Battlefield 2 needs a DX9 card\1GB RAM\etc to run properly, but thats still third.
crysis and ut3 tanking?
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
Battlefield 2 needs a DX9 card\1GB RAM\etc to run properly, but thats still third.
kk I see the post now
I'm guessing it may depend on time of day quite a lot. Bit early for a lot of people. Currently at 35th / 380 players
edit: 34/ 400 now
still quite bad of course
It is worldwide stats and the time of day factor is the same for all the games on the list.
Last edited:
Does it need a DX9 card to run at all though? UT3 does. 1 gig isn't a lot these days and it is cheap and easy to put any system up to 1 gig.
They'd let you run it on a Radeon 8500, but not on a Geforce 3\4 Ti, despite the latter being quicker
. Also, BF2 was released in 2005. UT3 is over 2 years later, and the requirements haven't increased a great deal (1GB\2.4Ghz P4 or equivalent\Radeon 9600 or Geforce 6200.They'd let you run it on a Radeon 8500, but not on a Geforce 3\4 Ti, despite the latter being quicker
Eh? Radeon 8500 is not DX9.
Trust me, UT3's quoted system requirements are a joke. It will run like utter crud on such a machine. As I said, I ran it on a 7600GS which wipes the floor with Radeon 9600 or Geforce 6200, and it was abysmal. Really appalling.
I was talking about Battlefield 2...The 8500\9000\9200 are supported, but not the Geforce DX8 line of cards.
Well, I'll try it if I get a chance. I'll see if it works on this 9700...
Here is UT3 (demo) on a 7600GS...
http://i6.tinypic.com/6t1ceh0.jpg (1280x1024 screenshot)
That is how it needs to look to get a semi-playable framerate on that card - which still goes as low as 20s/30s. Can you imagine it on a 6200?
Btw that is not a poorly compressed image file - it actually looks that crap in the flesh.
http://i6.tinypic.com/6t1ceh0.jpg (1280x1024 screenshot)
That is how it needs to look to get a semi-playable framerate on that card - which still goes as low as 20s/30s. Can you imagine it on a 6200?
Btw that is not a poorly compressed image file - it actually looks that crap in the flesh.
...that looks worse than Enemy Territory used to look on my GFTi4200, which ran at 1600x1200 at 90fps+ with all details set to high unless turning them off gave a gameplay advantage...
I suspect the DX10\Vista support has something to do with it (it seems to me any game that has DX10 features is dog slow in XP, except for COH pre-DX10 patch), but as I haven't personally tried it yet, I will reserve comment.
I mean I don't expect a modest card like the 7600GS to play it at 60fps solid with all the details maxed out etc. I do think it should look a lot better than that though. If you tweak the graphics so it looks somewhat decent, you get atrocious fps - into the teens at times.
Given that UT2004 ran on a Geforce 2 GTS, that is making me scratch my head and wonder why Epic decided DX10-based eye candy is more important than expanding Warfare mode and giving DM a new lease of life.
The game seems to have been written with the PS3 firmly in mind, and a half-assed conversion to the PC was done with little care or attention.
Unfortunately, more people game on consoles than PCs. Its a shame the series is going this way, because another thing UT2004 had going for it was proper support for Mac and Linux, without messing up the Windows version.
Epic themselves have admitted that a large percentage of the 2K4 player base never played the game online and i think the same is happening here with UT3. The players out there who do play online are waiting for new maps as the game only shipped with a few maps some of these hated already by players, games fixes for ATI users to cure the freezing/stuttering/crashing issue and a lot of are waiting on other stuff being fixed like improved server commands, better ui etc. Plus the clan scene tends to die down over the holidays due to families coming first, this is situation with my clan we aren't playing any clanbase ladder matches until the new year.
As being honest as someone who bought the game it thankfully has the feel of the original UT but should have been delayed a few weeks to fix more of the current issues. These current issues are affecting the online side of things due to people waiting on fixes or more maps to play, there is an issue right now with custom maps and the servers so this is further annoying the online community.
I expect the online figures to rise over the holidays as more people get the game as a gift for xmas. It is far from a dismal failure its just being held back by being released far too early/too buggy and among other big name games.
SCM
We're talking about FPS games, not a persistent-world online RPG.
No he was talking about pc games in general as are some other people. As for Crysis and UT3 the reason they aren't doing so well is that they seem to be catering for a pretty niche market. Valve made sure there games scale well and they are reaping the rewards.
Which is why I said Epic should have concentrated on diversifying game modes, like they did with UT2004.