Came back to post another update on how impressed I am with this game. The graphics and gameplay are superior and well balanced. I noticed that there is a tremendous amount of [censored]ing coming from the gaming community involving technical problems with the graphics.

I would like to point out the number of times AMD or ATI shows up in those unhappy posts, and playfully urge you to remind me that this is why I purchase NVIDIA and INTEL hardware- because- surprise- you get what you pay for and Nvidia/Intel always seems to work (For me at least) where ATI/AMD fail.

And on that note, I wanted to leave the console (Or rather steam loading options) setting that pushed my frame rate up above melted butter on an oiled up glass tube. Just add this to your steam launch options:

+cvaradd g_fov 10 +set com_skipIntroVideo 1 +set vt_maxaniso 4 +set vt_pageimagesizeunique 8192 +set vt_pageimagesizevmtr 8192 +set vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 8192 +set vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 8192 +set image_anisotropy 4

Tested with NVidia driver on a Fermi GTX 460 with Win7 SP1

Not trying to be a total jerk but I would like to point out that this is the first game in which I have had so many problems getting it to run and I have run with an AMD processor and ATI Video card for quite some time. I have hundreds of games. But never had so many problems with one. You are making a unsubstantiated and generalized claim about superiority based on one case. The game works just as intended for me after I figured out which drivers got the game working. This game clearly wasn't prepared for its PC launch and ID/AMD's silence on the whole matter is quite deafening. I would like to point out that a number of nvidia and intel users have also had problems as well, thier patch came out much faster. Clearly Nvidia responded faster. This doesn't mean that thier products will be by extension always superior.

Ditto, I've had ATI cards for 6+ years now and this is the first game to ever have a problem with them.

How many open gl games have you played? How many of the games used open gl 3 or higher?

It means Nvidia driver support have been superior for the last 8 to 10 years. It means ATI is to incompetent to maintain their open gl drivers at the same level they maintain dx drivers.

D3D drivers are certainly easier to write because a large part of the code is provided by Microsoft in the runtime, whereas an OpenGL driver writer has to do absolutely everything themsleves. D3D also throws away backward compatibility every few years whereas OpenGL keeps it, and an OpenGL driver that's written today must still maintain support for all the weird stuff from 1991 that isn't even supported in hardware. There are obviously pros and cons to both approaches, but for the typical consumer D3D certainly comes out ahead as you get a more stable driver (it runs faster too).

None of this excuses AMD; they're members of the group that works on and defines the OpenGL specification so they should certainly be expected to get things right. It's also arguable that id should have sampled the market a bit better and made the decision to use D3D instead; a lot has changed since they last released a major title.

I have been using ATI cards for over a decade now. I have never had problems like this before. AAMOF I have had great luck with ATI. This is the first game I have ever had that just completely crashed on startup, and there were no fixes that worked. Almost all of the games I have played on my machine have had NO issues at all, and I have over 200 games on my steam list alone. The few games that had problems were because they were really old, or they were made by crappy devs.

Lets be honest ID screw up and ATI drivers haven't hit on the sweet spot with the opengl drivers yet