Im at around 50 fps in open areas. 25-35 fps in bases and large battles. My in game settings are on HIGH. I've noticed no difference in fps when I go down to MEDUIM or LOW settings which I find rather strange.. Before I tried the widely known Rendering Distance tweak it was nearly unplayable with my frames dropping to as low as 20 fps in battles. If you're not aware, by changes the rendering distance in the UserOptions file to (RenderDistance=1000) it limits your draw distance and increases the Frame Rates. I have also tried lowering to 700 and it was slightly better.

Look, I completely understand that making an First Person Shooter of this massive scale has to be a huge challange. But Frame Rates HAVE,,, HAVE to be there! I can sacrifice a slight lack of eye candy and bling for a smooth and playable game and I believe most avid gamers would agree.

My Specs:

:AMD 1090T (6 core cpu)

:8Gb PC1600 DDR3 RAM

:ATI HD 6970 GPU

I spent my $39.99 now lets get this fixed Sony!!

 Im at around 50 fps in open areas. 25-35 fps in bases and large battles. My in game settings are on HIGH. I've noticed no difference in fps when I go down to MEDUIM or LOW settings which I find rather strange.. Before I tried the widely known Rendering Distance tweak it was nearly unplayable with my frames dropping to as low as 20 fps in battles. If you're not aware, by changes the rendering distance in the UserOptions file to (RenderDistance=1000) it limits your draw distance and increases the Frame Rates. I have also tried lowering to 700 and it was slightly better.

Look, I completely understand that making an First Person Shooter of this massive scale has to be a huge challange. But Frame Rates HAVE,,, HAVE to be there! I can sacrifice a slight lack of eye candy and bling for a smooth and playable game and I believe most avid gamers would agree.

My Specs:

:AMD 1090T (6 core cpu)

:8Gb PC1600 DDR3 RAM

:ATI HD 6970 GPU

I spent my $39.99 now lets get this fixed Sony!!