Feral Interactive Games recommends at least a GeForce GTX 760 for playing this game on Linux. The game is certainly on the heavier side, but with NVIDIA, the frame-rates are MUCH better. Meanwhile, here's a run I did from the brand new GeForce GTX 950 on Linux () with the very same system:ġ080p Medium Quality - 12.62 / 26.28 / 39.60ġ080p Maximum Quality - 14.81 / 25.03 / 41.83 The game is completely unplayable with Catalyst on Linux, even with the high-end Radeon R9 290 Hawaii graphics card! 11 FPS average for the R9 290 at 1920 x 1080 with low image quality settings. All tests were done on the same Core i7 5960X system with Ubuntu 15.04 and Catalyst 15.7 at 1080p. While I will be running a more proper Company of Heroes 2 Linux benchmarking comparison in the next few days, below are some initial results using their built-in performance/stress test for this game.
#NE XS COMPANY OF HEROES 2 DRIVER#
Like with the Shadow of Mordor Linux port, even when launching the game from Steam on Linux with the AMD Catalyst driver loaded, there is immediately a warning: When trying out the game myself on an Ubuntu 15.04 box with the Catalyst 15.7 driver, this game was just the latest showing what bad shape the Catalyst Linux driver is in for OpenGL gaming. Yep, Intel graphics, but no AMD Catalyst graphics support.
#NE XS COMPANY OF HEROES 2 WINDOWS#
Leading up to the Linux launch of Company of Heroes 2, Feral Interactive Games that ported the title from Windows to OSX/Linux mentioned the game is only playable with Intel and NVIDIA graphics. A low-cost GeForce GTX 950 offers much better results. The performance means an unplayable game. Again: This unit is useless and fulfills the same roll on the battlefield as other units do.While Company of Heroes 2 was released for Windows two years ago, this game that's now available on Linux as of earlier today is a disaster if trying to use the AMD Catalyst Linux driver. And the 88-Flak was maybe more universal usefull, but the Pak43 was the best AT-gun the Wehrmacht had. No one needs a weapon to counter planes in this games, so this feature would be only decorative. And it fullfills EXACTLY the same role as the Pak43, a heavy AT-gun, mounted on a fortified position. if it gets flanked by infantry, then you supported it not enough. The Pak43 is perfectly fine, if you build it correctly and use its great range and firepower. The 88-Flak would be only a faster rotating PaK43, which can shoot down airplanes.
i agree with Nexus and Lord Rahl 1- the pak 88 gun is big, slow to rotate and easliy overruned by infatry which can man it and turn it against you.Ģ- the flak 88 was already in use by D-day and onward including the east, and not to forget it was a multi purpose gun it could directly at ground and air but if needed it could also fire indirectly as convetional Artillery.ĭoomhmmer and drumroll your wrong neither are similar and the Pak doesnt fill what the flak does. Originally posted by Nexus:Not only that, they saw some serious service during the war, Better than that gigantic gun defensive doctrines can build which is practically useless and easily flanked.
0 kommentar(er)
