Call of duty 2

Overclocking my CPU helped a bunch.

That's not really maxed out options-wise... but it's fine. (For instance, using trilinear means you aren't using any AF at all.)

I just started playing tonight, but not until after taking the time to really set it up right:

Call of Duty 2 Tweak Guide

I'm running @ 1600x1024 (16:10) with several settings customized based on the guide. I get between 30-50 FPS with an occasional dip into the high 20's. I don't notice because on "Veteran" setting I'm too busy pissing my pants.

-Doc

I play it at 1680X1050 with everything in game and out of game maxed out and it plays utterly smooth on my 7800GTX in my desktop along with an A64 clocked at 2.6, 2gigs of ram and a 74GB 10000 rpm raptor hard drive. I score 9000 on my desktop rig.

Mine stays in the upper 30's for the most part. That engine isn't really made for directx 9.

Well i'm not going to say that I get between XX - XX FPS cause it really varys.

Some areas it's decent and in some it's crap..

Same Here

I've got a desktop a64 at 2.8 with 2gigs of ram on a 7800 gtx KO and I only get about 30-50 fps most of the time. I have everything maxed. I don't play this game in dx9 since 30 fps is too low for my eyes. In dx7 mode it stays at 90+ and looks good too. BTW I get 9300 in 3dmark05. I think this game could've been optimized way more. Oh well maybe COD3 .

I've tried running with DX7, and yes, it's a hell of an FPS boost, but it takes away all the good smoke and weather effects.

In a game like this, and I've been playing them all since Wildenstein 3D, the immersiveness for me comes from the game play for the most part, and the graphics are a secondary, but still important, consideration.

But I also like them to be as difficult as possible, and in the case of COD2, DX7 just makes some areas too easy. Areas that would otherwise be a total bitch because of limited visibility.

Here is an example. In this scene the player is looking down a street towards a distant building. Germans come pouring up the street towards you and also take position in the rubble in the distance and start sniping at you. With DX7, you can pretty clearly see all the way back to where they are; there's no weather effect, and virtually no smoke from the burning truck in the foreground.

DX7:
<a href="http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dx74mv.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6145/dx74mv.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
(Remember to view it actual size for best image quality.)

Now the same view with DX9 leaves you in a much worse situation... you have pretty much no idea how many Germans are down there, or where they are, or if they're rushing you. This makes the gameplay much more difficult, and in my mind, more immersive.

DX9:
<a href="http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dx98mv.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6650/dx98mv.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>

For some reason the FPS meter was shut off in the second one, but it was right about 30FPS.

So to me, as long as the frame rates are good enough, I'd rather have a more difficult game to beat. It's personal preference, but for someone who has played in DX7 from the start, they may not be aware of what they're missing.

COD2 set to maximum difficulty (Veteran) and with all the vision obscuring DX9 effects can be a real bastard at times, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

-Doc

thats pretty lame. reminds me of halo. runs like ass on pc but runs great on xbox. that fog really shouldnt cut fps in half.

and does the game not support 1920x1200?

It does support 1920x1200, but I don't notice the difference when actually playing the game, so I prefer the slightly better frame rate of 1600x1024.

Halo was made for the XBOX and was 110% optimized for it. Aren't CRT televisions limited to 30 FPS?

Besides, 60FPS being "better" does not make 30 FPS "bad". Like I said, I've played almost every FPS to come out since Wolf3D 12ish years ago and I have no problem with 30FPS.

-Doc

Maybe its me

For me 30fps is almost unplayable. I tried playing the thing in dx9 for weeks but it made me sick. I totally agree that it looks better in dx9, almost wish I never saw it before dx7 mode . Back to BF2 for me 70+ fps and almost as pretty.

I wonder how many people play XBOX or PS2 titles on their CRT TVs and think it's the smoothest thing they've ever seen, but claim that 30 FPS on a PC is unplayable. (This isn't in reply to anyone in particular.)

Although the XBOX, for instance, can drive a non-interlaced signal and therefore achieve 60 FPS, a CRT television is still limited to an interlaced signal and therefore maxes out at 30 FPS no matter what. I don't see a lot of, "The frame rate of my XBOX is unplayable on a CRT television." comments.

-DS

I've never been able to play console fps games cause the frame rate is too low for me too. I guess it IS just me.

ive never played console games cause i cant stand to play them at 640x480 with slow load times and crappy controllers

Does anyone know if COD2 can be told to use a different sound card other thant he default Windows sound device?

I can tell my stupid chat apps to do this, but can't find a way to tell a state-of-the-art game to do it.

-Doc

wow, after all this, im playing it at about 20fps and it looks great. 1920x1200 2xaa, AF, settings pretty much maxed. it doesnt stutter for me, and my 20fps seems very smooth. maybe its just me?

anyway, i wish theyd do like what they did for the xbox 360 and add memory on the GPU, which means free AA.