[Battlefield: Bad Company 2] Official Thread

2010-02-11 11:05:29

#1601

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6915

Well I played some on my PC and it felt really sluggish, movement-wise. I kept playing around with the mouse sensitivities but couldn't get any tight, spot-on control. It was really frustrating.

And I kind of regret buying this since my computer was barely chugging along at 20~30 fps, even with everything on low/off/1x. I've got some money to spend and was hoping to buy a new monitor, but looks like I'll have to go with a processor and video card instead

2010-02-11 11:08:01

#1602

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|6974|Purplicious Wisconsin

mtb0minime wrote:
Well I played some on my PC and it felt really sluggish, movement-wise. I kept playing around with the mouse sensitivities but couldn't get any tight, spot-on control. It was really frustrating.

And I kind of regret buying this since my computer was barely chugging along at 20~30 fps, even with everything on low/off/1x. I've got some money to spend and was hoping to buy a new monitor, but looks like I'll have to go with a processor and video card instead

The beta isn't smooth but the full game will be better

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2010-02-11 11:11:45

#1603

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6915

War Man wrote:
mtb0minime wrote:
Well I played some on my PC and it felt really sluggish, movement-wise. I kept playing around with the mouse sensitivities but couldn't get any tight, spot-on control. It was really frustrating.

And I kind of regret buying this since my computer was barely chugging along at 20~30 fps, even with everything on low/off/1x. I've got some money to spend and was hoping to buy a new monitor, but looks like I'll have to go with a processor and video card instead
The beta isn't smooth but the full game will be better

Yeah, I'm gonna try and hold off, see how the final product looks. Maybe there are just some nuances I have to get used to as well. (Although when playing on a friend's PC, I was able to play pretty well and didn't notice much sluggishness).

2010-02-11 11:42:00

#1604

iNeedUrFace4Soup: fuck it; +348|6806

mtb0minime wrote:
Well I played some on my PC and it felt really sluggish, movement-wise. I kept playing around with the mouse sensitivities but couldn't get any tight, spot-on control. It was really frustrating.

And I kind of regret buying this since my computer was barely chugging along at 20~30 fps, even with everything on low/off/1x. I've got some money to spend and was hoping to buy a new monitor, but looks like I'll have to go with a processor and video card instead

It's still not fully optimized.

Posted by one of the devs a few days ago.

https://img121.imageshack.us/img121/3818/bc2c.jpg

2010-02-11 14:09:18

#1605

bugz: Fission Mailed; +3,311|6572

30fps with a GTX260 all on low...25fps all on high.

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ebug122

2010-02-11 14:10:15

#1606

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm: ©; +1,811|6257

it's smoove via ps3, just sayin

2010-02-11 14:26:27

#1607

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6928

ebug9 wrote:
30fps with a GTX260 all on low...25fps all on high.

Quad or dual core?

2010-02-11 14:30:26

#1608

FloppY_: +1,010|6546|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

E8500
HD4870 Toxic (OC) 512mb
3.5GB (4GB) Ram
@ 1680x1050

Abit choppy, I'm guessing FPS ~ 30'ish... Haven't changed any settings, I tolerate the chop and wait to see if the final game is better optimized...

Otherwise I might have to move forward earlier than I planned and get that i5 750 + 5870 + Rampage III Formula upgrade

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-02-11 14:30:53)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-02-11 14:33:20

#1609

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6928

I've been reading that it's mostly a core issue. Most with quad cores with slower clocks, but with average GPU's are performing better than dual cores with higher clocks and more powerful GPU's.

2010-02-11 15:15:41

#1610

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6935|Canberra, AUS

https://www.pbbans.com/maydax/bc2_ban_message.jpg

Talk about naming and shaming

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-02-11 15:45:54

#1611

bugz: Fission Mailed; +3,311|6572

Ilocano wrote:
ebug9 wrote:
30fps with a GTX260 all on low...25fps all on high.
Quad or dual core?

I believe my Dual core is bottle-necking it Same issue with GTA4

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ebug122

2010-02-11 16:56:00

#1612

Scratch[USA]: Member; +105|6808

Spark wrote:
http://www.pbbans.com/maydax/bc2_ban_message.jpg

Talk about naming and shaming

That is great

2010-02-11 17:04:20

#1613

Canin: Conservative Roman Catholic; +280|6735|Foothills of S. Carolina

Yay, just bought BC2 on Steam

2010-02-11 21:13:01

#1614

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6649|New York

The PS3 version of the demo is pretty good. How would an AMD x3 720 @ 3 ghz, with 4 gb ram, and a 4850 fare against the pc version?

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2010-02-11 21:19:15

#1615

dill13: Member; +67|6454

heggs wrote:
The PS3 version of the demo is pretty good. How would an AMD x3 720 @ 3 ghz, with 4 gb ram, and a 4850 fare against the pc version?

I have a e8400 at stock 3ghz and a 4870 and it plays fine for me but then again I try to stay on 16 player servers 32 is way to crowded. Other people with your card or better with intel quad cores seem to be having trouble so I dont know.

2010-02-12 00:47:13

#1616

Sisco: grandmaster league revivalist; +493|6604

Q9550 and 4870 all on high and runs really smooth, apart from the inherent lag due to beta.

https://www.abload.de/img/bf3-bf2ssig0250wvn.jpg

2010-02-12 01:39:16

#1617

TimmmmaaaaH: Damn, I... had something for this; +725|6700|Brisbane, Australia

Sisco10 wrote:
Q9550 and 4870 all on high and runs really smooth, apart from the inherent lag due to beta.

Hmm. I have a 5870, and an E8500 and have low framerates when it gets busy around me. ME2 also eats dick sometimes, and GTA4 isnt even worth playing.

Never thought I would have so much CPU bottlenecking, damn consoles and their strong CPU's. Might have to upgrade.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png

2010-02-12 03:10:12

#1618

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6935|Canberra, AUS

q8300 and 4870, medium, very smooth.

Last edited by Spark (2010-02-12 03:10:37)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-02-12 04:17:43

#1619

Sisco: grandmaster league revivalist; +493|6604

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
Sisco10 wrote:
Q9550 and 4870 all on high and runs really smooth, apart from the inherent lag due to beta.
Hmm. I have a 5870, and an E8500 and have low framerates when it gets busy around me. ME2 also eats dick sometimes, and GTA4 isnt even worth playing.

Never thought I would have so much CPU bottlenecking, damn consoles and their strong CPU's. Might have to upgrade.

Hm, both GTAIV and ME2 run great on my rig. Constant frames all the time, as good as that gets for GTAIV though.

2010-02-12 05:14:30

#1620

Canin: Conservative Roman Catholic; +280|6735|Foothills of S. Carolina

I am running a 9800GT and E7500 and play is smooth on medium settings

2010-02-12 07:21:00

#1621

Spidery_Yoda: Member; +399|6530

Good god the Xbox players are terrible. Why is it that no matter which game I join, my squad will be entirely made up of Snipers sitting as far back as possible?

I just finished a round as the attackers and the scores for my team were as follows:

1st. Spidery Yoda 5428
2nd. CVR LEADFOOT 60 1840
3rd. Born2Die117 1730

It's so frustrating sometimes having 100% useless teammates.

Last edited by Spidery_Yoda (2010-02-12 07:22:16)

2010-02-12 07:27:20

#1622

FloppY_: +1,010|6546|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
Sisco10 wrote:
Q9550 and 4870 all on high and runs really smooth, apart from the inherent lag due to beta.
Hmm. I have a 5870, and an E8500 and have low framerates when it gets busy around me. ME2 also eats dick sometimes, and GTA4 isnt even worth playing.

Never thought I would have so much CPU bottlenecking, damn consoles and their strong CPU's. Might have to upgrade.

I lol'd

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-02-12 07:28:09)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-02-12 08:38:39

#1623

Aries_37: arrivederci frog; +368|6835|London

Damn I haven't been in the battlefield section for ages. How is this compared to bf2? Worth playing?

2010-02-12 08:59:57

#1624

csmag: Member; +92|6707|Canada

phenom II x2 and 9800gt and it runs like shit

2010-02-12 09:14:03

#1625

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

FloppY_ wrote:
TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
Sisco10 wrote:
Q9550 and 4870 all on high and runs really smooth, apart from the inherent lag due to beta.
Hmm. I have a 5870, and an E8500 and have low framerates when it gets busy around me. ME2 also eats dick sometimes, and GTA4 isnt even worth playing.

Never thought I would have so much CPU bottlenecking, damn consoles and their strong CPU's. Might have to upgrade.
I lol'd

Why?

BF2S Forums [Battlefield: Bad Company 2] Official Thread

mtb0minime wrote:

War Man wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

ebug9 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

ebug9 wrote:

Spark wrote:

heggs wrote:

Sisco10 wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Sisco10 wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Sisco10 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Sisco10 wrote:

Board footer