Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

My first PC was an AMD 40mhz IBM clone with a 1mb trident card and 80MB Hard Disk. Creative SB 16, 4x CD-Rom.

I remember when Ram used to be $500.00 a MB.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

now you can get it in cereal boxes

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I have a
1 GHZ P3
256 MB PC100 SDRAM
GeForce 4 MX-440-SE

I usually run FH on medium settings at 30 fps which is amazing that I actually get that, but DC drops Fps faster than the economy during the Bush years.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

man...i almost feel bad for some of you guys....i thought my setup was borderline at most compared to others.

2.5 GHz Pentium 4
512 mb RDRAM
Geforce FX 5700 128 mb
SoundBlaster Audigy

but its a Gateway....errr.....

My normal settings are 1280x960 (or whatever it is), maxed out graphics in-game, 4x AA, 8x AF.
I guess I'm a bit more privaleged than I thought.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Well i have a 3.0 ghz with 1024 mb ram, radeon 9800xt, sb audigy 2 zs and i can tell you its running smootly ;)

Anyway, i dont want to sound snotty or something but if you like BF so much so you actually register on a homepage for a mod-version of BF i think you should invest a little cash in your system.

( i have for curiosity tested play vanilla BF in single player with no sound and lowest possible settings with my 366mhz 128mb ram and an antique Rage graphic card and it ... lagged but i could play..)

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

My first PC was a 386 Compaq with 2 megs of Ram and a 40 meg hard disk. I learned BASIC on it. The display only used 16 colors. That's all I remember.

Also: You CAN run the game with 256 ram and a crappy vid card, but you need to turn everything down to 0% in the graphics screen and tweak some external settings. And don't try to be a pilot.

I was running BF on a 550mhz w/ 128 ram and a PCI 32meg card (TNT2?). in 640x480x16. I got 20 fps in moderate action. Make sure the sounds are down low as well.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

That's what I have, except I have a 9700 Pro 128. Those XT cards are RIDICULOUSLY overpriced and I can't justify 499$ on a video card that will be obsolete in a year, and no one else should either (unless you got it cheaper).

I could buy a notebook for that much, or quadruple my ram, or set up a 10800speed Raid array.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

i have pent4 2.4 gig 512 mem ge force 4 ti 4200

oh yea dont forget hyper threading on the at prosessor hehe!

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I was talking about this in every thread i could. I got P4 1.9, 512 RAM, GeForce3Ti500. BF runs good. DC (current versions, not the early ones) runs good. But FH runs very very bad.

There are so many unoptimized things in FH right now (like invisible bullet casings from tank's coax gun), which nobody talks about; but everyone talks about adding extra polygons on player models, making ships laggier then they are now, and putting in ammo crates with poly count of 2000 (of whatever it was), instead of the original 5 polys.

And yeah, i think none of the devs have lower end machines

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Yes ofcourse! But if you want a 5-10% slower graphiccard you can get a 9800 pro 128mb for maybe 300$ but if you want the best there is you have to pay topdollar for it. And i can tell you that FH have so many beautiful vehicles (many polygons) so me with my horrendously overpriced card have NO "jumpiness" or "lagging" when theres many tanks and explosions who fill my screen, and i can see all smoke , dirt etc. You get what you pay for.

I have played BF on a GF2 and .. it was a plain and ugly experience.