Similar problems in world in conflict

[Sekra]

I remember someone posting that they will go play world in conflict now that they're pissed enough for BFC that they didnt fix a problem which should be fixed by a certain unnamed gfx chip manufacturer. Well aaanyhoww.. Since I like to play a lot of games I decided to give this game a go since that particular user had stated it "runs perfectly" on his rig with this gfx card that uses the newest hardware from this unnamed vendor. Well.. As usual straight after I fire up a new game I head in the options menu to see what I can poke around with there and I noticed this benchmark button there. Of course I straight away went and checked how my system would do on this game.. Running the benchmark with the settings that installation had decided I got less than optimal results in my opinion where as my fps was in average about 27 and around 8 at its lowest. So naturally the first thing I do in a situation like this is I lower the resolution first. I changed it from 1280x1024 to 1024x768. Surely this will have a huge impact on fps I thought.. How wrong I was.. To my surprise I got the exact same results. In matter of fact running the game with just about any settings changed the fps at around 3 FPS at max.

So as you can see that game is running at FPS that CM: SF should be running at and the scale in that game is much smaller compared to CM: SF. Sure it has a lot of cool sparkling effects but I cant see why it doesnt run at around 50 FPS average at minimum. So I think it would be safe to say that you're not alone here BFC. Even when using OpenGL.

I should propably add my computer specs to my signature now.....

[peleprodigy]

Get a GTX 768 mb ram, my frames in that game, in multiplayer with about 9 other people, never go below 35, usually much higher. ok, maybe when a nuke goes off, but thats it. ps-I am running at 1920 widescreen.

one more thing, are you running vista? that may be the problem, as I am in xp.

And you may want to lower some effects rather than resolution.

[Hukka]

I get very good performance in WiC with my E6600 and 8800 GTS with the highest settings. Definetely much better than CMSF.

[Sekra]

Its not about if its satisfactory or not its about the fact that no matter what settings similar in CMSF I change the average fps is from 26-29 no matter what. Only when I start changing the detail levels like in CM: SF I start getting improvements in fps. Sound familiar?

And yes I'm using XP too. And yes the fps is definitely much better than in CMSF but it most definitely is not what it's supposed to be when I run the benchmark. I would expect CMSF to run at the rates that WiC runs now and WiC should be running double what it is running now as I stated above. So we come to the fact that these issues are not just in CMSF. This is just for you guys who still havent figured out that nvidia ****ed up and BFC most likely can do nothing about it until nvidia fixes these issues.

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by Hukka:

I get very good performance in WiC with my E6600 and 8800 GTS with the highest settings. Definetely much better than CMSF.

although it´s clearly OT here are my results of the WIC benchmark:

(1600x1200, very high setting: Average 23, Min 13, Max 44)

compare this to CMSFs Allah´s Fist 8 FPS in v1.02 and 4 FPS in v1.03 in best/best settings.

VISTA Ultimate 64bit (1600x1200)

ASUS P5B Deluxe Wifi MoBo

Core2Duo E6600 @ 3.33 Ghz

4.0GB Ram (DDR2 PC 6400)

Nvidia 8800GTS (640MB Vram)

Forceware 163.69 WHQL

cheers

[Hukka]

I get average of 40 FPS in WiC default benchmark with very high settings @ 1280 x 1024.

I have:

Core2Duo E6600 @ 3,4GHz

Nvidia 8800GTS

2 gigs of RAM

Windows XP

edit:

Same with 1600 x 1200

Average 32 - Min 18 - Max 68

[peleprodigy]

I'm with you Hotti, up until the point where you tell me WIC is mesed up on my 8800. It most certainly is not. Actually, I'm not with you at all, as I am starting to build up a belief that, contrary to the CW, no one is really getting optimal performance, and it is not just confined to 8800 cards.

[KNac]

Well there are two things here about performance:

1) game rendering code, optimization is poor overall. there is a special problem with terrain rendering, this seems to have been fixed for 1.04 though so we all should experience better performance with the patch

2) the 8800 have a problem obviously, interaction between hardware and drivers and/or sioftware. we don't know, but the problem is there.

this is obvious, i can egt higher FPS with same setting with my far ifnerior 3d card than a 8800. but at the same time the performance is lower than it should be specially with void maps with highlight the problem with terrain rendering.

my advice: wait for the patches and better drivers, eventually all this will be fixed.

[Sekra]

I know all about these problems in CMSF. But still even though the performance is average with WiC it should be better with this kind of hardware imo. Even though WiC and CMSF are lightyears apart in every aspect both should be running better on my rig imo.

What I'm trying to say here is that battlefront is not the only one doing less than expected performance like some of you are trying to say.

[wolf66]

You know what ? I don't care who is to blame, I'm just pissed it doesn't work ...... you know, if my new BMW doesn't drive faster than 30mpH, I don't give a hoot, if the company that supplied the so and so part of the engine messed up - I just want it fixed ! And BMW will be held responsible to it, don't you think ?

[flamingknives]

BMW would be responsible, but they also get to specify the engine, which is hardly the case for BFC and your graphics card.

Blaming BMW that your car won't go above 20mph on your street, that's a better analogy.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Hotti:

So naturally the first thing I do in a situation like this is I lower the resolution first. I changed it from 1280x1024 to 1024x768. Surely this will have a huge impact on fps I thought.. How wrong I was.. To my surprise I got the exact same results. In matter of fact running the game with just about any settings changed the fps at around 3 FPS at max.

That's because it's CPU-bound at those resolutions with that card.

And yes the fps is definitely much better than in CMSF but it most definitely is not what it's supposed to be when I run the benchmark. I would expect CMSF to run at the rates that WiC runs now and WiC should be running double what it is running now as I stated above. So we come to the fact that these issues are not just in CMSF.

Upon what do you base your expectation that WiC should run "double"? WiC performance scales across various graphics cards pretty much as expected, with 8800 GTX and Ultra the fastest. How is this supposed to parallel the problem with CMSF, where some people with 8800 get good performance and others get very bad?

[Thomm]

Having played the World in Conflict demo for a little while I have to say I am shocked how technically inferior the game is to CM:SF! Of course I did not expect any realistic engagement ranges or damage calculations, but: CM:SF beats WiC even with features that one can put in the "eyecandy" drawer such as vehicle boarding/dismounting animations or deformable terrain!

Furthermore, there must be approx. five times the details on CM:SF vehicles as compared to WiC ones!

If WiC is the work of a huge team with a huge budget then: "Hats off!" to BF.C!

Best regards,

Thomm

[PeterLorre86]

My comp:

Intel 3.0ghz processor

ATI radeon x850 video card

3 gigs of ram

WiC demo runs beautifully on my 3 year old computer, i was suprised at how well it really ran. My friend had similar thoughts, i comented that the game was optimized well. However, i find the game to be a bit too unrealistic for my taste, for a strategy game anyway.

CMSF runs fair to poor, on medium settings. I cant play large maps with any level of enjoyment due to low FPS.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Rollstoy:

I have to say I am shocked how technically inferior the game is to CM:SF!

WiC does have a few things CMSF does not. Like, oh, water.

[wolf66]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

BMW would be responsible, but they also get to specify the engine, which is hardly the case for BFC and your graphics card.

Blaming BMW that your car won't go above 20mph on your street, that's a better analogy.

Well it should go above 20mph on every street

[mazex]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Having played the World in Conflict demo for a little while I have to say I am shocked how technically inferior the game is to CM:SF!

WiC technically inferior to CM:SF? I'm not sure that I agree on that one. Name another game on the market with less bugs in the 1.0 release, and a better RTS 3D engine... Comparing the gameplay in WiC and CM:SF is like comparing Halo and Operation Flashpoint from a realism viewpoint. And yes, Massive has ~100 employees focused on WiC so it's not hard to realize that Charles has no way of doing an engine like that...

/Mazex

[panzermartin]

I would agree with Rollstoy here about WiC. I dont even find it attractive which is a shame for such a big budget product. I even think CMSF is prettier with its fine colors and minimalistic details. WiC is overloaded with flashy explosions, glooming blooming lighting whatever but lacks good taste imo.

As for gameplay, if I wanted a good RTS I would play Company of Heroes. Beautiful visually and a hell lot of fun.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by mazex:

And yes, Massive has ~100 employees focused on WiC so it's not hard to realize that Charles has no way of doing an engine like that...

Well, my point was that in a few minutes of playing I found plenty of points where Charles in fact did better than Massive, some of which I mentioned above. I was pretty surprised by that!

I also witnessed bullets impacting a building corner that stood into LOF to the target, with no adjustment by the firer (just as it happens in CM:SF every now and then) ... maybe this is simply "state of the art"?

Best regards,

Thomm

[salwon]

Also keep in mind that WiC is specifically tailored for nVidia cards...there's a note in the manual about how great your performance will be and how you get "nVidia special-effect features."

Also notice the difference in staff: 3 pages of credits vs 1 programmer, 2 artists, 1 sound guy, and a developer...not much of a contest there.

FWIW, I personally get equal (but very different) enjoyment out of both of these games.