every feature anyone may desire.

I'm also having a great time with FoW, I actually discovered the title by lurking in this forum (it came up in one of the 'similar games' threads). While the 'vanilla' game is fun but highly unrealistic, it provides amazing opportunities for modding (I am actually addicted to it now...). There is an official map/mission editor (very advanced), and all property files for individual weapons and items are editable. You can add realistic muzzle velocities, ranges and rates of fire, modify weapon accuracy, magazine capacities, ammo types, etc. The engine handles that very well, although some of the default missions become unplayable with realistic engagement ranges. Even with these modifications, it's not as realistic as ToW is shaping to be. However, it does have a few very strong points. Apart from excellent graphics, it has a very decent physics engine (all buildings are destructible, terrain deformation is supported, high-velocity AP rounds go through thinner walls, etc). Plus, it is leaps and bounds ahead of anything I have seen in terms of the use of cover. Soldiers can hide or kneel behind any type of cover: every wall (also inside buildings), rock, vehicle, wreck (either predefined or placed 'dynamically' when a vehicle is KO'd), even fallen trees and larger pieces of rubble from buidings destroyed during gameplay. And I have had a very similar impression of CoH, despite all the hype it brings nothing new to the genre.