Page 1 of 1

Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:29 am
by Politically Incorrect
In my recent game buying spree I got CoD and CoD United Offensive.
I have a Geforce FX 5200 card and the game runs pretty good, some bad stuttering in heavy fire fights but that isn't my problem.

In some missions especially when dark out my guys will look as if they are coals smoldering in a campfire. It is only people not other objects, there is a "flickering" all over their bodies, including mine.

I have tried probably every graphic card setting and in game setting combination I can think of and can't stop this.
Any ideas?

The "smoldering souls" don't effect game play but are more of a annoyance.

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:48 am
by 4_Series_Scania
I got a similar issue with my Asus FX5600, I've cured it by using Forceware 70.90 drivers from www.guru3d.com  8)

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:11 pm
by Politically Incorrect
I was afraid of it maybe being the drivers :'(
I currently use the 61.11 because I have found them to be the best for FS9.
Like I mentioned besides some stumbling in heavy fire the flickering doesn't seem to hinder performance.
And FS9 is what I trie to keep running best.
I'm going to download the drivers and might give them a whirl, can always change them back if needed.
Thanks for the reply!

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:59 pm
by 4_Series_Scania
FS9 is more than happy with the 70 series drivers, well, on both my systems anyway - the #2 system has an FX5200, and it runs FS9 very well with no glitches.  ;)

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:49 pm
by Politically Incorrect
I'm going to give them a try, I was trying new drivers almost everyday for a month and finally decided to stop playing with drivers ;)
It seemed the higher (above 61.11) I went the more performance and frame rate hit I suffered. That is when I finally realized that it is true no two computers are alike no matter how much the same they are ;)

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:01 pm
by Gixer
Running 66.81WHQL drivers here on my 6800Ultra.

Seems to run FS9 and COD fine.  With my setup COD is played 1600x1200 everything maxxed bla bla bla lol.

Looks good!!!  ;D

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:50 pm
by Politically Incorrect
C.O.D sucks! Well not really it is a pretty good game but not long enough.
In 35 hours I managed to make it through C.O.D and C.O.D.U.O., and that was on difficult settings :(
Some of the firefights are just plain wicked, so much going on it is near too impossible to figure out who is shooting at who.
This  is why I love sims! different everytime you fire it up, you can fly the exact same flight but no two are ever alike ;)

Question is since my computer ran C.O.D pretty well I wonder how it'll fair with FarCry???

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:49 pm
by Gixer
I play COD mainly multiplayer.

Haven't completed COD UO yet lol.  I'm sure I will one day though!

I dont have FarCry.  I heard it looks very pretty but doesnt have the best gameplay, maybe I will get it when I have some spare cash.

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:27 am
by the_autopilot
C.O.D sucks! Well not really it is a pretty good game but not long enough.
In 35 hours I managed to make it through C.O.D and C.O.D.U.O., and that was on difficult settings :(
Some of the firefights are just plain wicked, so much going on it is near too impossible to figure out who is shooting at who.
This  is why I love sims! different everytime you fire it up, you can fly the exact same flight but no two are ever alike ;)

Question is since my computer ran C.O.D pretty well I wonder how it'll fair with FarCry???


COD uses the old Quake 3 engine maxed out. Farcry uses the newest gfx tech (directx 9 with lots of shaders), so your comp may only run it at lower resolutions with lower qualities.

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:34 am
by Politically Incorrect
I play COD mainly multiplayer.



This is why I need to get broadband, whenever it may become available in my area. Too many games have huge multiplayer maps but are all useless to me. This damn dial up connection sucks for multi-playing.
I bought RTCW because it also contained the expansion pack Enemy Territory, but what a waste since I can't even play it. Didn't know it was for online until after installing it
>:(

I understand that online game play is the thing but software manufacturers should understand that a vast majority can't participate, doesn't make sense that I pay the same price for a game that I can only use half of. They need to market two different packages one for off-line single player use and one for mulyi-player, or offer off-line packages that can take advantage of all the multi-player maps and other items that go with it.

For Ex: CODUO contains 13 single player missions, but also has 11 multiplayer maps with different vehicles that I can't use, So I paid the same price and can only benifit from half of it. So I guess what I'm saying is that the cost of the game should be $15 instead of $30 ;)
Or since multi-player gaming is focused on people who have better connections they need to sell the game as a single-player and offer the multi-player crap for those who can use it as a download (after all it won't take long ;) ) at the extra cost ;)

And too prevent the comment that some see necessary to post, yes I know no one forced me to buy the game so you can keep the stupidity comment too yourself ;)

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:06 am
by the_autopilot
Well, when you pay the price, your paying for all of the game, including single-player and multiplayer. If you can't handle one, you "wasted" your money.

Its like those DVD's that have PC options as well. If the person does not have a PC, he looses those options even if they pay full price.

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:41 am
by Politically Incorrect
Well, when you pay the price, your paying for all of the game, including single-player and multiplayer. If you can't handle one, you "wasted" your money.

Its like those DVD's that have PC options as well. If the person does not have a PC, he looses those options even if they pay full price.



That fits into my gripe as well. I noticed a few years back the music CDs were increasing in price all because of the "bonus" material that can be accessed by a PC. Well a tad unfair for the person without access to a PC to pay the same price. And even though I now have a PC the "bonus" stuff is not only a waste of money but also a waste of time all because many need internet access (they forget not all have it) and then they want to have you sign your life away just to get a look,install special software to view it etc, sorry not for me ;) Seems everyone wants personal information from me at my expense ;D

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:46 am
by the_autopilot
I just think of those things as true bonus.

I'm not buying this product just for that, so if they include it, I'm all the more "happier".

Re: Call of Duty graphics ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:40 am
by Politically Incorrect
I just think of those things as true bonus.


Well when you take the fact that it cost manufacturers $10 to put a PC game on the shelves (that includes cost to manufacture, advertise, package and programmer fees)

Not much of a bonus for $40 and up ;)

Music CDs are less than $5 to market.