0.6 compatibility with low-end comps

[BAM]

i used to run BF 1942 on 2ghz 256 mb ram 64 Gefore 4 MX <-- rofl and i could run it on good settings...

[Blistex²]

Originally Posted by [SYN] hydraSlav

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

Exactly! I hate it when people add an insane amount of detail to the top of the tanks when you can't even see them! Does it really matter if this 1cm depression in the tank is part of the skin instead of modeled in 3d?

My system runs everything fluid, but in that system hoggin orel map it almost comes to a hault! Do we really need chairs in every building? Has anyone besides me noticed that oxy-acety tank? Sure fences and piles of rubble add to the combat aspect, but do we really need all the furniture in every house? When was the last time you had more than 2 firefights in a building smaller than a hanger?

I know about 20 people here in Lakehead that would have played it, but they're spending money on rent, food, school, and beer, so they can't afford to play the finished product with it's sometimes, over-attention to detail where it's essentially superfleous.

[Ohioan]

Originally Posted by Akatosh

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.

I swear on my mother's eventual grave that my 9700 Pro dosen't lag at all. No jumpiness (which is more attributed to RAM and disk speed than your GPU) and my brother's 9500 dosen't jump at all either. I get a solid 99 FPS, he gets around 70, and we both have settings maxed. Unless the colision mesh's are fux0red then there's no reason the models can't be high res and fast.

[Echelon]

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.

argh.. this is sooo true for me i'm a decent pilot when running my own local server (ca nfly helos under bridges and divebomb quite good...) but this lag... is killing me online i'm thinking about geting 512 additional RAM (only upgrade i can afford )

specs:
1200mhz AMD athalon soemthing something
64MB geforce 4 something something
256 MB RAM...
Creative Soundblaster Audigy LS

[Leo-The-L337-Llama]

Originally Posted by [CNI]Ohioan

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.

Hey...I got my Radeon 9800XT 256MB off Ebay for 375, plus it comes with a coupon for a free copy of Half Life 2....its worth it , trust me.

[Huffardo]

Originally Posted by Mast3rofPuppets

There was a dude that said he played BF on a 16 meg card lol, and kämpfer i was talking about the early versions.

Talking about me? Not necessarily, but I haven't heard of anybody else with a graphics card as crappy as it playing FH... Well, my brother of course, since we play one with the 16MB card computer and the other with Radeon 7500LE, but change computers playing with so both learn the maps, since the Rage 128 Pro 16MB doesn't show the minimap and map properly, they are low detail and black and white...
And the rest of the graphics are really ugly, but with win2000 it has become even worse, since we now have to play with 640x480x16 instead of 800x600x32 with win98, and even worse the ground more than approximately ten meters away now is brown...
FPS on both computers is around 15.

Specs: 512MB SDRAM, Ati Rage 128 Pro 16MB, Athlon Thunderbird 1050MHz, AC-97 codec
and 768MB SDRAM, Radeon 7500LE 64MB, Duron 1300MHz, AC-97 codec.

EDIT: And still I am quite good even at populated FH servers, if they have a decent ping, but sometimes it is annoying getting shot just because the system is so low-end. And I haven't noticed Orel being laggy, is it something that only occurs on almost full servers?

[Mast3rofPuppets]

Why do you have 512 RAM and only a 16 meg card? You can get a GF4 64 meg for like 30 dollars or something (well it sucks but it's alot better then a 16 meg card hehe)
I think i will go for a radeon 9600 pro when i get some money.

[D_Day_Dawson]

I play FH on my calculator which has 0.1 bits of RAM and no display. I get 100+ fps with 64xAA, etc, yadadada....

[Ohioan]

Originally Posted by Leo-The-L337-Llama

Hey...I got my Radeon 9800XT 256MB off Ebay for 375, plus it comes with a coupon for a free copy of Half Life 2....its worth it , trust me.

I wouldn't pay 375$. I wouldn't pay 250$. The fact is, it WILL be obsolete in a year. The 256 cards don't even do that much more than the 128 cards, because most engines won't allocate the full 256 emgs of memory. Even HL2 will probably only support 128. The XTs are ridiculously overpriced and offer only insubstantial preformance boosts over the other high-end Radeons. And don't get me started on the Nvidia FX shit cards. I can overclock my GF2 and get the same preformance as a 5200. The 5900 is fast, but it renders poor quality images, costs too much, it's also noisy as fuck and takes an additional PCI slot when attached in the AGP for the HUGE fan.

Radeon 9700 pro 128 (ATI): 199$
Halflife 2: 50$
-------- ------
Total 250$

Radeon 9800XT 256 375$
Halflife 2: 0$
-------- -------
Total 375$

You'll get 99 FPS, I'll get 89. Human eye can only differentiate up to 62 FPS, and most monitors don't support more than 85, which leads to image bleeding.
(renderer.lockfps 85 - great command).

My point is, if you want to blow 500$ on a glorified piece of hardware that isn't going to do that much for you, go ahead. If you need to save your money but still want awesome preformance, get a 9700 pro or a 9800 pro. The XT is a rippoff.

[Akatosh]

(CNI)Ohioan:

Nope, you also buy the symbol, why get an american car? You can get a korean one for half the price, never rust , drinks 1/4 gasoline as the american one, but you can only drive 100mph.

Yes, 100 mph is sufficient on all roads in the world except a select few racingtracks, so why get a car who goes in 150 mph? You want to have the capacity.

I am happy that i have a faster graphicscard than you have Do you know why? Normally i wouldnt have cared but since you are so upset that people actually buy the 9800XT then i am happy

(for your information, i buy the BEST graphiccard there is every third year, it takes three years for it to be obsolete, i am now looking at my old overclocked heatsinkcooled GF ti4600 i have on my bookshelf, it lagged a tiny bit on Orel so thats why i bought this 9800xt)