0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Do any of the beta testers have low end comps, because i have a Geforce 2, pentium 3 and 256 MB of SD ram (*shudder*), and i'm wondering whether or not FH will run at a decent speed with low end PC's like mine

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

256 of RAM? are you kidding? Can you even run BF42 with 256 RAM? I'm not being sarcastic, I really didn't think you could...

I have 1 gig of PC3500 ram and BF42 uses around 500 -750 Mb of ram when I play the game... It runs a lot better than when I had just 512 Mb. I don't see how you can even run it with 256... The operating system takes that much by itself...

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Well why would 0.6 take more performence(sp?) than 0.5e? Look at DC, around 0.1-0.25 it lagged like hell but now it aint that bad (well havn't played DC 0.6 but anyway ;))

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

i remember the good old days when games took up only 64 mb of ram

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

DC isn't laggy at all, except for the huge cities sometimes.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Yeah...., well I remember the "good ole days" when a 64mb HARD DRIVE was huge! looool.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I have the same specifications than you and I can't enjoy FH 0.5, Bf42 and I will not enjoy 0.6
I can only play Pacific and desert games in FH or Bf42, and I mean play, not enjoy.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

i remember the days when my comp had 64KB ram

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

well, its not all bad, i should be getting a new AMD comp in june so i'l just have to tough it out till then

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.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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?

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

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.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

(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)

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

i know vid cards have been discussed until the subject smells like onions, but i need some advice. i would like a 9600 pro but i understand it needs the pro power slot on the mobo. i have an nf7-s, and it doesn't have the power slot. can i just up the voltage to compensate, or will it not run period? if i cant get the pro, what is an equivalent card for the same price--9600xt, 5700 ultra, etc etc?

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Just a question, I've heard people rave about having a sound card and BF...I'm running normal on board audio and sometimes when the shit is hitting the fan, my FPS goes down a tad. I've got a delicious setup, just wondering if a card + BF is a good idea?

And card I mean a Audigy 2LZ or whatever its called...worth the money or just crazy talk?

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

BAHAHAHA! Way to go Blistex.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

your not gonna need an uber card for .6 look at this, the map looks sweet but ur obviously not gonna need an 1337 card for it
http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com...ch_1_Large.jpg

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

A decent soundcard is well worth it with this and many other games. any Audigy 2 should do you well. the spatial awareness it provides on headphones is quite decent too.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I don't know, seems that some of you wasted your money. Then again if you have it to begin with I guess your'e free to spend it on whatever you deem fit.:uhm: I'm running BF with a Radeon 9000 Pro,:naughty: which i bought a little over 2 years ago, on a computer I put together for a little over 600 bucks, without hard dirve, and monitor. Using the HIGHEST settings possible, and I've never had any lag, or problems.

System specs:

2.0 Athlon XP 2400+
1024 MB PC3200 Ram*
64 MB Radeon 9000 Pro

*Runnning ram as PC 2700 cuz my mobo.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

it's true, the absolute high-end cards are never worth the money you spend, unless bragging rights are important, and if so then you're a complete idiot.
it's always amusing that people throw away 50-100$ or even more for a pathetic 5% increase in performance....a difference you will NEVER notice in practice. haven't seen the XT in action, but I have seen PRO and non-PRO...absolutely no practical difference, and the performance-delta is considerably LESS between the PRO and the XT than it is between PRO and non-PRO.
and that extra 128 mb hardly help shit. in fact you sometimes end up with a DECREASE in performance, although that again is so tiny that you won't notice it.
but geeks will always make sure they have the most badass system on the block. consider it some sort of *bip*-extender.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Well, I live in Finland and all i get for 30€ (=35$) is some Radeon 7000 32MB, and the difference to a Rage 128 Pro is not worth that much money, since the 7000 already is almost as obsolete as my card.
And even if could get an GF4 for 30$ I wouldn't by it, I happen to prefer ATI.
But I am actually considering upgrading to a Radeon 9200SE, but I don't think I will, cause I will have my conscription service after six months and after it the cards will be cheaper and better.
And RAM is important, it makes maps load faster, and improves performance.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Well as i see it i have noticed an increase in fps for me from 30-50 to 90-110 (yes, my screen only supports 75 but..) when i upgraded from a GF4 ti4600 to this 9800xt, and i feel it worth it, now i very seldom feel lag and then i surely can say its the server and it runs smoothly for me when others screams "lag".

Witchhunter..: I now can use this card for atleast three years until i have to upgrade again (and, hehe, i dont need a graphicscard to compensate, heh i even drive a Hyundai Accent...)

Blistex: Nice pic! May i use it on other places? ;)

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I'm not upset at all. I'm just trying to save people some money. I don't have an awful lot of it myself, and I bet a lot of other folks don't either.

You've got to admit though, 500$ for a video card is a rippoff. You can buy a PC for that much. I'll probably upgrade to a XT once the price comes down, they aren't bad cards at all. Just too expensive.

FYI, I'll post some 'fps 1' screenshots of Orel in a day or two. I get 99fps at full settings.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I do buy cards for longevity, although my plan is a new one every two years. more precisely, I usually skip a generation.
but you missed the point, while going from GF4 to R350 is a good move, choosing an XT over its cheaper cousins at this point is not. you get a PRO for considerably less and a non-PRO for practically nothing. and those cards simply will not be obsolete before XT. they have the exact same technology, they're only clocked slower. The difference in power between an XT and the PRO is insignificant, and it will never be something you'll notice even in the future. Three years down the road you'll sit there with your XT and get like 50 fps in "Quake 5", while the guy with the PRO will get 46-47. a wise investement? I think not.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Seriously. Some people have the wrong idea about computers, and some video card companies have excellent advertisements to give them that wrong idea.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Radeon 9800 XT has a 16fps edge over the 9700 Pro and 7fps over the 9800 Pro in Unreal Tournament 2K3.

Radeon 9800 XT has a 13fps edge over the 9700 Pro and 3fps lead over the 9800 Pro in Battlefield 1942

Radeon 9800 XT : $433.oo
Radeon 9800 Pro : $332.oo
Radeon 9700 Pro : $208.oo

So opting for a 9800 XT over a 9800 Pro means that you'll be spending $100.00 for ~5fps difference.

Opting for a 9800 XT instead of a 9700 Pro means that you're spending $220.00 for a ~14.5fps difference.

Sure newer game engines will increase the spread a little bit, but the price differences seem to be a blatant waste of money.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Well my view on the matter is the same as it was on the day of defeat forums.


Get a job you cheapasses, upgrade your commodore 64s and stop making the mod comunity downgrade the high quality models and skins they could be using because they have to make them available to low end users.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

You're sorta missing the point. . . people are complaining because many of the maps and models are overkill, and people would rather be able to play the game instead of complaining that the T-34's lug nuts are only 30 polys or that they can't make out the serial numbers on the feeding assembly of the Garand.

BF1942's engine is a bit of a patchwork affair. In order to get 64 people online in the same map they've had to make some sacrifices graphic and object wise so that 80% of the target demographic isn't stiffed due to system constraints. Also a lot of the servers are struggeling as it is to play some maps (Orel for one). When a server has to take into account the actions of 64 people, plus all the objects they are interacting with, it can sometimes cause people with ever "1337" systems to experience slowdowns.

Also some of us would love to drop $300 on a new video card or what have you, but we're too busy using the money from our part-time jobs to pay for university, rent, food, and utilities.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

Exactly. I am spending my saved $2000 to get my GF to come visit me from another country. There are far more important things to spend money on, then upgrading a comp every half a year. I will upgrade (rather by a new one) my comp eventually when a new game comes out that demands it. But i will not upgrade a comp for a mod that runs on the same engine but requires 10 times the resources.

It requires too many resources because it's unoptimized (i said it a million times, and i will say this again (since noone ever replied) - remove the invisible bullet casings from the tank's coax! they are not seen, but only lag the game), because the map makers decide not follow Dice's example of making maps, with limited objects on it, but they decide they are smarter and will cluster the maps to the limit, forget about other people's computers, and because we are adding 2000 poly ammo boxes.

Do you think Dice was lazy when they didn't put more bush into the maps? No, it was a strategic move to reduce the system requirements. Why? So that more people could play it. It does not look like FH devs want people to play thier mods, considering the system requirements and the lack of any public relations with the community.

And don't tell me "if you want something too look nice and real, you need lots of polys". Look at EoD's grass. They have heaps of it, and it does not lag. Look at DC's city maps. They have huge huge cities with enourmous amount of objects, and still it lags less then FH maps (and i am not even talking about Orel, i am talking about other "emptier" maps).

Most of this is due to unoptimization. I understand that this is basically a first-release (plus a patch), but when we got people on the forums asking more and more useless polys, then we got a problem

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

$2000?

Shes only going to leave you anyway.

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

i have a 600 mhz, 128 mb sd ram, gfx2 mx 200

(640x480x16 - 20% texture quallaty, 78% view, all settings off/at minimum)
max FPS in BF: about 20-30 - SP even 35 sometimes
max FPS in FH: about 1-15 - SP even ~20-25 sometimes

but in the last build i had about 10 FPS alltime ... looks like in the new one (where i mainly have just 1 fps, on the same maps than before) there is a network bug or something ... we have to check that

Re: 0.6 compatibility with low-end comps
 

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Does anyone care if there is a chair in the third storey of a building? You can't sit in it, and it makes lousey cover! Why even bother having it?

Also, do trees really need to sway? Does that Tank really need the hubs of the roadwheels to be perfectly round? Does that ammo box really need to to have more than 15 polys? Why are there 3D cleaning rods on the side of the King Tiger? Have any of you see more than 2 pictures of a King tiger at the front with all it's tools still attached? Or even it's fenders and mud guards?

When was the last time you gave a flying f*ck what an ammo box looked like?

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'd rather have 10 populated servers running FH as opposed to 3 just because some people like their shell casings to be rendered with 3d firing pin marks.