BS really needs big machines to run?

[Ferski]

Checking some hardware threads all i can see are guys with incredible high end machines showcasing them, so no useful info for the average joe.

Can machines running LOMAC at max settings be able to run this game?. Lets say for example a low end graphic card, 1gb RAM and a dual core 2.80mhz CPU, windows XP system could be able to run BS at medium settings 1280 x 1024.

Thanks

[RapidFir3]

I think it would run otherwise on medium if you had more memory. Though i'm not sure about XP. Vista needs more mem so it just might even run on your comp... Even 512mb more would do it, but 1gb sounds just too low. I had 1,5gb before i bought 3gb and it was playable, but occasionally when there were lot's of stuff it turned really choppy. HDD was crunching like hell. Now it's super smooth. As you can see my CPU is old as hell, but it's not needed better. GPU and MEM is the key to smoothness. I know many people claim otherwise, but IMO it isn't the case. Oh and i use the same res too 1280*1024.

I had GF7600GT when i bought russian version. Then i got so excited that i bought GF9800GT. I noticed great improvement on fps.

 

Asus sli-se s939

Opteron 146 OC 2400mhz

3gb DDR mem running single mode 333mhz (that's because my old 1gb mem is slow and can't run stable at 400mhz)

GF9800GT 512mb

Vista X64 SP1

Edited December 23, 2008 by RapidFir3

[Lange_666]

Can machines running LOMAC at max settings be able to run this game?

Yes, although...

 

Lets say for example a low end graphic card, 1gb RAM and a dual core 2.80mhz CPU, windows XP system could be able to run BS at medium settings 1280 x 1024.

 

The higher the resolution (1280x1024) the more you demand from your system so....

 

These one shot native resolutions LCD screen are a pain in the ass. Nothing better then a good old CRT with lot's of resolutions to choose from.

[carmelid]

Actually playing with the configuration files to achieve a reasonable FPS in a relatively "calm" environment is not that that hard. You may get frame rate around the 40's quiet easily. (I do with a E2180@3000, 2Gb ram, GT8800)

 

BUT, the sim does not scale very well when it comes to a large number of object interacting with each other. Try to fly a mission like "Battle.miz" which simulate a missive battle with few tens of objects, and I suspect it will bring the best piece hardware to it's knees.

 

So, as long as you fly missions with a relatively small scope, you'll be fine. If you are looking forward brigade-scale engagement, I guess you'll have to wait for a graphic engine upgrade and code optimizations. I heard people talking about it, but I have no clue if and when it is going to happen.

[spyda]

im playing BS on

p4 3.2e

2gb ddr

7300gt 512mb

 

at 1400 x 1050 graphics overall on med settings, game still looks good. will upgrade down the track but still its enjoyable and playable for now.

[Kurtz]

If you have a second redundant PC on LAN you can host a dedicated server on this PC. You can connect via LAN IP to the server, and others connect via the Internet at the same time. This offloads a lot of the CPU work to the server box, and your game input doesnt effect other players.

 

The server although slow to load will run on a P4 3ghz, GFX quality not important.

[Macka]

I was thinking the same as Kurtz above so I loaded up the laptop with vista, dropped all the settings to low-med (turned water, effects and shadows to 1or 0, 2x affinity) and ended up with 35-45 fps @ 1680x1050 (no AA). The laptop is a 2yo Tosh P100-221 with 2ghz core2 duo and 512mb NV7900GS with 2gig ram. Easily good enough to fly whilst on the road mobile. Very happy :) :)

 

P.S. of course with, only just realised, 256k (thought 512) upload bandwidth can only host with one maybe two if I connect by LAN. Bummer :(