The AT Battlefield Bad Company 2 F.A.Q.

[JTsyo]

Go in to the controls for "on foot", and map all the joystick controls (third column) to the same button on your joystick. Start at the bottom. This will effectively wipe out all the joystick settings except the top one, which is for "fire".

I was looking at the EA forums and saw that joysticks weren't working back in March. Looks like DICE didn't release a patch yet. Did find a text fix though:

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Reversed Yaw and Throttle Fix
In order to fix the reversed yaw and throttle, go into the “air.dbx” file located under “bfbc2/input/air.dbx”, in this file you need to alter two lines:
1. To do that first open “air.dbx” in wordpad.
2. Search for “IDA_Axis1X” and make sure it is under the field for “ConceptMoveFB”.
3. Now change the following line “<field name=”ScaleValue”>1</field>” to “<field name=”ScaleValue”>-1</field>”.
4. Search for “IDA_Axis1Y” and make sure it is under the field for “ConceptYaw”.
5. Now change the following line “<field name=”ScaleValue”>1</field>” to
“<field name=”ScaleValue”>-1</field>”.

BFBC2 is in My Documents folder.

The throttle fix is step 2 and 3, the yaw fix is step 4 and 5.

 

[Zargon]

rofl wow

 

[GullyFoyle]

I was looking at the EA forums and saw that joysticks weren't working back in March. Looks like DICE didn't release a patch yet. Did find a text fix though:

If you have issues with reversed Axis, this will help you out. This has been an issue since the games launch (in March). I applied one of these fixes a long time ago.

What there is no work around for (AFAIK), is it that if using a joystick, the Helicopter and UAV have opposite axis, the same controls work oppositely depending on which you are flying. (me)
Plus, the throttle on many joysticks is simply not recognized. (me again. I mapped some extra buttons for up and down)

 

[GullyFoyle]

That's exactly the system I used to run before BC2. I agree with you that it is very well balanced, although not ideal for running with lots of details turned up. What settings are you currently using and are you happy with the performance?

I agree with bunny that the GPU upgrade is the easiest one, but it may not give you that much of a boost due to the CPU limitation: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,7.html. I'd say that unless you feel your enjoyment of the game is compromised, wait until you upgrade the whole system. If you want a small boost now with the potential to get a bit more out of the card later, try a GTX460/HD6850/HD5850, which are all in the same price class and offer at least double the power of the 8800gt when not limited by the CPU.

My Settings:

[WindowSettings]
Width=1680
Height=1050
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=120
VSync=false
[Sound]
Quality=low
VoipEnable=true
SpeakerCount=0
[Graphics]
Effects=medium
Soldiers=medium
Vehicles=medium
Overgrowth=medium
Undergrowth=medium
StaticObjects=medium
Terrain=medium
Shadows=medium
Bloom=false
HSAO=false
MSAA=1
Water=medium
MainQuality=custom
Texture=medium
DxVersion=auto
Aniso=4
Detail=medium
RenderAheadLimit=2
Fov=65

I think the game runs OK, except when there are lots of explosions and smoke near (a common complaint). I have a feeling it is mainly because I run the Audio in Headphone mode, that it runs acceptably. I always play with headphones on anyway.

I just wonder if the computer was faster, if I would play better

I'm sure I will never buy a whole new system at once, so I'll either pick up Memory/CPU/Motherboard as things go on sale, or get a videocard first.

 

[Termie]

My Settings:

[WindowSettings]
Width=1680
Height=1050
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=120
VSync=false
[Sound]
Quality=low
VoipEnable=true
SpeakerCount=0
[Graphics]
Effects=medium
Soldiers=medium
Vehicles=medium
Overgrowth=medium
Undergrowth=medium
StaticObjects=medium
Terrain=medium
Shadows=medium
Bloom=false
HSAO=false
MSAA=1
Water=medium
MainQuality=custom
Texture=medium
DxVersion=auto
Aniso=4
Detail=medium
RenderAheadLimit=2
Fov=65

I think the game runs OK, except when there are lots of explosions and smoke near (a common complaint). I have a feeling it is mainly because I run the Audio in Headphone mode, that it runs acceptably. I always play with headphones on anyway.

I just wonder if the computer was faster, if I would play better

I'm sure I will never buy a whole new system at once, so I'll either pick up Memory/CPU/Motherboard as things go on sale, or get a videocard first.

Have you considered running in DX9 mode? Before I upgraded from my 8800gt, I ran in DX9/high and found the FPS to be probably about 25&#37; higher than DX10 (i.e. auto). Considering that you're not taking advantage of effects like AA/HSAO, it might be worth a try, although you may already be approximating the DX9 benefit with your medium settings. From this article (http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,6.html), you can see that running staticobjects and shadows at low are the only settings that give you a boost from running all medium. That might also be worth a try.

Have you used FRAPS to test your average FPS? I can tell you that 35fps seems to be the limit of my e8400/GTX460 when playing all high, 1920x1080, regardless of use of AA or DX11 effects. I'll try running it at 1680/medium and 1680/high and let you know what I get.

And to answer your question, I do think that if you're below a certain threshold, a faster computer could help you play better. I feel it's around 45fps, others may disagree.

 

[minmaster]

i did my best playing in DX9 mode actually. its pretty smooth and easy to pick out enemies since they don't blend in as well due to poorer graphics.

 

[Zargon]

never tried that.......might have to

as long as it doesnt look to NES for me

 

[RavenSEAL]

Have you considered running in DX9 mode? Before I upgraded from my 8800gt, I ran in DX9/high and found the FPS to be probably about 25&#37; higher than DX10 (i.e. auto). Considering that you're not taking advantage of effects like AA/HSAO, it might be worth a try, although you may already be approximating the DX9 benefit with your medium settings. From this article (http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,6.html), you can see that running staticobjects and shadows at low are the only settings that give you a boost from running all medium. That might also be worth a try.

Have you used FRAPS to test your average FPS? I can tell you that 35fps seems to be the limit of my e8400/GTX460 when playing all high, 1920x1080, regardless of use of AA or DX11 effects. I'll try running it at 1680/medium and 1680/high and let you know what I get.

And to answer your question, I do think that if you're below a certain threshold, a faster computer could help you play better. I feel it's around 45fps, others may disagree.

35 is the max you can get? I'm pulling off 50s with my e8500 @3.6/HD6850 @ 920/1130. Averaging 34-37FPS on 1080p/ALL HIGH/4xMSAA after a 15 minute bench.

 

[Zargon]

maybe he meant the max avg FPS

getting as high as 50 but averaging 34 is what I would call not enough....


i was averaging upper 50s with my 4850x2, and now almost never see 40s......and I feel like I am playing better, winning more 1v1's ETC

i need to run a fraps benchie though because obviously i spend most my time playing and not watching the FPS indicator

 

[Termie]

Gully - got some benchmarks for you. This is with my e8400@3.3 and my GTX460@800/1000. This clarifies my above post about the 35fps average (which may have been a bit low, actually).

1680x1050/medium/1xAA/4xAF/HBAO off
Min Max Avg
31 53 42.017

1680x1050/high/4xAA/8xAF/HBAO on
Min Max Avg
32 56 42.75

1920x1080/high/4xAA/16xAF/HBAO on
Min Max Avg
34 55 42.767

I ran these two times, because I couldn't believe the results. I figured it was user error. Apparently it wasn't. This is all on the same level, same server, within a 5-minute span. You can see I'm completely CPU-limited. I'm pretty sure that the 8800gt is the limiting factor in your case, but going to a newer GPU will put the burden on your CPU.

Now, just because the above results are so hard to believe, here are some more examples on a different level/server.

1280x720/1xAA/4xAF/medium/HBAO off
Min Max Avg
31 55 43.733

1680x1050/1xAA/4xAF/medium/HBAO off
Min Max Avg
34 68 46.233 (yes, higher than at 1280)

1920x1200/8xAA/16xAF/high/HBAO on
Min Max Avg
26 57 37.183

Somewhere in between your settings and 1920/8xAA/high, there's a threshold where the bottleneck flips to the GPU. I'm guessing based on all the benchmarks that it takes 8xAA to hit that, at which point you're at the playability limit. Hopefully this gives you some indication of where you'd be with double the GPU power. If your fps is <40, I'd guess you have a GPU bottleneck. Otherwise I think it's your CPU.

 

[GullyFoyle]

What map(s) were you playing? I played some Vietnam Cao Son map, CQ, with about 8 guys and I got this:

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
136740 1980223 20 201 69.05

I know the Vietnam maps perform better than the regular maps.

Also, trying to run a 15 minute bench I have trouble not getting an end of round in the middle. I need to run a few more trials before trying to change any settings.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

[beginner99]

Anyone playing with eyefinity /multiple monitors?
Or anyone recently changed from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratio?

is there any advantage to it?

I'm at 16:10 and feel I often get hit/seen before I see them and hence get killed.

What about hacks, how common are they? Sometimes I really feel it's not possible what some of your opponents do.

 

[Termie]

What map(s) were you playing? I played some Vietnam Cao Son map, CQ, with about 8 guys and I got this:

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
136740 1980223 20 201 69.05

I know the Vietnam maps perform better than the regular maps.

Also, trying to run a 15 minute bench I have trouble not getting an end of round in the middle. I need to run a few more trials before trying to change any settings.

Thanks for your efforts.

My first benches were on Laguna Alta. The second were Atacama Desert. I was playing on 24-32 person servers, which would put more load on the CPU versus the 8 you were playing with. Also, my prior benches on Vietnam showed that I could get much higher frames compared to vanilla BC2.

As a reminder, here's a bench from Hill 137:
1920x1080/4xAA/16xAF/high
Min Max Avg
39 61 53.303

If you're running at 69fps, I doubt that getting faster frames will improve your k/d. So don't buy new equipment for that reason. If you want higher graphical quality, however, you can get that. My guess is that on your 8-person server, you may have been GPU-limited, but on a full server you'd be CPU-limited. To determine if you have GPU power to spare, use 4xAA or 8xAA to test your system. Testing by upping quality levels may not tell you what's going on, as those also affect the CPU.

You can adjust the FRAPS time limit to much lower than 15 minutes to avoid the end of level problem. I set mine at anywhere from 60 seconds to 4 minutes (240 seconds).

I can run some Vietnam benches at various settings tonight if you'd like, for instance your settings, 1680/high, 1680/high/4xAA, and 1920/high/4xAA.

 

[Zargon]

Anyone playing with eyefinity /multiple monitors?
Or anyone recently changed from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratio?

is there any advantage to it?

I'm at 16:10 and feel I often get hit/seen before I see them and hence get killed.

What about hacks, how common are they? Sometimes I really feel it's not possible what some of your opponents do.

you need to edit your FOV, at 19x12 I run ~105, its a little fish eyed but I like the extra seeable stuff on the edges

by default it runs an awful FOV

 

[Termie]

What about hacks, how common are they? Sometimes I really feel it's not possible what some of your opponents do.

I only start calling hack when someone has a 10:1 kill/death ratio and knocks me out of a chopper with one shot from a pistol (yes, that happened last week). Most of the "impossible" things you're seeing are probably not done by hacks. Remember that bullets can penetrate some objects and with 3d spotting on non-HC levels, opponents can know your position even if you're hidden behind objects.

 

[stag3]

sometimes this game is so retarded. it's amazing how you can get sniped with either a sniper rifle or a shotgun from 1/2 way across the map

but i keep coming back for more, 32 player servers are pure chaos

 

[Zargon]

I only start calling hack when someone has a 10:1 kill/death ratio and knocks me out of a chopper with one shot from a pistol (yes, that happened last week). Most of the "impossible" things you're seeing are probably not done by hacks. Remember that bullets can penetrate some objects and with 3d spotting on non-HC levels, opponents can know your position even if you're hidden behind objects.

yeah

after I got Mp443 headshoted from B - C on conquest on the new big tank battle map(not heavy metal) I started to get suspiscios

then I spawned at c again and it happened, again. immediately the map quickly changed to africa harbor and he was doing it from b-c there, with the pistol

we knew something was up. but the server admins were nonexistant so I quit.

 

[GullyFoyle]

My first benches were on Laguna Alta. The second were Atacama Desert. I was playing on 24-32 person servers, which would put more load on the CPU versus the 8 you were playing with. Also, my prior benches on Vietnam showed that I could get much higher frames compared to vanilla BC2.

As a reminder, here's a bench from Hill 137:
1920x1080/4xAA/16xAF/high
Min Max Avg
39 61 53.303

If you're running at 69fps, I doubt that getting faster frames will improve your k/d. So don't buy new equipment for that reason. If you want higher graphical quality, however, you can get that. My guess is that on your 8-person server, you may have been GPU-limited, but on a full server you'd be CPU-limited. To determine if you have GPU power to spare, use 4xAA or 8xAA to test your system. Testing by upping quality levels may not tell you what's going on, as those also affect the CPU.

You can adjust the FRAPS time limit to much lower than 15 minutes to avoid the end of level problem. I set mine at anywhere from 60 seconds to 4 minutes (240 seconds).

I can run some Vietnam benches at various settings tonight if you'd like, for instance your settings, 1680/high, 1680/high/4xAA, and 1920/high/4xAA.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm the one that needs to benchmark. I will try benchmarking on Heavy Metal, that one definately feels a little "off".

 

[gonzal13]

Good Games last night Gully.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Anyone playing with eyefinity /multiple monitors?
Or anyone recently changed from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratio?

is there any advantage to it?

I'm at 16:10 and feel I often get hit/seen before I see them and hence get killed.

What about hacks, how common are they? Sometimes I really feel it's not possible what some of your opponents do.

If you haven't changed your FOV you should look into doing it. BC2 uses a very narrow FOV by default. This helps for longer range engagements (because its almost like zooming in ever so slightly) but it means you'll have massive blind spots. I've had countless experiences where I've almost run directly at a sniper but because I wasn't directly in front of him he had no clue I was coming and then bam, knifed or drilled to death

The one thing you have to know is that BC2's FOV setting is based on the vertical FOV as opposed to most games being based on the horizontal. Its less intuitive, but it makes more sense in the long run because it means you won't have to change your FOV as much (if at all) whenever you change your resolution.

So, when we consider the traditional FOV for most games at 4:3 resolutions (such as 1600x1200) is 90, that means BC2's 55 default vertical FOV is closer to a horizontal FOV of 69 for 4:3 resolutions. And even a vertical FOV of 55 on a 16:9 resolution such as 1920x1080 is only 85.

http://www.rjdown.co.uk/projects/bfbc2/fovcalculator.php

So when we punch in a 4:3 resolution (whether it 800x600, 1024x768, or 1600X1200) and a 90 horizontal FOV, it equates to a vertical FOV of 74 that we would change in the settings file. The best part is that when we change resolutions, say to 16:10 or 16:9, the 74 vertical FOV will properly match up to a horiztonal FOV of 100 or 106 respectively which does indeed match up properly - the wider the screen, the wider the horizontal FOV without changing the vertical FOV.

Of course maybe you won't quite like the normalized setting, maybe you'll find you prefer a more zoomed in FOV to give you an advantage for longer range engagements such when using the shotguns with slugs, or maybe you don't mind fisheye effects and you'll prerfer a wider FOV to allow you to see more of your periphery in order to help prevent getting flanked.

you need to edit your FOV, at 19x12 I run ~105, its a little fish eyed but I like the extra seeable stuff on the edges

by default it runs an awful FOV

it might feel fisheyed because BC2's FOV settings run on the vertical instead of the horizontal

As I said before, the typical horizontal FOV in games since forever was 90 assuming a 4:3 resolution (such as 1024x768 or 1600x1200). To extend that FOV with a wider aspect ratio resolution such as 16:10 (such as 1680x1050) or 16:9 (such as 1920x1080) without causing distortions the equivalent horizontal FOV would be 100 and 106 respectively.

By running a vertical FOV of 105 @ 19x12 you're seeing a horizontal FOV of 128, which would naturally have a pretty significant fisheye effect

 

[Zargon]

yeah, but its not enough to make me sick, and lets me see more width

 

[GullyFoyle]

Good Games last night Gully.

Back at'cha, Lurker! Lovin' the Vietnam.

I'm dedicating all of Level 40 to Vietnam. (Flipped to level 40, and almost at level 41 in about two weeks)

 

[bunnyfubbles]

yeah, but its not enough to make me sick, and lets me see more width

perfectly fine, whatever floats your boat

For me I prefer the balanced approach, not too narrow like default, not too zoomed out and fisheye. But then I'm a pretty balanced player and play just about all the classes and roles. I could see some people wanting to go the opposite direction and even shrinking down their FOV to give them an advantage in long distance fights, particularly if they use surround monitors to extend their horizontal FOV they could get the best of both worlds.

the one thing I hate the most is how they "fixed" the game in one of the very first patches to where they'd put FOV back to default for when you're in vehicles. Apparently there were bugs for some people who used too extreme a FOV which apparently broke things in vehicles so now we're all stuck at 55 when in vehicles.

 

[stag3]

so for 1920x1200 it should be set to ~75 ?
i have mine set to 65 right now i believe from the default 55

 

[Termie]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm the one that needs to benchmark. I will try benchmarking on Heavy Metal, that one definately feels a little "off".

No problem. Just PM if you'd like me to do some more comparison benching for you. Just specify settings, map, and server size. I'm happy to set my e8400 at 3.6 so you'll know exactly what performance you can get with a GTX460 on your system.