<!--quoteo(post=1728643:date=Sep 24 2009, 11:26 AM:name=SanguinesMoon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SanguinesMoon @ Sep 24 2009, 11:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1728643"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you did some research about framerates 25 framerates is the minimal smoothness...
ALso, I dont see any frame drops in action in BF2 unless i got a background process running.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said 25 fps is the <i>minimum</i> for something to seem smooth. Now if it's a movie or something and you can guarantee constant fps, that's fine, but fps in games fluctuates wildly as physics / AI calculations are made not to mention small areas compared to big areas and background processes. Any time it drops down you'll notice even if you accept that figure, hence why gamers regard it as a bad frame rate.
(Plus personally I believe you can tell the difference between higher rates than that when your focus on something - hence them being preferable, I mean there's some research somewhere I read that says if you're relaxed and not really doing anything you brain only looks for new sensory information every half a second or so... but you can be sure when you're driving fast that you're brains picking up more information than that! - I know you didn't state that it wasn't worth having more, just some people do say that and I was addressing them, lol)
<!--quoteo(post=1728653:date=Sep 24 2009, 12:40 PM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Sep 24 2009, 12:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1728653"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically anything under 60 is noticeable in my books.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Depends on the game. Played any RTSes with 60FPS? Think not. Same with MMOs.
<!--quoteo(post=1728653:date=Sep 24 2009, 06:40 AM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Sep 24 2009, 06:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1728653"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically anything under 60 is noticeable in my books.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
noticeable, yeah, but they're not going to post MINIMUM specs that can handle constant 60fps. If you want to be competitive, 60 fps is important, but more casual players can definitely get by with 30 fps
If I had to choose between 30fps + eye candy vs 60 fps + less/no eye candy, I would tend to go for 30fps for single player games, but 60fps for multiplayer modes.
<!--quoteo(post=1728657:date=Sep 24 2009, 01:03 PM:name=monopolowa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (monopolowa @ Sep 24 2009, 01:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1728657"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->noticeable, yeah, but they're not going to post MINIMUM specs that can handle constant 60fps. If you want to be competitive, 60 fps is important, but more casual players can definitely get by with 30 fps
If I had to choose between 30fps + eye candy vs 60 fps + less/no eye candy, I would tend to go for 30fps for single player games, but 60fps for multiplayer modes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Etxactly, I play games for fun. I dont need to be that awesome to enjoy a game.
My mouse and gameplay run perfectly fine at games.
I know about that 'law' what they call 60 fps minimal for fps games, but meh, thats just a myth(which i find redicilously overrated and believed might I add) as I profesisonal gamed with 30 fps on old rigs with nice games such as Unreal Tournament from 1999-2003.
Correct me if i didnt understand you by eye candy, i take you mean multiplayer.
by eye candy I mean using settings that look better (high resolution, AA, shadows/reflections, texture/model quality, etc) even if it means taking a performance hit
You're asking for advice, but seem to be set in your opinion. There's no need to boast about how your POS computer can run decade old games at a good framerate. Upgrade or don't bother playing NS2.
If he wants to run NS2 on a card as old as that, let him try. It's his choice after all. I don't expect him to be able to run it, but where's the fun in not trying?
You're asking for advice, but seem to be set in your opinion. There's no need to boast about how your POS computer can run decade old games at a good framerate. Upgrade or don't bother playing NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, Now I was asking for advice? No, I was not. Read again.
Oppry, I dont spread missinformation. I dont really get why you say that. I stopped being a pro gamer. If you dont know what that means, that means professional gaming for big leagues, lan partys e.a
Really, Stop telling me to update my rig, as I was merely asking if the bloody system specs are accurate of NS2 according to theyr faq.. Gees.
The FAQ entry was accurate at one point. It might no longer be. If budget is a concern, and the game IS something you want to play - wait and see. Maybe the game will run reasonably well on your system. If it does, great. If not, then you can consider an upgrade. (Upgrading early isn't a huge benefit - it means you're locking into then-tech, instead of when-the-game-is-released tech)
I won't be upgrading my current gaming rig until something comes out that I find to fit my definition of 'unplayable.' Then I'll look at what I have, what's available, and what upgrades/replacements make the most sense. (But I build mine to be mid-range, $500-$700, and built to last - both in reference to parts wearing out, and parts being useful for a long time)
Evil_bOb1Join Date: 2002-07-13Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
Hey!
I think you should just wait and see. I believe it could work but I don't know. My last comp I had it for 7years and it would run 'recent' games as it could against all theoretic statistics. True it wasn't the most beautiful of things but hey I enjoyed my games! I guess it all comes down to preference and need. We don't have the same personal needs and people answer according to their personal way but I don't think anyone really has an answer. If people are aggressive its tells more about their needs than about the possibility of things.
I just got a new video card and it chews up games like crysis (all textures at "Very High" and max resolution with 4x antiaisling) and spits em out.
Is their anything more demanding then that... ###### it was the unoptimized crysis single player demo ffs... they actually improved the games performance since then lol.
Hope farcry 2 is good... gotta find some demo to review it.
The game looks amazing, especially the new dynamic lighting/shadows demo, so those system requirements do seem a little bit unlikely...
I've got an 8400M GS, 2x2Ghz processors and 3G of RAM, but some games which should work fine on such a rid (say, Dawn of War 2) need to have everything turned down to the lowest setting and even then still only yield about 20fps. Thing is, Dawn of War 2 with all the settings turned off is many times uglier than Warcraft 1 and lags to boot, so I might as well play a different game. Same story with Supreme Commander: Games that are made only for people with top-of-the-range machines tend to leave mid-range users rather disappointed. Meanwhile some games managed to provide excellent graphics while still running very smoothly (Left 4 Dead, Savage 2, Sins of the Solar Empire, etc).
So I'd openly ask the question: how well will the game scale down? To what degree optimisation a priority? What clever things that are being done to help the game run smoothly?
<!--quoteo(post=1732400:date=Oct 16 2009, 03:42 AM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Oct 16 2009, 03:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732400"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just got a new video card and it chews up games like crysis (all textures at "Very High" and max resolution with 4x antiaisling) and spits em out.
Is their anything more demanding then that... ###### it was the unoptimized crysis single player demo ffs... they actually improved the games performance since then lol.
Hope farcry 2 is good... gotta find some demo to review it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
ALso, I dont see any frame drops in action in BF2 unless i got a background process running.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said 25 fps is the <i>minimum</i> for something to seem smooth. Now if it's a movie or something and you can guarantee constant fps, that's fine, but fps in games fluctuates wildly as physics / AI calculations are made not to mention small areas compared to big areas and background processes. Any time it drops down you'll notice even if you accept that figure, hence why gamers regard it as a bad frame rate.
(Plus personally I believe you can tell the difference between higher rates than that when your focus on something - hence them being preferable, I mean there's some research somewhere I read that says if you're relaxed and not really doing anything you brain only looks for new sensory information every half a second or so... but you can be sure when you're driving fast that you're brains picking up more information than that! - I know you didn't state that it wasn't worth having more, just some people do say that and I was addressing them, lol)
Depends on the game. Played any RTSes with 60FPS? Think not. Same with MMOs.
noticeable, yeah, but they're not going to post MINIMUM specs that can handle constant 60fps. If you want to be competitive, 60 fps is important, but more casual players can definitely get by with 30 fps
If I had to choose between 30fps + eye candy vs 60 fps + less/no eye candy, I would tend to go for 30fps for single player games, but 60fps for multiplayer modes.
If I had to choose between 30fps + eye candy vs 60 fps + less/no eye candy, I would tend to go for 30fps for single player games, but 60fps for multiplayer modes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Etxactly, I play games for fun. I dont need to be that awesome to enjoy a game.
My mouse and gameplay run perfectly fine at games.
I know about that 'law' what they call 60 fps minimal for fps games, but meh, thats just a myth(which i find redicilously overrated and believed might I add) as I profesisonal gamed with 30 fps on old rigs with nice games such as Unreal Tournament from 1999-2003.
Correct me if i didnt understand you by eye candy, i take you mean multiplayer.
I settle for 30 fps any time, any where.
You're asking for advice, but seem to be set in your opinion. There's no need to boast about how your POS computer can run decade old games at a good framerate. Upgrade or don't bother playing NS2.
You can't even keep your argument consistent in one post.
There is a significant difference between constant fps spikes and shuttering and a smooth clear 60+ constant fps.
I understand if you may be self-conscious about not having the money to upgrade your rig. But please stop spreading misinformation.
/typo
You're asking for advice, but seem to be set in your opinion. There's no need to boast about how your POS computer can run decade old games at a good framerate. Upgrade or don't bother playing NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, Now I was asking for advice? No, I was not. Read again.
Oppry, I dont spread missinformation. I dont really get why you say that. I stopped being a pro gamer. If you dont know what that means, that means professional gaming for big leagues, lan partys e.a
Really, Stop telling me to update my rig, as I was merely asking if the bloody system specs are accurate of NS2 according to theyr faq.. Gees.
I won't be upgrading my current gaming rig until something comes out that I find to fit my definition of 'unplayable.' Then I'll look at what I have, what's available, and what upgrades/replacements make the most sense. (But I build mine to be mid-range, $500-$700, and built to last - both in reference to parts wearing out, and parts being useful for a long time)
I think you should just wait and see. I believe it could work but I don't know. My last comp I had it for 7years and it would run 'recent' games as it could against all theoretic statistics. True it wasn't the most beautiful of things but hey I enjoyed my games!
I guess it all comes down to preference and need. We don't have the same personal needs and people answer according to their personal way but I don't think anyone really has an answer. If people are aggressive its tells more about their needs than about the possibility of things.
Trust your comp, till its not dead let him live!
Is their anything more demanding then that... ###### it was the unoptimized crysis single player demo ffs... they actually improved the games performance since then lol.
Hope farcry 2 is good... gotta find some demo to review it.
I've got an 8400M GS, 2x2Ghz processors and 3G of RAM, but some games which should work fine on such a rid (say, Dawn of War 2) need to have everything turned down to the lowest setting and even then still only yield about 20fps. Thing is, Dawn of War 2 with all the settings turned off is many times uglier than Warcraft 1 and lags to boot, so I might as well play a different game. Same story with Supreme Commander: Games that are made only for people with top-of-the-range machines tend to leave mid-range users rather disappointed.
Meanwhile some games managed to provide excellent graphics while still running very smoothly (Left 4 Dead, Savage 2, Sins of the Solar Empire, etc).
So I'd openly ask the question: how well will the game scale down? To what degree optimisation a priority? What clever things that are being done to help the game run smoothly?
William
Is their anything more demanding then that... ###### it was the unoptimized crysis single player demo ffs... they actually improved the games performance since then lol.
Hope farcry 2 is good... gotta find some demo to review it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What card did you get?