Peeps with good systems should enjoy the perks of having them! Uprades are actually fairly inexpensive The answer would be to----> UPGRADE <---
Grizz did you read Tongs' post? sounds good
Grizz, I just download to my PC at work which is AMD 3200(i think) 1.79 Ghz 1.2 gb ram and on board X200 radeon graphics chip. When I played around I found that setting 1024 res and then removing terrain detail I was able to get 30-35 frames and with bump map on 28-32. It wasn't super eye candy stuff but it did look ok and at those frames is playable....Granted this was in the offline mode but still there is a reasonable amount going on there. I did try the lower res too and there was no significant change in frames but a lot of difference in looks... oh yeah I am XP sp2. I have not trimmed down and have programs running in the background.Not sure if this helps but perhaps if you haven't alreadyyou could give this a go and see what develops over the next short while ( seeing as you had 59 frames in your pic I don't believe you will lose that much if any by changing your res to 1024)As a comparison the last version I was getting the same frames with high res pack on... not that this onboard graphics could handle it
(Image removed from quote.)20min ago in the MA
Same here.
\Besides, you can't expect the rest of the gaming world to hang around in the 90s because you don't want to upgrade.
Here's an idea..... How about we wait until BETA is finished before we start crying?My FR is awful in Beta. Unplayable.... but I'm not whining about it because it's a frigging test. They've said all along that the low-end graphics will be sorted out. Sheesh. Besides, you can't expect the rest of the gaming world to hang around in the 90s because you don't want to upgrade.
