World in Conflict

Originally Posted by kiwik
Am I the only one who prefers the normal Napalm/Tank Buster/Laser Guided Bomb to the OMGWTFBBQ Tactical Nukes?

Nukes are for show , the rest are for pro.:D

It is out today, isn't it? Anyone got it yet?

Originally Posted by kenco_uk
It is out today, isn't it? Anyone got it yet?

Game pissed me off, so no. Even though it's £26 on their website, they want £34 for the privilege of letting them save on postage by buying in store. So I've just ordered online. I can't use the gift card I have, but oh well, it'll get spent eventually.

In short; I should. But I don't. And whoever's in charge of Game's pricing should get a brick through his window. But they probably won't.

Are you sure that wasn't the collectors edition? 'cause that's about $60/£35

Originally Posted by kiwik
Am I the only one who prefers the normal Napalm/Tank Buster/Laser Guided Bomb to the OMGWTFBBQ Tactical Nukes?

heavy arty/toxic cloud/tank buster/carpet bombing/moab ftw

while nukes are okay, they're only really good if they're all packed together and even then there's too much collateral damage.

Originally Posted by Hells_Bliss
Are you sure that wasn't the collectors edition? 'cause that's about $60/£35

Got him to double check. Collector's edition is £40.

seems back asswards if you ask me. I pre-ordered online for 66 bucks, then canceled and got it at the store for 53 bucks......

Originally Posted by aon`aTv.gsus666
I just ran the in-game benchmark myself on the system in my sig (except GFX card @ stock) and here are my results:

taken from fpsdata.txt:

Code:

Resolution: 1600*1200
Detail Level: Very High
Average fps: 29
Min fps: 16
Max fps: 56
TotalFrames: 1474

My settings:

http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wic2007092023564953mr0.png http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wic2007092023565501eg8.png http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wic2007092023570650zt4.png

Screen of benchmark:

http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wic2007092023564500yb3.png

Why are my results so much better with the same GFX card, the same amount of RAM and a (admittedly more powerful) CPU? Does WiC scale that much with CPU power?

Anyways... I'm pretty pleased with the results. ;)

set your 8800GTS to 550/800 and run the benchmark again.

and tell me what you get, i'll show you what i get on my q6600 G0 @ 3.1Ghz, 2gig OCZ @ 777Mhz 4-4-4-12, BFG 8800GTS 320MB OC.

Originally Posted by wuyanxu
set your 8800GTS to 550/800 and run the benchmark again.

and tell me what you get, i'll show you what i get on my q6600 G0 @ 3.1Ghz, 2gig OCZ @ 777Mhz 4-4-4-12, BFG 8800GTS 320MB OC.

Done.

Resolution: 1600*1200
Detail Level: Very High
Average fps: 36
Min fps: 18
Max fps: 76
TotalFrames: 1813

http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atitoolwictestmi5.png http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wic2007092318372620vy7.png

you've got 640MB right?

my 320MB only managed this
http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen0000wp0.jpg

to test CPU, shouldn't we be running at lower settings? so to make it fare on my poor 320MB, im going to run at:

btw, where did you get those text in code? i assume you didn't type it

edit:
1280x1024, Medium preset:
http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen0000zv7.jpg
1280x1024, High preset:
http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen0001jr2.jpg

I'll do some tests @ 1280 and low, med detail later or tomorrow.

And that text in code is taken from fpsdata.txt found in the WiC save game folder. As far as I can tell it saves data of the last run benchmark and gets overwritten each time a new benchmark is run.

Ran those tests...

800x600, very low detail, @ 513/792:

http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=800vlowgr8.png

1024, med, @ 513/792:

http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1024medoq0.png

1280, med, @ 513/792:

http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1280mednc4.png

1280, max, @ 513/792:

http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1280maxpj9.png

1280, low, @ 550/800:

http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1280low550800jf2.png

1280, med @ 550/800:

http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1280med550800le4.png

1280, high, @ 550/800:

http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1280high550800li8.png

1600, max, @ 615/1050:

http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1600max6151050lg1.png

i finished the single player of this over the weekend, the only issue i had is that sitting in little circles drawn on the ground isnt that great a mechanic for the single player side of things
its ok for multiplayer but i think for single player they could've changed it up a bit
just a small niggle though, bloody good overal B)

oh and i remember the benchmark in the mp beta would give me horrible fps numbers, way down in the 10's or so but it was totally playable in game :s

how do you run the ingame video test? I was looking for it last night but couldn't find it :(

Should just be in the options IIRC

wtf, from those results, it shows 320MB is half the speed of 640MB when running at High preset. there shouldn't be so much difference?

edit:
800x600, very low preset, 550/800
http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen0002zi6.jpg

are you running Vista or XP? aon`aTv.gsus666?

XP, Vista'll come after I finished my baccalaureat. Should be in the middle of November as far as I can tell right now. So no DX10 for me. What do you run?

Originally Posted by aon`aTv.gsus666
XP, Vista'll come after I finished my baccalaureat. Should be in the middle of November as far as I can tell right now. So no DX10 for me. What do you run?

no wonder why i've got such huge difference when benchmarked at High. WiC enables Dx10 when going from medium to high. you haven't got Dx10 effects turned on.

i ran Vista 32bit (going 64bit soon) and with 163.69. just updated to 163.71 beta (optimized for WiC, according to nVidia) and average FPS went up by 2.

i think we should forget this, our systems differ too much, and testing a 320MB against a 640MB for signs of impact of CPU affecting game performance is just not a fair test. to have a real test, we need someone with a different CPU architecture, such as AthlonX2 6000+

Originally Posted by kiwik
Am I the only one who prefers the normal Napalm/Tank Buster/Laser Guided Bomb to the OMGWTFBBQ Tactical Nukes?

Many of us are to nubby to be graced with many nukes, I still prefer mutliples of alternate strikes anyway.

Anyone with an NVIDIA 8-series, try the "Alt-Tab" fix when the frames get tough. Months-old ForceWare bugs FTW.

is nVidia ever going to fix the memory issue?

Can you help me, i am running
(1) Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
(1) Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 4M Processor
(1) 4GB PC4200 533MHZ DDR2 Memory (1GB x 4)
(1) Intel DG965WH ATX Motherboard w/Gigabit LAN
(1) 500GB 7200RPM 3G SATA II Hard Drive
(1) 500GB 7200RPM 3G SATA II Hard Drive
(1) GeForce 7950GT 512MB PCI-Express

and i installed World in Conflict. I am running at 1600 x 1200, High .........10 minutes into the games it crashes and this error comes up. "not enough memory to run this application."

Whats the Problem, Please HELP.

Hello and welcome to the forums...

Have you installed the Windows Vista hotfixes? I had terrible crashing problems with this game until AFTER I'd installed these patches.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/windows_vista_hotfixes.html

I recently (i.e. 12th October 07) did a windows update on my graphics card. So would that hotfix be in that update.

Originally Posted by wil137
I recently (i.e. 12th October 07) did a windows update on my graphics card. So would that hotfix be in that update.

Bad idea. Windows update sucks for drivers, download the latest stable or Beta drivers from nvidia.com

oh ok thanks you guys.

Grab the hotfixes too, not all of them are in Windows Update yet. :)