The second and third part you posted determines, AFAIK, default settings and tweaks in a broad sense. That is 9700, and indeed card family, specific. If there is a default (I'm still too lazy to look without reason 
, this time because it shouldn't matter) that is what would be used without that updated file. I expect that in game settings can override some of them (too lazy to pop the game up and check the in game option, but I'm pretty sure complex or simple shadows can be specified there for example).
The first set is what I'm talking about. I'd assumed the updated file had some reference to 128MB graphics, but if they felt no need to add it, I guess it isn't too surprising...it probably just means the graphics card memory isn't a good indicator of when to apply certain settings beyond a certain point. This also illustrates clearly the problem with your graphics, and some of their assumptions in basing the features set there on card memory and bit depth, I think.
Just change your 64M32B section to have a shadow_tex_size of 256 and a detail of 5 (I haven't tested a detail of 5 yet myself on my 8500, but I'm pretty sure both of us with 128MB cards should be able to handle it), and it should be a better benchmark of the card. I did this very early as I found the shadows pretty ugly, and I sort of just put it out of my mind that the maximum it set was so poor even though I remembered that my defaults were unsatisfactory on my 32MB card. I point out again that the settings I mentioned (shadow_tex_size 256, detail 4) worked well enough on my AIW Radeon 32 MB at 1024x768x32 bit, so you can see how conservative their config assumptions are in terms of graphics horsepower.
, this time because it shouldn't matter) that is what would be used without that updated file. I expect that in game settings can override some of them (too lazy to pop the game up and check the in game option, but I'm pretty sure complex or simple shadows can be specified there for example).The first set is what I'm talking about. I'd assumed the updated file had some reference to 128MB graphics, but if they felt no need to add it, I guess it isn't too surprising...it probably just means the graphics card memory isn't a good indicator of when to apply certain settings beyond a certain point. This also illustrates clearly the problem with your graphics, and some of their assumptions in basing the features set there on card memory and bit depth, I think.
Just change your 64M32B section to have a shadow_tex_size of 256 and a detail of 5 (I haven't tested a detail of 5 yet myself on my 8500, but I'm pretty sure both of us with 128MB cards should be able to handle it), and it should be a better benchmark of the card. I did this very early as I found the shadows pretty ugly, and I sort of just put it out of my mind that the maximum it set was so poor even though I remembered that my defaults were unsatisfactory on my 32MB card. I point out again that the settings I mentioned (shadow_tex_size 256, detail 4) worked well enough on my AIW Radeon 32 MB at 1024x768x32 bit, so you can see how conservative their config assumptions are in terms of graphics horsepower.
