Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter Demo

Death_Masta187 · Post by **Death_Masta187** » 26 Apr 2006, 19:48

Well the demo is out and unforchanetly the Max Rez is 1440X900. This really is not going to cut it. So you can change it to a custom Rez but going to:
X:Program FilesUbisoftDemoGhost Recon Advanced Warfighter DemoDatasettings

Right clicking on the "renderer_settings.xml" file and going down to "Open with"

Open this file with notepad.

It should look similar to this.

adapter = "RADEON X850 Series"
driver = "ati2dvag.dll"
resolution = "1920 1200"
windowed = "false"
refresh_rate = "60"
/>

Now to change to a more suitable Rez change the "Resolution" field to what ever rez you want (note: above is what I changed mine to)

The reason I made this a partial Solution is because there is a way to change the Aspect but I am unsure the correct values to give for 16:10 monitor So what is set above is for a 16:9 and I was able to set that in the options menu with in game. So if any one figures out the correct aspect value please let us know.

Hope this helps every one.

-DM187-

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 26 Apr 2006, 22:40

Hey buddy ...
I moved your topic as although it has a thorough explanation/how-to I think it may be different for others ... :wink:
If I can do the below without any config hack I'm sure others will be able to get higher widescreen resolutions than you have gotten.
Have you tried the Auto Aspect Ratio in the Advanced settings ... ?

Anyway ... lets wait until we have some widescreen screenshots and the experience of others ... 8)

All TripleHead resolutions seem to be available in the demo ... and the FOV seems correct with the Auto Aspect Ratio turned on ... :D

I haven't tried it on a widescreen yet but as I say if it can do this ... without any config hack ... then I'm pretty sure it will work ... :wink:

4:3 ..................

TripleHead

It's awesome ... :shock: ... but no AA ... :(

Menu showing display setup ...

Post by **The_cranky_hermit** » 27 Apr 2006, 03:23

A couple of my observations, based on this thread and the demo:

The highest resolution available to me out of the box is 1440x900, same as DM187's.

Paddy's screenshot shows 3072x768 resolution. Note that the vertical resolution is not larger than 900. This leads me to believe that the maximum VERTICAL resolution is 900, and the maximum horizontal resolution is much higher. This would explain why 3072x768 works out of the box and 1920x1200 does not.

The "Auto Aspect Ratio" option works like it should. With it on, 16:10 is wider than 4:3, and 16:9 is wider than 16:10.

When I tried editting the xml file, the "aspect_ratio" variable was set to "0." I assumed that meant "Auto Aspect Ratio," and left it at "0." When I ran the demo, the aspect ratio was correct.

In conclusion, the solution works, but I would change it by noting that it is not necessary for resolutions that are 1440x900 or under, note that triple-headers are an entirely separate beast, and also note that "aspect_ratio" should be "0."

And now a couple of observations that are not directly related to widescreen:

The game failed to launch half of the time. Every other time I double-clicked the shortcut, it would go to a black screen, and then crash to the desktop with an error message.

This game is SLOW! My system is about midway between the "minimum" and "recommended" requirements, and it got 12 FPS during the INTRO LOGOS (the video files play at 30 FPS when played outside the game, so this is definitely too slow). The loading time for the first level was longer than it took to install the demo. The actual game? 5-7 FPS with everything set to the minimum.

This is the only game I've ever seen that forced me to install drivers for a piece of hardware I don't have.

The config menu runs at an acceptable speed, but the mouse cursor has this really irritating inertia property that makes it "glide" for a few pixels when you stop moving the mouse. It might be a cool gimmick if you have to use a gamepad to control a cursor, but it just made me keep clicking on the wrong thing.

The HUD looks really ugly in the triple-head screens. So does the "Ghost Recon" logo.

There is no reason for a demo of a game to have a 530MB+ download size.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Apr 2006, 07:14

Hi Cranky ...
I don't know what is going on but I am getting a wholly different experience to you guys ...

Paddy's screenshot shows 3072x768 resolution. Note that the vertical resolution is not larger than 900. This leads me to believe that the maximum VERTICAL resolution is 900, and the maximum horizontal resolution is much higher. This would explain why 3072x768 works out of the box and 1920x1200 does not.

I can run TripleHead at 3840x1024 ... I just couldn't take screenshots that big ... :wink:
I just hooked up my Dell 24" Widescreen ... I was able to select 1920x1200 from the in game menu ... without any config hack.

The game failed to launch half of the time. Every other time I double-clicked the shortcut, it would go to a black screen, and then crash to the desktop with an error message.

This doesn't happen to me ... :?

This game is SLOW! My system is about midway between the "minimum" and "recommended" requirements, and it got 12 FPS during the INTRO LOGOS (the video files play at 30 FPS when played outside the game, so this is definitely too slow). The loading time for the first level was longer than it took to install the demo. The actual game? 5-7 FPS with everything set to the minimum.

I know my system is pretty good but had very slow frame rates until I changed the Nvidia Settings to "Alternate frame rendering" not "Alternate frame rendering 2" ...
I now get 70-80 fps everything at MAX and 1920x1200 ... 8)

This is the only game I've ever seen that forced me to install drivers for a piece of hardware I don't have.

Me too ... but I have a PhisX card on the way so I'm not too bothered ... :D

... but the mouse cursor has this really irritating inertia property that makes it "glide" for a few pixels when you stop moving the mouse. It might be a cool gimmick if you have to use a gamepad to control a cursor, but it just made me keep clicking on the wrong thing.

... I can't say I had any problem with the cursor ... :?

The HUD looks really ugly in the triple-head screens. So does the "Ghost Recon" logo.

I understand what you are saying ... but TripleHead is something that needs to be experienced ... screenshots don't do the sidescreens justice.
The game is awesome in Triplehead and all the HUD is on the outer screens nothing spoils the view on the centre screen ... :wink:
The HUD being stretched doesn't bother me I would much rather have a stretched HUD on the sidescreens and a TripleHead game than a non-stretched HUD and Widescreen ... :D

Just a thought as I have no issues with any of the widescreen variables and would say it is 100% widescreen compatable ...
May be it is an ATI thing ... what card/s do you have Cranky ?
I see Death_Masta187 has an ATI.

Click to enlarge to full size ...

iamhurtin · Post by **iamhurtin** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:55

I know my system is pretty good but had very slow frame rates until I changed the Nvidia Settings to "Alternate frame rendering" not "Alternate frame rendering 2" ...
I now get 70-80 fps everything at MAX and 1920x1200 ... Cool

What setting are you talking about here and where did u enable it?. i thought you were talking about max frames ahead, which i have set to 1 but im not sure. thank you

sandys · Post by **sandys** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:42

Its and SLI setting, if you don't have SLI you can't do it.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:47

Thanks sandys ... I was just going to say that ...:lol:

neoWidescreen · Post by **neoWidescreen** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:03

.........i just been playing the GRAW demo....... it has been worth the wait for a GR sequel. now i *need* to upgrade.... :cry:

I'm running a 6800GT, and the maximum video setting available to me was 1280x1024. No widescreen resolutions were available which is weird.

I also hacked the renderer_settings.xml file and inserted 1680x1050 to see how it looks. Laggy that's for sure. :P I also hacked the texture settings from "medium" to "high" for everything else.

This game appears to detect your card and dynamically narrows down your graphical options based on what it can handle.. So Paddy's SLI 7900's can handle anything.... whereas our tiny little obsolete cards don't have high-res options available ingame.

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:06

That sucks bigtime. No control. What are they thinking. :evil:

neoWidescreen · Post by **neoWidescreen** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:20

yes, it does suck. but i can understand their thinking.

you get little johnny n00b who just bought GRAW, takes it home, and turns everything up to max on his brand new nvidia 6200 64MB with turbocache.... "stupid game runs like crap" and so he sulks back to his XBOX to play with all his other n00b frends. :roll: :lol:

The good news is the XML files are easy to read & edit (no regedit or hex-editing), and their settings stick when you open up the video options menu -- unlike FEAR's.

i dunno where i'm going to find the money to upgrade.... but i suddenly need a 7900GTX, X2 4400, and more RAM than all Paddy's video cards combined. :P

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:29

... and more RAM than all Paddy's video cards combined. :P

:mrgreen:

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:32

and more RAM than all Paddy's video cards combined

That is something that is not possible at this time.
Maybe in 5 years it can be done. :lol:

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:32

:lol: :lol: :lol:

CodE-E · Post by **CodE-E** » 27 Apr 2006, 17:26

Paddy, your secondary system is better than mine! >_< Do you play two games at once or something? Why do you need two such uber gaming systems?

Btw, from what I've read, the PC version of GRAW sucks bigtime in every regard, not just framerate-wise. So don't even bother with it...

Post by **BongoTrumman** » 27 Apr 2006, 17:36

CodE-E, because he can?
Paddy is loaded with money :D

zig · Post by **zig** » 27 Apr 2006, 17:43

I think the demo is pretty fun and runs as well as I would expect for what the game looks like. I've seen people on other forums really hating on the PC version and I can't figure out why. The only issue I've had is crashing to desktop for no apparent reason.

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 27 Apr 2006, 18:03

It runs absolutelly awesome on my system with everything at highest settings.
I haven't frapsed it yet but i think i get about 50fps all the way.

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 27 Apr 2006, 18:12

I was right. :D
I manually upped the AA to 2x in CCC and ran fraps after that.
I get an average framerate of about 45 to 50. 8)

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Apr 2006, 18:46

Paddy, your secondary system is better than mine! >_< Do you play two games at once or something? Why do you need two such uber gaming systems?

Btw, from what I've read, the PC version of GRAW sucks bigtime in every regard, not just framerate-wise. So don't even bother with it...

I have three systems ...
I just can't fit the third in the specs ... :lol: ... and it's too complicated to explain again ...
I did explain in the Insiders area ... :wink: ... and the two in my specs are both being upgraded as we speak ... Quad and PhysX cards next week ... :D

GRAW far from "sucks bigtime" ...
It's a great game ... involved ... engaging ... "real" and it doesn't look bad either ... apart from no AA (for me ... it seem ctrlsteef has it ... :roll: :lol: )
And ... it's frame rates are fine ... did you not read my earlier post ... :wink: :P

BTW ... ctrlsteef ... I'm really glad someone with an ATI has it working good ... What did you have to do to get it good ? ... Did you have to use the hack to enable the widescreen res ?

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 27 Apr 2006, 18:57

Nope Paddy, everything was in the options menu from the start.
About the AA, i have it enabled via the Catalyst Control Center, not i the game itself.
I do think however that it doesn't work like it should because i still see a lot of jaggies, even with 4x aa.
Also i would expect a performance drop with that high aa, but it still runs at 50fps.

Widescreen Gaming Forum