[SOLVED] BF 2042

[Zerk2012]

Anybody using a i5 10600K and RTX 2080 @ 1440p playing that if so how does it run it.

From what I could find looks like about 90 FPS.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Hey Zerk,

I can't attest to that exact config, but my own config with 5600x and 3060ti (roughly about 2080 super levels) runs it on high at or about 80-100FPS, map dependent. Tweaking in game settings doesn't yield too much more by way of frames. Our systems would be close enough in terms of performance , with your OC CPU and 2080.

The game IMO, is poorly optimized and that's even with all the updates that were supposed to help FPS/stuttering etc. TBH, Ive stepped away for now, until it gets some more updates. Back on BFV, and despite all the cheating, it's still a better game.

Some of the graphical goodness is nice, and in some cases looks a lot better than BF V, but the bad game mechanics along with the glitches you can expect from a new game, mean BF V is much more polished (which you might expect after being available so long)

Also, some weird GPU usage going on. Even when I set my in game settings to high or Ultra, it still hardly uses more than 80% GPU usage. I'm still scratching my head to figure out what settings to change that might max it, aside from DLSS or RT. Bit odd.

Don't get me started on the bullet spread or 'bloom'. Its shocking. For any decent FPS player, the spread on most weapons means that hitting the same target twice is almost impossible, so kills become quite difficult in comparison to other games. There has been some improvement, but still shocking.

 

[Eximo]

Tom's review was pretty revealing, they used a 9900k. As well as others I have seen. If you have a decent GPU you will get 60FPS or more at pretty much any settings, and dips in performance are basically CPU related. High end GPUs do only slightly better. 10600k should be more than enough to get you up there.

I am also waiting a bit for some bug fixes, as much fun as BF glitches are, not really something I want to mess with for the moment. That comes later when the standard gameplay gets boring. Also the whole custom server thing, not heard good things.

 

[Zerk2012]

I think I'll get it since I'm down to just 2 games. Iracing and a very old game Ultima Online.

Edit 128 players sounds like a bunch.

 

[Eximo]

Original BF1942 and Vietnam supported 64 players, I think 128 with custom servers (I should know I used to moderate on a server for years, getting old I guess). When it went to console they dropped the player count for performance, took them a while to work their way back to it.

I would be curious to see the maps, that was the other console induced problem, maps couldn't be as large scale, but they also moved to the modern era with jets, so they became way too fast for the terrain.

Battlefield 1 suffered from not sticking to WW1 accuracy, everything in the player's hands was not standard issue, a prototype, or just too close a match for 'modern' weapons. Defeated the aesthetic.

 

[Kona45primo]

I’ve got a 3700x with a 6900xt. On medium it’s around 140-160. Maybe 110-140 on high. Still super choppy for the first minute or two.

Game wise I’m really disappointed. Was hoping for something that would be like BF3 or BF4 but better. Got something significantly worse…
It’s buggy, unstable, and has a fraction of the features it should have.

I was playing COD Cold War with friends and didn’t really enjoy the game except for zombies and the voip was cool for talking with friends That game had its fair share of bugs as well. But the character movement and control is so much better…and voip works…