The only problems have have is that it takes a long time to exit the game, and sometimes the game won't exit out all the way. I also notice that the game will stall for a second every now and then.

My brother has a lower end system than me and just got a radeon 4670 (or something like that) for the game and he says it lags so much the game is unplayable. His system should be fine to run the game.

I hope they fix these issues soon.

I'm playing on a P4 3.0 1.5gig ram and a 512mb 7600 nvidia and I have no problems on balanced setting, but I lower it to framerate for rvr, still without any trouble.

Originally posted by CarpeNoctumX

I'm not complainging, I'm asking for a solution, but it's becoming more and more obvious there is no solution until Mythic decides to find one. Oh, and just in case it matters, I installed the retail version of the game from the discs, not the beta client.

It's really odd that reducing the anisotropic filtering didn't work for you. You're the first I've ever seen this not working for. Perhaps you forgot to make sure it overrided the application settings? 16 times anisotropic filtering should bring most systems to their knees in crowded areas, so I'm extremely surprised turning it off yielded no noticable performance boost.

I never tried this. How do I turn this off?

Originally posted by OrionMan

 

WAR has massive FPS problems as AoC had in the beginning. The funny thing is that WAR is getting that with graphics that are a bit subpar. It could indicate that the game was a bit rushed (even though 75% of the content was cut over the last year) to get it out before WoWLK.... Let me know if you wanna have AoC buddykey (have one left) cause your Rig will even run a beast such as AoC very well.

ROFL give me a break.   I played AoC right from the gate.   I happened to check their Technical support boards when WAR was patching last night, and their 5k latency spike issue is continuing with not even a sniff of a comment by Funcom.

In my WAR guild, most of which also played AoC with me, the only issue we've run into is occasional CTD's from alt-tabbing out.

I've had over 300 players on my screen RvR with almost no lag in WAR (and the little I had I suspect was due to my mediocre PC), where the latency spikes were so bad in AoC, we couldn't even handle a raid or a Keep assault.

I am not surprised you still have a buddy key left for that piece of crap game.   Who in their right mind, would give a dime to Funcom?   Get going bud.

Originally posted by OrionMan

This PC should run the shit out of the WAR code... You would even run AoC on medium or highish setting with this Rig.

No, not on High'ish settings hehehe. Barely on Medium honestly. I've seen many mid-range at the time rigs and low-end rigs and medium was very hard especially at that resolution. Age of Conan requires pretty much an 8800GT or higher to hit medium to high settings at that resolution with candy or even without.

Good luck fixing your performance though. Of the four computers I've built that have WAR players behind them none have had any problems so far.

Originally posted by OrionMan

Originally posted by CarpeNoctumX

 

So yeah, after looking at the system requirements for this game, I thought my PC would be able to run it at least on medium settings well enough, turns out that's not the case. I get low fps pretty much all the time at balanced settings on 1440x900. I only made animation high quality. If I'm in a capital citry forget it, game runs like a slide show and the same for any crowded area. Weird thing is, the game doesn't even look all that great, from a technical standpoint(I like the art style).

 

Games like EQ2, Lineage II, LOTRO, all looked far better(if artistically not as interesting), and yet I never have FPS issues on those games, even on high settings. WoW is also far from the best looking game out there, but at least it runs like a dream and the art work makes everything look nice and creative, if blocky. This strikes me as odd since I thought they needed the game to run well, because they want that whole large scale battle thing. Now my PC is admittedly old and not cutting edge, but it runs the games I mentioned well enough. Here are my specs again:

Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX 256MB
Pentium 4 3.4GHZ
2GB of RAM
Windows XP SP3

I checked System Requirements Lab and I pass it with flying colors and get similar reults that I do with Tabula Rasa, which also performs very well on my machine. Speaking of that site though, one thing I noticed was that for my Processor, it gives me some weird statistics. It says I have two CPUs running, and that I'm running at "3.40 GHz Performance Rated at 5.10 GHz". WTF?

Anyways, help me make this game playable, because I really do like it so far.

 

This PC should run the shit out of the WAR code... You would even run AoC on medium or highish setting with this Rig. In other word there is something very wrong or bugged when you need latest and greatest to run last decades graphics (namely WAR).

Your funny.

My PC out-maxes that spec times 12, and I still cant run AoC on max settings in any situation (inc. Sieges and raids) where my FPS will drop below 30. OP's spec cannot run AoC at all but should be able to run WAR decently.

And OP, the reason why you get the message ''performance rated at 5.10 ghz'' is that the ol' pentium 4's actually have a standard and a '''virtual''' core, which is like a fake dual core, not offering the same performance but offering the same statistics.

If your getting stutters in the game, check hardware conflicts, your amount of RAM, and if you dont have conflicting RAM (i.e a mix of different brands and speed types).

I would suggest checking out the stickies at the alliance forums. 

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=74

Usually get some pretty quick responses to questions too.

ps - I used Nerro's guide to building a war ready pc and am running all settings at max for a cost of $900 (minus monitor which I had a good one already).
 

I Have had the stuttering problem as well on my PC and I just lowered my graphics settings to fastest framerate then up to balanced. Once I did that it was much better and I didnt see a difference in graphics personally. Hope that helps those out there some as I feel max settings do very little to adjust the look of the game. I turned my card up outside the game in Nvidea control panel and game looked better to me anyway and no stuttering. 

maybe this post will help. 

WAR is more reliant on your processor, I dont even hear my video card doing anything.

AMD 64x2 4xxx
Nvidia 7950gt oc
2gigs ram

Res set at 1920x1200 and settings maxed.  Game runs great with the exception of some lag (non graphical) and CTD trying to alt tab on occasion.

I'm curiouse if the OP is using an AGP card or a PCIe one.

I honestly think they skipped optimizing phase of game development in order to beat WOTLK to market. My system runs LOTRO on DX10 Ultra High just fine, while WAR performs significantly worse with lesser graphics.

Too list some of the issues:

*Crash to desktop

*Failure to log in

*Impossible to ballanced Order vs Chaos (if team numbers are unequal) due to continous spawn

*Spell effects through walls

*Random spell effects and dmg

* Mystyrious inventoryloss

*Unexplainable Loss of Level

*1-2 hours waiting for PvP in a world not made for PvE... By this I mean less than 200 people on server is a prblem as is close to 500 on a server. In other words there is a very limited frame of server players that allow for continous PvP. This is a design flaw though

*Low FPS which seems illogical as other games with higher end graphics run much better. (slideshow bad)

Something bothers me about WAR's system requirements, and it is that they are woefully underestimated.  I understand it's pretty much a standard industry practice, but I also distinctly recall that someone involved with Warhammer Online (Mark Jacobs maybe) said that his game would have far more reasonable system requirements than Age of Conan (something about the "second best computer" available for purchase).

Here's the irony: My computer, theoretically, barely meets WAR's very minimum system requirements (1 GB RAM on XP) and was below AoC's.  Yet WAR will inevitably crash to desktop, either immediately after logging in to the server or at any other point within the following hour, despite otherwise running rather smoothly outside of the capital (I don't know how to determine the framerate, so I have to remain vague).  AoC, in comparison, gave me a frame rate that made a slide show move faster, and if I obtained a FPS rate in the double digits, I considered myself lucky.  But AoC, for all its stuttering, rarely if ever crashed to desktop.

To add insult to injury, sometimes I crashed immediately after waiting in queue for 7-10 minutes, forcing me to wait all over again with no guarantee that the game would hold once I made it back in.

I was reading this thread over at the Warhammer Alliance site, shaking my head at how ludicrous it all was. According to that thread, I should not hesitate to get myself a custom-built computer specifically put together to play Warhammer Online, but the cheapest package they offer easily runs into $500+.  It's the type of thing that makes me lose patience with the "gamer" crowd, for instance who can't avoid mentioning their entire dxdiag in their signature just as a display of how much money they can afford to spend.

I won't spend $500 just to replace an otherwise perfectly good computer -- with the new one becoming obsolete in a year -- just to play a single game whose appeal on me is all but uncertain in the long term.  And this price, I assume, is only this low if you build it yourself, which I know I couldn't do.  So in my case, the decision is a no-brainer: I either write off the $50 it cost me for the game, or I throw away a few hundred dollars to improve a computer to run a game to which, this far, I am rather lukewarm.

Already there are certain gameplay elements in WAR which annoy me (for example, the seemingly complete disconnect between the crafting system and the rest of the game), and this even before I tried my hand at PvP itself, which has never been my main interest and which to me must have a purpose instead of being an end in itself, but I will reserve judgement on that until I have seen more of the RvR aspect.

But honestly, when will gaming companies realize that there is an immense business advantage in making a game playable to as many people as possible?  I haven't played with gaming consoles since the 16-bit SNES, but I think that pricing was the main reason explaining the immense popularity of Nintendo's Wii in comparison to the overpriced PS3.  You want to build a machine with all bells and whistles but out of reach of the average consumer (I can't avoid thinking of Homer Simpson designing his dream car), that's fine, but don't wonder why you don't sell as many as you'd like.

Same thing with Conan.  Same thing with Warhammer.  I think the gaming industry is increasingly out of touch with the average consumer, and there's a good chance that the looming depression is going to be a painful reality check for some of those if they fail to adapt.

No wonder World of Warcraft (which, for the record, I have never played) is still going strong, perhaps even stronger than it was upon release. Four years later, it's accessible to a great many people with little more than glorified typewriters, a market seemingly shunned by the graphics-must-rule-over-everything gaming industry and the nomadic gamers who perpetually move on to the next shiny new thing.  Say that MMO's are a niche market, WoW -- just as the Wii -- should have demonstrated that there is money to be made by making your products accessible to budget-conscious casual players.  Something which Funcom failed to realize -- and which, apparently, Mythic also didn't grasp.

Originally posted by OrionMan

Too list some of the issues:

*Crash to desktop - This happens at times

*Failure to log in - Never heard of this, unless you haven't entered your CD key

*Impossible to ballanced Order vs Chaos (if team numbers are unequal) due to continous spawn - WUT

*Spell effects through walls - actually if you aren't in LoS, the spell cuts off.....are you even playing WAR?

*Random spell effects and dmg - Huh?

* Mystyrious inventoryloss - Never heard of this

*Unexplainable Loss of Level - Never heard of this

*1-2 hours waiting for PvP in a world not made for PvE... By this I mean less than 200 people on server is a prblem as is close to 500 on a server. In other words there is a very limited frame of server players that allow for continous PvP. This is a design flaw though- That's what you get for rolling Destruction on a high pop server.

*Low FPS which seems illogical as other games with higher end graphics run much better. (slideshow bad) - Have yet to hear anyone complain of this one

I don't think you are even playing WAR, Orion.   AoC fanboi much?  I notice your account was created on WAR release date, and you post quite a bit........seems a bit odd to me.   Don't want people to see your post history on your main?

Originally posted by CarpeNoctumX

I never tried this. How do I turn this off?

That explains why it didn't work I guess :)

Read my previous post in the thread - you can go into your NVIDIA control panel and override the settings of the game. It's worked for a ton of people - I hope it helps you too.

war is far from game which can be run on 80% population machines how it claims..

with my rig i would expect having steady 150~ fps in this game. .considering 100 is max.. im more than happy to have it all the time..

but thats sadly not the case..

this game feels laggy having 60+ fps. which is cap for lcd monitor.. due it shuttering.. so ye having 30 fps is no go ..

sli support is probably biggest issue here..

there is 0 .. as far as i can tell..

sli + windowed mode + windows vista = 25% fps .. fps doesnt drop in warhammer = no sli support at all ?  or they just did some miracle.. out there..

Well the game only laggs and fps drops to 8 when there are 50vs50 battles in pvp...which is resonable considering the game just went out a week ago

The game runs ok on my computer.. it is not a super duper system but a good one.  I think it just depends, and some things will play it better than others.  Good luck getting it running smoother, I really think the game is fun to play even with a little bit of lag.  

Originally posted by CarpeNoctumX

 

So yeah, after looking at the system requirements for this game, I thought my PC would be able to run it at least on medium settings well enough, turns out that's not the case. I get low fps pretty much all the time at balanced settings on 1440x900. I only made animation high quality. If I'm in a capital citry forget it, game runs like a slide show and the same for any crowded area. Weird thing is, the game doesn't even look all that great, from a technical standpoint(I like the art style).

 

Games like EQ2, Lineage II, LOTRO, all looked far better(if artistically not as interesting), and yet I never have FPS issues on those games, even on high settings. WoW is also far from the best looking game out there, but at least it runs like a dream and the art work makes everything look nice and creative, if blocky. This strikes me as odd since I thought they needed the game to run well, because they want that whole large scale battle thing. Now my PC is admittedly old and not cutting edge, but it runs the games I mentioned well enough. Here are my specs again:

Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX 256MB
Pentium 4 3.4GHZ
2GB of RAM
Windows XP SP3

I checked System Requirements Lab and I pass it with flying colors and get similar reults that I do with Tabula Rasa, which also performs very well on my machine. Speaking of that site though, one thing I noticed was that for my Processor, it gives me some weird statistics. It says I have two CPUs running, and that I'm running at "3.40 GHz Performance Rated at 5.10 GHz". WTF?

Anyways, help me make this game playable, because I really do like it so far.

 

It seems that some people are having problems.. and they are across the board.  Kind of like AoC in that respect.  What I mean by that is.. it seems to be something different with every person.  I actually haven't had a problem.  No glitches, no memory leaks, no missing items.  I've crashed to desktop 3 times and I'm rank 18. 

It's always a problem with the computer.  No offense, and I may be wrong here.. but it is typically 95% user error.  In AOC's case, Funcom just doesn't know how to make a game apparently.  I'd suggest reading help forums, there's quite a few things that you can do in order to tweak your settings to get the most out of the game. 

You need at least 4gigs of RAM, a dual core CPU over 2.4ghz and a GPU with at least 512mb of memory.  That would make the game playable during 20-40 man raids.  And if you don't have those specs.. you'll never participate in capitol sieges.. with projected numbers in the hundreds.  In fact, I think I'll have problems.. and I have 8 gigs of RAM, 3.2 dual core and a 9800gtx.  I know I can't do 50+ keep sieges, because when I get inside... it's a slideshow.  I could probably fix that by turning my settings down though, I play on max.

It's either spend money... or don't get the most out of the product.  You knew what you were getting into when you bought the game.