8 réponses à ce sujet

[aerows]

I'm not going to say much else.

System:

Windows Vista x64 SP2/DX11
Intel QX6850 3.0Ghz
8 GB GeIL 1333 DDR
2x 7200 RPM - RAID 0 - Seagate 320 GB
2x 7200 RPM - backups - 1.5 GB each
EVGA GTX 460 SCC - 800/1600/2000 
Auzentech X-Meridian 
Driver 270.61

I get about 20fps @ 1920x1200, all setting high, AA 2X, AF 16X, DF on, AO on

Is there anything besides lowering my resolution that will help?  Because cranking down AF resulted in horrible artifacts and 1 fps gain, and I'm not prepared to play games anymore with no AA whatsoever.  I can boot into Win 7 on my other side, but frankly, I got no appreciable difference, there, either.  

I LOVE Bioware, and frankly, I think DA2 is rather good - but I also thought so about NWN2 while everyone was telling me I should think it was bad.  The difference was, however, that this game is also RUNNING badly.  ME2 was like butter with a GTX 260-216.  And the whole no upgrading armor thing?  Major f* up for anything that labels itself a role-playing game, Bioware, but I'll leave that for another day.  MAJOR for TWO games now, you did something that fans hate.  Upgrade companion armor visually, or don't have companions at all.  **Wait, I've given you ideas, OH GOD**

Can you please fix the visual rewards for upgrading companions, and fix absolutely destroying framerates on systems that look at your requirements and laugh?  Hell, I'd get a better video card if I could at least see a visual upgrade to my companions armor.  Why do you insist on making looks of your compadres second, when that was the draw for your games to begin with???

It's like Blizzard planning character classes around Arena, and screwing up the game (they did that) - except - you make single player games (ME and DA games).

[Woofy128]

Hrm. That's slightly better than my system, though very comparable. Maybe its the high resolution? I run mine at 1680x1050 "High" detail, AA 4x, AF 8x, with no FPS complaints, and all the advanced junk turned off. Maybe try turning advanced gfx off, or lowering graphics detail down from Very High.

Modifié par Woofy128, 12 mai 2011 - 02:16 .

[aerows]

Woofy128 wrote...

Hrm. That's slightly better than my system, though very comparable. Maybe its the high resolution? I run mine at 1680x1050 "High" detail, AA 4x, AF 8x, with no FPS complaints, and all the advanced junk turned off. Maybe try turning advanced gfx off, or lowering graphics detail down from Very High.

Maybe.  I'll try 1680x1050.  The other things I guess I slid in as criticisms of the game - I do truly love the graphics, but I find myself wishing I could play DA:O with those graphics, or ME with the graphics of ME2.

Those two are going to end up being beloved, and the sequels eye candy laden, but not as special.

What CPU and GPU are recommended to play at the resolution my 28" monitor, native 1920x1200 with all the bells and whistles?

[PSUHammer]

Not sure what you expect with that graphics card. It isn't shabby, but you are running at a higher res with DX11. My 570 averages about 30-35 FPS with everything maxed.

[Woofy128]

aerows wrote...

Maybe.  I'll try 1680x1050.  The other things I guess I slid in as criticisms of the game - I do truly love the graphics, but I find myself wishing I could play DA:O with those graphics, or ME with the graphics of ME2.

Those two are going to end up being beloved, and the sequels eye candy laden, but not as special.

What CPU and GPU are recommended to play at the resolution my 28" monitor, native 1920x1200 with all the bells and whistles?

Can't say, but I think it might be expecting too much of your 460 to run the game at maxed everything. I did a little test run with Very High AF 16x and all the extras turned on, settings similar to yours, and sure enough, my 460 just couldn't handle it.

If you want my guess, I would say... maybe a GTX 570 would be able to keep up with your settings and resolution. Running native resolution on a 28" with everything turned on? I'm gonna say that's a job for a 580 or some kind of SLI setup.

Edit: For some reason I thought the native resolution of a 28" is 2560x1600 or something crazy high like that.

Modifié par Woofy128, 12 mai 2011 - 02:48 .

[MishraArtificer]

The game was originally optimized for AMD/ATI video cards, if that helps any. I'm not sure if Nvidia has done anything to correct that since release, however.

That said, the game runs nicely on my Radeon HD 3450.

[Woofy128]

MishraArtificer wrote...

The game was originally optimized for AMD/ATI video cards, if that helps any. I'm not sure if Nvidia has done anything to correct that since release, however.

That said, the game runs nicely on my Radeon HD 3450.

They fixed it with the 270 series of drivers, so that shouldn't be the problem. I believe that was due to AMD and EA working out some exclusivity nonsense where nvidia would be locked out of looking at the game code pre-release. Bunch of brain surgeons. Anyway.

To respond to something you mentioned earlier, OP, I'd kill to play a BG/BG2 remake translated into a newer game engine. I'd love to revisit those stories but I'm not going to sit through the mind****ingly awkward game design of the originals to do it.

[Gorath Alpha]

MishraArtificer wrote...

The game was originally optimized for AMD/ATI video cards, if that helps any. I'm not sure if Nvidia has done anything to correct that since release, however.

That said, the game runs nicely on my Radeon HD 3450.

Any time anyone makes a bald statement such as that one without a great deal of explanation of what "nicely" amounts to, it's essentially TROLLING, because that is a very bad video card compared to the minimum.  Like any and all Radeon "300 - 400" cards since the X1n00 generation, it's strictly business level, way below even the Budget game level.

http://www.gpureview...1=555&card2=522

That's the two side by side, with the HD 3450 only managing HALF of the performance of the minimum graphics card.

[Gorath Alpha]

MishraArtificer wrote...

That said, the game runs nicely on my Radeon HD 3450.

I already told you:

Any time anyone makes a bald statement such as that one without a great deal of explanation of what "nicely" amounts to, it's essentially TROLLING, because that is a very bad video card compared to the minimum.  Like any and all Radeon "300 - 400" cards since the X1n00 generation, it's strictly business level, way below even the Budget game performance level.

http://www.gpureview...1=555&card2=522

That's the two side by side, with the HD 3450 only managing HALF of the performance of the minimum graphics card.

I've run the game on both an HD 3870, and on an HD 4850, and in my opinion, I personally would prefer to see it running with a newer card, such as an HD 5870.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 15 mai 2011 - 03:50 .