Tell me why.

[Deadbolt]

You're an idiot.

 

[Snuffeldjuret]

Speaking of graphics. Have anyone else compared to look of sand bags in RO2 compared to BF3?

When I did I was horrified by how ugly the BF3 sand bags are. They look like Day of Defeat Original mod v1.0 . Almost .

 

[Hilldog]

I'm also a bit saddened that I can't play RO2 comfortably without turning every graphics option down to the lowest it can go.

Here are my specs...

OS: Vista

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz 2.33Ghz

Memory RAM: 4.00 GB

System Type: 32-bit operating system

278 GB free HDD space

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560

Now with these I can play games like Skyrim on pretty much max settings and it's no problem at all, the framerate is great, but last night I tried moving my settings up to medium on RO2 and my Framerate just dropped dramatically.

It's not too much of a problem, because honestly I found that having graphical settings just as shadows, and other options set to the high, just made it a lot harder to spot enemy players, with them turned down it's a lot less pretty, but it's also like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[ihatemayo]

This game is CPU intensive people.

 

[fiftyone]

What exactly is your dual core, there is a major difference between a Athlon x2 @2.6mhz and a Intel core2 duo @e8200(?).
What exactly is your Nvidia card ?
Onboard?

Nice first post btw, where are you from?
Battlelog ?

 

[ron_moron]

I'm running an Intel core duo 2.2GHz with a GeForce GT240M card on a laptop and it runs fine on medium. I'll get a bit of lag if everything goes mental on a 64 server but otherwise it's just fine and dandy.

Which is pretty amazing given those specs, so I can't see why the OP is having any problems.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

graphics from 2004

How are your settings?

Since the last week i have a better nvidia card and it runs everything on ultra. It`s a whole other game now. The graphics are amazing.

 

[TheRealGunther]

somethings wrong ....really wrong i get 50-80 fps on a 600$ pc i built myself most things on ultra. Try advanced system care with turbo boost along with game booster(both free).Turn off vsync and turn on one frame thread lag and foliage to low.

If I can get great fps on a i5 650 ,gtx 460, 8 gig ram (1650X1050 rez) surely you can get better performance than that.Also setting some things to low will put more stress on your cpu taking things away from the GPU.

A few Ro engine file tweaks that help too

[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=64126[/URL]

[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=10701&highlight=performance[/URL]

[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=63374&highlight=ROcompat[/URL]

 

[Verluste]

I have a Intel Core2Duo 2.33 Ghz, OC'ed to 3.0Ghz, 6 gig of RAM, HD 5770 video card, running on win7 64 bit home.

My stuff runs at around 50-60 fps on high. I am very pleased with the performance of my computer.

I have a sixcore (AMD 1055T) and the 6770 (same architecture as your 5770) , same amount of ram and windows but poor FPS even on medium-high
Same with clanmates with other AMD hardware. It really puzzles me.

 

[10-78 BusterKing]

Obviously the OP is doing something wrong, but then anyone who says the graphics are 2004 should be ignored

+1

Lying and throwing insults is trolling.

 

[Drecks]

My 1995 Pentium 133 was almost $2000. It sucks on RO2. Fukcing game.
Now my 799 EURO Computer from 2010 runs the game real smooth.

Sorry maybe a bad joke.

 

[Hillstorm]

Obviously the OP is doing something wrong, but then anyone who says the graphics are 2004 should be ignored

Starting to look like it was just a drive-by anyway.

 

[Nestor Makhno]

@Hilldog - 32bit OS for 4GB RAM and, what, 2GB GPU?!?1 :O

 

[DiedTrying]

I have a sixcore (AMD 1055T) and the 6770 (same architecture as your 5770) , same amount of ram and windows but poor FPS even on medium-high
Same with clanmates with other AMD hardware. It really puzzles me.

I have not heard good things from AMD's hexacores

 

[Deadbolt]

I'm also a bit saddened that I can't play RO2 comfortably without turning every graphics option down to the lowest it can go.

Here are my specs...



Now with these I can play games like Skyrim on pretty much max settings and it's no problem at all, the framerate is great, but last night I tried moving my settings up to medium on RO2 and my Framerate just dropped dramatically.

It's not too much of a problem, because honestly I found that having graphical settings just as shadows, and other options set to the high, just made it a lot harder to spot enemy players, with them turned down it's a lot less pretty, but it's also like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well your specs are at the bare minimum to handle the game. Dual core with 2.33 ghz is simply not enough to handle a game like this.

 

[VossRG]

Please someone explain to me why it takes a $2000 computer to play a game that has graphics from 2004.

I have an $800 dollar computer that I built in 2010. I have everything on ultra, except for shadows, which are on high. I have no problems.

And I don't recall any games looking like this in 2004.

 

[SnoDog]

Well your specs are at the bare minimum to handle the game. Dual core with 2.33 ghz is simply not enough to handle a game like this.

I think he said he has a quad core processor.


To the OP, as some others here already know from my first post, I currently play HoS on my school laptop I purchased over a year ago.

It is an Athlon II x2 @ 2.1 ghz, 3GB RAM, and a Radeon HD 4250.

After tweaking the configuration settings, I was able to greatly improve my framerate and now am receiving a fairly constant ~18 FPS. I know that for many, this framerate is atrocious, but it is fully playable for me. I'm sure your system will be able to perform much better than my laptop can, so just take a look at some tweak guides since they have made all the difference for me.

Hope this helps.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

Please someone explain to me why it takes a $2000 computer to play a game that has graphics from 2004.

2004 graphics:

2011 Graphics:

Really??

I only have a 2.4Ghz dual core but it runs every other modern game that looks 10x better than RO2 flawlessly. I am lucky to get more then 10 frames per second.

Your system is crap and out dated, that's why you need a better ($2000 system) to run it. I use this example a lot, but it suits my point: Ever had a system way back when Quake I came out? Did your system run Quake I perfectly and without any issues?

It did? Ok..... so did that same system run Half-Life 1? Both games use the same game engine, yet HL1 used a heavily modified version of the Quake Engine, which meant the system requirements for HL1 were twice that of Quake I, if not more..... yet back then, I imagine you would have complained that your system that could run Quake I can't play Half-Life 1 and that you had to pay for a $2000 system to play it properly.

Guess what? That's how PC games are and that's how they're designed. Every new "Real" PC Game that comes out, has and always will be, designed beyond today's system's, where today's average systems will barely run the game on minimum specs (such as your system and RO2) so that those PC Games have longevity to them as system become more powerful over the next couple of years.

By the time the average PC being used can max out the settings of that game, new games that those systems can't decently run were released..... yet the graphics maxed out on those older games are of an equal level as those newer games on lower settings, thus not looking as dated as they would if those games were designed so that those previous generation systems could max them out on day 1 release.

What modern games are you referring to?

BF3, which is a console port?

Skyrim which is also a console port?

The reason why the graphics in RO2 look like they're from 2004 and don't look as good as those other games for you, is because your system can't handle the details of RO2 except if you set everything to bare minimum..... if you max out the graphics and if you had a system that could do that, RO2 looks far better than BF3 and just as good as Skyrim.

But then again, looks are subjective to the individual.

Before anyone suggests, I have tried every config tweak available, and every NVidia profile and driver available, and I still don't get any more than 10 /frames per second with every setting off or on low in game settings and config. Not everyone has an extra $500 lying around to invest in a motherboard and processor just to play a game that barely looks better than the original Red Orchestra mod for UT.

Big deal.... I've been playing with FPS between 12-16 since Beta and that's due to my video card being limited.

No... not everyone has that money to upgrade their systems to meet the demands of a real PC game, which is why you need to check the system requirements of a game before you run out and buy it, expecting it to run perfectly.

And barely looks better than ROCA?

You need your eyes checked, or stop letting your emotions ruin your ability to formulate a decent argument that can be believed.

I'm also a bit saddened that I can't play RO2 comfortably without turning every graphics option down to the lowest it can go.

Here are my specs...

There's your problem.... you have a quad core CPU, yet running a 32 bit system which can't really optimize those four CPU's (that's what 64 bit is for.... or so I was told)

 

[Sensemann]

To OP:

10 fps? Really? What happened? You and your parents painting each frame on a piece of paper, or what?

 

[Pectus]

Stuff

No no, you got it all wrong.

2004 Graphics:

Spoiler!

2011 Graphics:

Spoiler!