RommL Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I will like to know why as many losses of details? :eek: the options are to the maximum. Is a this problem of dual core ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I know the game scales the models to as much as your system can handle, what's your spec? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RommL Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 the play for me was very playable and beautiful over the 1.03. how to avoid this kind of nuisance on the version 1.04? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 You must be the only guy on the planet that 1.04 made the graphics worse for. Virtually everyone, including me, has reported huge improvements. You might want to post a very detailed system specs sheet in the tech support forum along with your question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Originally posted by dan/california: You must be the only guy on the planet that 1.04 made the graphics worse for. Virtually everyone, including me, has reported huge improvements. You might want to post a very detailed system specs sheet in the tech support forum along with your question. No he is not the only... Look here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000432 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000434 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000436 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000425 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000427 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000433 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Dan/California is correct in the sense that the majority of people have reported v1.04 being a LOT better than v1.03. However, there are issues which could make some people disagree with this. Primarily from people that were quite happy with v1.03's graphics and performance. Everything is a delicate balance. It was clear to us that the balance we had in v1.03 was not good enough for the majority of customers. So we made many fundamental code changes to address this. From a simple number standpoint, those changes were a huge success. Far more people are playing the game at very good framerates than before. BUT... Depending on the card, specific settings, and the scenario some people may notice some decreases from what they had in v1.03. Perhaps we can fix some of these things, perhaps not. It's very hard to tell. However, if nothing improves beyond v1.04 we'll not change things back to the way they were in v1.03. That's because the majority are happy with v1.04 over v1.03 and it is the majority that we must cater to. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 For me the graphics went down, but the performance went way up, I prefer the performance by far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 higher FPS was the goal in v1.04 for sure, sometimes you have to give something away to get something better... (Graphics look a little worse but FPS is up) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by Zemke: For me the graphics went down, but the performance went way up, I prefer the performance by far. Amen to that, brother. With 1.04, I can now run CMSF on my laptop which has both Windows 2000k and an Intel 910/915k graphics card. I've had to thumb back some of the graphics settings (vs. my desktop rig), but I get a nice, fluid play experience regardless. Count this longtime BFC fan as a satisfied customer, and looking forward to more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertston Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 It must be very frustrating developing for PC (as opposed to consoles) these days, with so much variation in results. I guess, as you say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I haven't noticed any change in graphics at all except that I can punt up the options - I get better (in some cases MUCH better) FPS in most scenarios with "better" settings for models and textures than I did with "faster" for both with 1.03. Which makes me a happy bunny, in that respect anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust1 Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Dan/California is correct in the sense that the majority of people have reported v1.04 being a LOT better than v1.03. However, there are issues which could make some people disagree with this. Primarily from people that were quite happy with v1.03's graphics and performance. Everything is a delicate balance. It was clear to us that the balance we had in v1.03 was not good enough for the majority of customers. So we made many fundamental code changes to address this. From a simple number standpoint, those changes were a huge success. Far more people are playing the game at very good framerates than before. BUT... Depending on the card, specific settings, and the scenario some people may notice some decreases from what they had in v1.03. Perhaps we can fix some of these things, perhaps not. It's very hard to tell. However, if nothing improves beyond v1.04 we'll not change things back to the way they were in v1.03. That's because the majority are happy with v1.04 over v1.03 and it is the majority that we must cater to. Steve well...it would be advisable that patches to gameplay, such as improved blast movement, etc., should be separated from patches to FPS/graphics improvement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molotov_billy Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 It looks like the primary thing going on here is that LOD distances are being cranked up, despite the settings that people are using. It's strange to me that this isn't factored into the detail options already available within the game. Seems pretty obvious that there are people who would prefer to run at a lower framerate but at a higher visual fidelity - why is that option not given? Shoehorning everyone into a low gfx setting seems like a bandaid to the problem, at best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 It would also be nice to have different LOD settings for units and terrain objects (terrain objects, not terrain). As it is, object detail affects everything from units to things like grass and trees, &c. Personally, I wouldn't mind reducing tree and grass to a minimum while having units at a higher detail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I'm getting this problem as well; just assumed it was my old low end PC, but it happens whatever the settings I choose. It appears that the tiles NEARER the viewpoint are set to a worse resolution than those off in the distance. Roads and ground cover on the horizon are sharp sharp sharp, but suddenly they fuzz to chessboard blobs about halfway down the battlefield. The buildings and vehicles remain sharp at whatever the distance. Explosions way away look like a solid mass of grey cubes flying about as well, when the finishing cloud of dust would be more than adequate, and much more realistic. This happens whatever the settings. This also happens on my PC at work, which is quite a different beast. I'll get the rig details if anyone is interested. And some screen grabs... Tim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RommL Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Dan/California is correct in the sense that the majority of people have reported v1.04 being a LOT better than v1.03. However, there are issues which could make some people disagree with this. Primarily from people that were quite happy with v1.03's graphics and performance. Everything is a delicate balance. It was clear to us that the balance we had in v1.03 was not good enough for the majority of customers. So we made many fundamental code changes to address this. From a simple number standpoint, those changes were a huge success. Far more people are playing the game at very good framerates than before. BUT... Depending on the card, specific settings, and the scenario some people may notice some decreases from what they had in v1.03. Perhaps we can fix some of these things, perhaps not. It's very hard to tell. However, if nothing improves beyond v1.04 we'll not change things back to the way they were in v1.03. That's because the majority are happy with v1.04 over v1.03 and it is the majority that we must cater to. Steve thank you. But i was accustomed to a beautiful and playable play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 If you want beauty, try World in Conflict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RommL Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 world in conflict is not a wargame. :eek: CMSF is a very beautiful game , I play at CMx1. this RTS is not for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust1 Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by RommL: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Dan/California is correct in the sense that the majority of people have reported v1.04 being a LOT better than v1.03. However, there are issues which could make some people disagree with this. Primarily from people that were quite happy with v1.03's graphics and performance. Everything is a delicate balance. It was clear to us that the balance we had in v1.03 was not good enough for the majority of customers. So we made many fundamental code changes to address this. From a simple number standpoint, those changes were a huge success. Far more people are playing the game at very good framerates than before. BUT... Depending on the card, specific settings, and the scenario some people may notice some decreases from what they had in v1.03. Perhaps we can fix some of these things, perhaps not. It's very hard to tell. However, if nothing improves beyond v1.04 we'll not change things back to the way they were in v1.03. That's because the majority are happy with v1.04 over v1.03 and it is the majority that we must cater to. Steve thank you. But i was accustomed to a beautiful and playable play. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.