Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Why are people complaining about anti aliasing?


Recommended Posts

HF, good post, and a few good points, but I really don´t have the time to discuss it any further. I still stand by what I previously said, that the LD engine did not impress me at all. Just my opinion, nothing more. :) And don´t judge me by my first post in this thread, I was tired and cranky, thats all. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Justifying about engines without knowing how and for what they build is ... lets say not nice. Comparing LD engine or HL2 engine with GRAW engine is like comparing the GRAW engine with OFP/VBS/ArmA engine. What we see in the demo is only a small part of the game. Close quarter combat like LD. Effects are different I would not judge one of the engines has better, they are simply different. When you look on the level design then you see that the LD engine and even the HL2 engine are for indoor and relatively small environments. You can optimize a lot if you have only this level design. The GRIN engine allows bigger environments and better LOD and map streaming (look out the chopper during briefing) also the vegitation is done more detailed. But this cost additional memory and gfx power. If they put a fog wall 200m around the soldier and cut out those wide views they could optimize it also for lower hardware but it wouldn't feel so good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you look at John Sonedecker's comments if you are going to refer to engine knowledge. As someone that has been at the forefront of engines focusing on indoors and out, including varied draw distances, his explanations are clear.

You also utilized the word optimized. Something many knowledgeable people agree is part of the problem. If you run the Marseilles map in LD, you may be inclined to look at matters differently. Especially when one considers the amount of trash and other items in that interactive level. Draw distance means nothing as that is not the issue. Scalability and optimization for the job are everything in this case. To point, if LD would have had an engine capable of great draw distances but not detail, then the comparison would be moot. We are not drawing a parallel, we are drawing a comparison. Those two items are often diametrically opposed. The LD engine was well optimized for what was needed. On a side note, saying it cannot do large areas if optomized, well, there might be some people at RSE that would disagree.

Having incredible draw distances means nothing, absolutley nothing if the engine is not optomized and a vast number of players are having issues. What good is an expansive view If I have to look at it one frame at a time? LD was brought into the discussion long before it reached the board and it occurred on several websites. The detail in the LD engine is quite remarkable as well as is the dynamic lighting. The engine also scales well. Something we are not seeing here. If you think this is isolated, look around the net at other sites. These are not isolated comments nor are they particular to tactical gaming boards.

The point is shifting off topic though and needs to be brought back into focus. the LD engine was brought into the discussion to enhance and clarify a viewpoint concerning the GRAW engine, not to have a debate about which is better. It was brought into point out issues about scalability and hardware requirements you have to afford for the payoff of graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the HL2 flame/fire effects being realistic (off topic i know) - they look more like .gif animations to me.

I think aliasing ruiins alot of the immersion in games, especially when it's so well represented like in GRAW.

"A little aliasing" never hurt immersion, but this is something entirely different when it even affects gameplay.

Edited by Samurai Recon
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you look at John Sonedecker's comments if you are going to refer to engine knowledge.

Thanks for reminding me that I have no knowledge of what I speak. This is true when it comes to Special Forces and military stuff I've not done, but not to GFX engines.

There are a lot of "GFX" engines out there not only for games. And also limiting games engines only to GFX is not correct at all. I have 5 years experience with an engine developed by my previous employer. The engine was build for a special purpose, not for eye candy only but for exact measures and standards for planning purposes. You could not write a game with this engine even it has a "normal" interactive 3d-view with textures ... you couldn't do big environments but you could interact with every object in the scenery like in RL also you could configure the RL properties. Compared with GRAW, LD or HL2 it still looks like 1995 GFX but you get exact data out of the 3D planning and configuration you did.

Draw distance means nothing as that is not the issue.

Simply wrong, if the engine is not capable to load/stream the objects in the distance then this means something this is not only rendering. Just clipping them out means also something for performance.

The detail in the LD engine is quite remarkable as well as is the dynamic lighting. The engine also scales well.

I did not said anything against the LD engine I simply said it's a different approach and a different game purpose.

The engine also scales well. Something we are not seeing here.

This is your feeling now. When you look at the engine in a year you may talk different if you see what can be done compared with other engines. When you say scalability you mean scale on hardware. But scalability is also scale on features with the years.

the LD engine was brought into the discussion to enhance and clarify a viewpoint concerning the GRAW engine, not to have a debate about which is better. It was brought into point out issues about scalability and hardware requirements you have to afford for the payoff of graphics.

Thats why I said you can't compare the engines 1:1 and this is not debate of which is better. The hardware requirement esp. the memory is not for the GFX.

Everybody was crying about the hardware requirements when FarCry started. Now after two years we think different about it. Btw. I played FarCry end of last year because I had no system to run it when it came out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody was crying about the hardware requirements when FarCry started. Now after two years we think different about it. Btw. I played FarCry end of last year because I had no system to run it when it came out.

This is my last post in this thread, but my overall point has always been what do you get for that steep HW requirement? FarCry gave you stunning visuals focusing on vegitation and draw distance never before scene in a game. That gave you something to shoot for in upgrading.... A great never before seen visual/interactive experience.

GRAW PC does not offer that in my opinion. The visuals and immersion are not there to justify the steep requirements and unless I am missing something there isn't magical content in there that will materialize next year when new HW is available. Yes, I have played with the high settings to.

To me, it has always been getting something out of upgrading. GRAW PC doesn't seem to provide that something. Can the game compete visually with other current offerings? Sure. Does it provide "next-gen" visuals and immersion? No. Though I do realize that visuals are fairly subjective in the end and what looks awesome to some just as many people can point out flaws or disagree. So, in that respect, what looks good..... to each there own.

I commend Grin for making a decent go of it and making what a lot of people enjoy, and of course have respect for them as game developers. But it's ok for others to question some of thier choices and possibly when they return they can defend those choices and provide some more insight into why they went down those roads.

-John

Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact of the matter still remains, there is nothing in the demo that shows a need for high end specs. if this was properly optimised then there would not be a problem. if peeps are getting such bad results without AA, imagine what this pig will be like with it. its not about personal taste, its about the devs getting it right

cheers......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody was crying about the hardware requirements when FarCry started. Now after two years we think different about it. Btw. I played FarCry end of last year because I had no system to run it when it came out.

This is my last post in this thread, but my overall point has always been what do you get for that steep HW requirement? FarCry gave you stunning visuals focusing on vegitation and draw distance never before scene in a game. That gave you something to shoot for in upgrading.... A great never before seen visual/interactive experience.

I don't update esp. for a game thats why I played FarCry so late. It gives me stunning visual (it is for me the best looking game until now). But at the end of

the game I was bored because it doesn't gives me tension and fun like in the early levels.

GRAW PC does not offer that in my opinion. The visuals and immersion are not there to justify the steep requirements and unless I am missing something there isn't magical content in there that will materialize next year when new HW is available. Yes, I have played with the high settings to.

Maybe, but I only know the demo and some screens/videos.

Does it provide "next-gen" visuals and immersion? No.

I still found no definition of that "next-gen" phrase so I could not say if it does.

But it's ok for others to question some of thier choices and possibly when they return they can defend those choices and provide some more insight into why they went down those roads.

They explained some in these forums in the past month esp. on the sounds. Maybe they explain somthing for the GFX fans out there.

What I like in GRAW most is the movement and the feeling to have a body.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact of the matter still remains, there is nothing in the demo that shows a need for high end specs. if this was properly optimised then there would not be a problem. if peeps are getting such bad results without AA, imagine what this pig will be like with it. its not about personal taste, its about the devs getting it right

cheers......

The lighting engine, HDR and soft-shadows look quite demanding. The soft-shadows were even made a bit brighter so their LOD doesn´t fall into the eye too obviously. There are not many other games that offer soft-shadows for everything and the type of HDR and lighting that is used in GRAW PC; so comparision can´t be made that easielly.

How expensive are specific features in comparision with other implementations? Well to answer that we´d definitly need one of Grins engine guys here.

IMO of course. Gotta go back to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing which puzzles me the most about the GRAW engine is that it's performance doesn't seem to be affected only by hardware specs. My PC is pretty good, but not the best, and it runs smoothly and looks fantastic at 1280x960 (truth be told, it runs far smoother than LD did, for me). I know people with much older PCs and barely the minimum specs who say it runs suprisingly well - certainly playable. And yet other people with topnotch PCs are complaining about slideshows.

There is obviously something at work other than pure hardware specs. No idea what it could be, but I hope GRIN do sort it out so that more people can focus on the gameplay without having performance issues.

I've seen this, too. Maybe it depends on what people think is acceptable. I thought playing GR with a TNT2 was acceptable at one point because I'd been used to playing with onboard graphics... I can look back and laugh now, but I also thought it was class with an fx2000, compared to my TNT2 and onboard it was. :D If you have a top end PC you are gonna expect the best. I think it runs ok now on mine. But if someone who is used to geforce 7***, with 3GHz, this and 4MB of that was to come and play it they would be :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many systems are having technical issues. Many. We are talking midgrade systems. Battlefield 2 requires a 128MB card in order to run. We all saw that coming in gaming. But there are numerous systems running at 3Ghz with 256MB cards watching slideshows at 800X600. That has nothing to do with likes or dislikes in a game. That has to do with the title even being playable.

That about sums it up IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you look at John Sonedecker's comments if you are going to refer to engine knowledge.

Thanks for reminding me that I have no knowledge of what I speak. This is true when it comes to Special Forces and military stuff I've not done, but not to GFX engines.

There are a lot of "GFX" engines out there not only for games. And also limiting games engines only to GFX is not correct at all. I have 5 years experience with an engine developed by my previous employer. The engine was build for a special purpose, not for eye candy only but for exact measures and standards for planning purposes. You could not write a game with this engine even it has a "normal" interactive 3d-view with textures ... you couldn't do big environments but you could interact with every object in the scenery like in RL also you could configure the RL properties. Compared with GRAW, LD or HL2 it still looks like 1995 GFX but you get exact data out of the 3D planning and configuration you did.

Draw distance means nothing as that is not the issue.

Simply wrong, if the engine is not capable to load/stream the objects in the distance then this means something this is not only rendering. Just clipping them out means also something for performance.

The detail in the LD engine is quite remarkable as well as is the dynamic lighting. The engine also scales well.

I did not said anything against the LD engine I simply said it's a different approach and a different game purpose.

The engine also scales well. Something we are not seeing here.

This is your feeling now. When you look at the engine in a year you may talk different if you see what can be done compared with other engines. When you say scalability you mean scale on hardware. But scalability is also scale on features with the years.

the LD engine was brought into the discussion to enhance and clarify a viewpoint concerning the GRAW engine, not to have a debate about which is better. It was brought into point out issues about scalability and hardware requirements you have to afford for the payoff of graphics.

Thats why I said you can't compare the engines 1:1 and this is not debate of which is better. The hardware requirement esp. the memory is not for the GFX.

Everybody was crying about the hardware requirements when FarCry started. Now after two years we think different about it. Btw. I played FarCry end of last year because I had no system to run it when it came out.

Hmmm...don't believe I was responding to you. As far as I know, no one said, 'Striker you don't know anything about graphics'. You chose to jump in front of that train.

The issue this entire thread is about is technical in the sense that what we are discussing is the result of technical matters such as engine choices and rendering ability. But the real matter, the heart of the issue isn't technical at all. It is more customer related. Did that slip by you? I thought that was pretty clear.

You can try to hammer Half Life 2 if you want but you are so far in the minority it isn't even funny. And that engine scales very well. It provides great effects to those that have the systems for it yet still manages to provide opportunities for lesser powered systems.

You should get your own website if you are going to try to slam the Source engine. That way someone could provide counterpoints to all the other websites that reviewed Half Life 2.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife...ml?page=3&q=&q=

Half-Life 2's presentation is extraordinary, thanks to the new Source engine. Even though Half-Life 2 debuted a year later than originally anticipated, it is still very much a cutting-edge game, featuring state-of-the-art graphics technology. While Doom 3 features superior lighting and shadowing, it didn't really succeed at bringing a credible and cohesive world to life. Half-Life 2 does, and the environments in the game are simply stunning, from the plazas and streets of City 17 to the rusted interiors of an abandoned factory. There's also some excellent level design in the game, including a deserted town full of deadly traps and the gaping interiors of an alien citadel. The engine does a great job of rendering both indoor and outdoor environments, and there's a lot of eye candy to absorb if you have the hardware to handle it. Most surfaces nearly glisten with the latest shader effects, and the textures are sharp and richly detailed.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/566/566202p1.html

Light plays a significant role in the beauty of Half-Life 2, not only because of its quality, but because of the way that it tracks the passage of time. Each passing level brings the sun down a bit more until you're encased in an eerie canopy of unease at just the right moment in the game. The brighter points allow for the exquisite detail of the textures found everywhere in the game to become more apparent while the colors of the city and contrasting nature of the combine soldiers and citadel keeps them strikingly outside of the norm and easily identifiable as enemy. There are some moments where the visuals won't knock your socks off, but those moments usually happen in the dark.

Graphics

Half-Life 2 has usurped DOOM 3's place as the best-looking game on the PC. It's astounding from both a technical and an artistic standpoint.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/half-life-2/566585p3.html

Half-Life 2 was built using Valve's new Source engine technology. There's not much point in comparing it to id Software's new technology used for DOOM3; they're both incredibly attractive, but in completely different ways. While id's latest was set primarily in dark indoor areas, leaning on light and shadows to set the game's tone, Half-Life 2 covers just about every type of area imaginable, from expansive outdoor areas to the tight interiors of run-down buildings. As you can see by the screenshots on these pages, every area is brought to life in vivid detail.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=57222

If Half-Life 2 achieves one single thing, it's to put into sharp focus how far gaming has come, and more specifically how far behind some of its competitors in the FPS genre really are. Some doubted that the Source engine could match the technical brilliance elsewhere, but it has not only surpassed anyone else's achievements, it has done so without forcing people to invest in ludicrously expensive hardware. Reports persist from amazed gamers with mid-range set ups that have been blown away by how well the game runs on their systems. That Half Life 2 looks more convincing, more understated, more realistic, more interactive and definitely more stylish than its peers yet manages it with far lower overheads is not only an impressive feat, but commercially a masterstroke.

I can keep this up all day. And if you look, and I'll leave that part to you, Lockdown PC is often compared to HL2 in certain areas. But none of this, none of this was the point until it went way way off track. So let's get back to the problem.

When I said draw distance means nothing you responded the way you did because you think 2 dimensionally. And simplistically. You wouldn't have made it as a Shaolin Monk grasshopper. You think the discussion is about what you can easily see. You are so far out of the argument you should go start your own thread.

You probably should not get into an argument when the matter is esoteric. The issue isn't whether or not a game engine can draw a certain distance. For the love of money wake up. It is about whether the engine can do what it needs to in order to present the game. DRAW DISTANCE DOESN"T MATTER IN THAT RESPECT. JEESH! THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! The issue in this entire matter, this whole thread isn't about pixels or draw distances. It is about an engine being mature enough to provide the necessary interface that offers gamers the intended experience. And to do so without demanding an upgrade for over 50% of the players. Not just this engine, but any engine regardless if it is set in the desert or occurs in flea world inside a Rubic's Cube. In that respect the game misses. Greatly.

Stop thinking in terms of specific titles. We brought in a specific title for the express purpose of getting people like you to think in broad strokes. But apparently we didn't do our job correctly. Quit thinking like you are in pre-school and come to college with us. Grow, grow! Yes, there is a little sarcasm mixed with the seriousness there.

Scalability in a year does no good when you consider the titles that will be out in year. Specifically when everyone sees that an engine like Doom III can actually do what people thought it could not. Crysis, Unreal, VBS2 - especially that outdoor render monster - etc etc etc. There will be a lot more engines out then that will be even more backward compatible. If you are going to swim with sharks...

Let me clarify for you again. The LD engine demonstrates how an engine can scale really well and do the job for which it was designed. The job for which it was designed. The implication being it will do that job upon release. The Source engine is an even better demonstration of these abilities.

Once again, and stay with me, the debate we initiated is philosphical in many respects. It is about sizing up the community, targeting your group with the right technology, and then employing that technology in a scalable manner so that the gamer gets the experience. It is one thing to say, "This will be a great engine a year from now when you can run it and we have optimized it." When what they should be able to say is, "This engine is very playable now. And in a year when you can upgrade, you will really see this thing scream." But the latter isn't the case, and that is the issue here. Scalability implies clearly you can play it today, and then play it again tomorrow on better equipment for a better experience. This is April 2006, not April 2007 and I don't pre-order a game and pay for it if I can't play it for a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a game that is about to be released ---- it has GREAT GAMEPLAY and level design but has rather limited scalability and no AA.

The practical thing to do here is to ask the developers whether this issue can be solved in the near future by a patch ? Whether the bloom +AA option can be added ? Whether the video options can be set in more detail -- e.g - breaking down the effects into reflection quality, gun effects quality, bullet effects quality, water quality etc. etc. ? Whether frame rates can be improved ?

I hope Grin will answer.

If it can be done well and good, if not then I would enjoy the game as I get it. It is so good that I will not let one aspect bog me down. I am really enjoying this great game.

Edited by buddhiraja73
Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Hmmm...don't believe I was responding to you. As far as I know, no one said, 'Striker you don't know anything about graphics'. You chose to jump in front of that train.

The issue this entire thread is about is technical in the sense that what we are discussing is the result of technical matters such as engine choices and rendering ability. But the real matter, the heart of the issue isn't technical at all. It is more customer related. Did that slip by you? I thought that was pretty clear.

Your post was directly after my one and you doesn't quoted another post so yea I thought you mean me :)

You can try to hammer Half Life 2 if you want but you are so far in the minority it isn't even funny. And that engine scales very well. It provides great effects to those that have the systems for it yet still manages to provide opportunities for lesser powered systems.

Oh I didn't, I only said engines are different for the purpose they should accomplish.

You should get your own website if you are going to try to slam the Source engine.

That way someone could provide counterpoints to all the other websites that reviewed Half Life 2.

I have a site thanks, but not for slamming anybody only for the company ;).

As I said above I didn't slammed the Source engine or any other engine here. Your sure you responding to my post this time?

When I said draw distance means nothing you responded the way you did because you think 2 dimensionally. And simplistically. You wouldn't have made it as a Shaolin Monk grasshopper. You think the discussion is about what you can easily see. You are so far out of the argument you should go start your own thread.

Starting a own thread where I say you can't compare LD or Source or GRAW engine 1:1. Hmm this will only be fun if you jump also in replying.

You probably should not get into an argument when the matter is esoteric. The issue isn't whether or not a game engine can draw a certain distance. For the love of money wake up. It is about whether the engine can do what it needs to in order to present the game.

Bingo, and it does it for me at least in the demo. Maybe my expectations are limited.

DRAW DISTANCE DOESN"T MATTER IN THAT RESPECT. JEESH! THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! The issue in this entire matter, this whole thread isn't about pixels or draw distances. It is about an engine being mature enough to provide the necessary interface that offers gamers the intended experience. And to do so without demanding an upgrade for over 50% of the players.

I agree but this is your opinion not mine. I finished HL2 in January but I bought it right after the release. Why did I have that pause? It's simple, I saw the game running with full settings at a friend and then looked at my 4600Ti graphics saying stop ... wait until you upgrade. And I upgraded mid of 2005 not earlier.

Stop thinking in terms of specific titles. We brought in a specific title for the express purpose of getting people like you to think in broad strokes. But apparently we didn't do our job correctly. Quit thinking like you are in pre-school and come to college with us. Grow, grow! Yes, there is a little sarcasm mixed with the seriousness there.

Grow, grow thats what I say to my kids every day, but they have their own head like me :yes:

Scalability in a year does no good when you consider the titles that will be out in year. Specifically when everyone sees that an engine like Doom III can actually do what people thought it could not. Crysis, Unreal, VBS2 - especially that outdoor render monster - etc etc etc. There will be a lot more engines out then that will be even more backward compatible. If you are going to swim with sharks...

Ok I will cite you "Quit thinking like you are in pre-school" scalability of a game engine is not only graphics scalability! A good example is OFP/VBS where gfx are

nothing but flexibility, scalability and the way to implement features is all. Nobody plays OFP for the eye candy, but people including me playing it for the content and the very special play style it offers.

Once again, and stay with me, the debate we initiated is philosphical in many respects. It is about sizing up the community, targeting your group with the right technology, and then employing that technology in a scalable manner so that the gamer gets the experience.

I understand you clearly and many others with lower spec rigs, I had the same situation in 2004. But as I said in another thread, this is business and I don't like it sometimes. Which publisher spends the money for the perfect game? What should Ubi or GRIN do? Stop the development, delay the game for another year when the hardware demandings are lower (relative)?

I played Wing Commander in the early 90's and I hated these guys who made that game because I did't hat the money to buy a better system. But, the game was a great succes.

Let's see if GRAW is a succes, I really hope so, because I and our team like it.

It's always nice to do some philosophical talk :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Striker,

I am glad we all get the esoteric part of the approach. I too ran the Wing Commander series. Heart of the Tiger remains the best. :thumbsup:

Lower end rigs like mine should not be the issue. If my rig at 3.4 Ghz and a 256 MB GeForce 6800, and Audigy 2 is lower end and not midrange then there is already a perception problem on someone's part. It isn't fast, but it isn't crawling. These posts several of us are making are not self serving. This is not just our issue and it isn't just a lower end issue either.

You may have had issues running HL2. But once again, look at the reviews and vast majority of the opinions. It scaled well for the great majority of the public. Is that happening here? And I believe you said HL2 looked like 1995 Gfx.

If the publisher spends money for the perfect game, how does perfection rise when so many people have issues? And remember. The assumption by some is that when the full version, which is already finished, has arrived all of the problems we see now will disappear. And the vast majority of the game, which no one has seen, will not have any new issues. That includes MP which if anything in a title will have problems, it is MP. How long ago was it GRIN stated the game was actually finished and all they were doing was adding extra items?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Striker,

I am glad we all get the esoteric part of the approach. I too ran the Wing Commander series. Heart of the Tiger remains the best.  :thumbsup:

Lower end rigs like mine should not be the issue. If my rig at 3.4 Ghz and a 256 MB GeForce 6800, and Audigy 2 is lower end and not midrange then there is already a perception problem on someone's part. It isn't fast, but it isn't crawling. These posts several of us are making are not self serving. This is not just our issue and it isn't just a lower end issue either.

Midrange machines should run, I agree. But what we see most are problems with drivers and special optimizations done by ATI or nVidia and some guys who think they can tweak drivers and release them as "beta".

It's cool today to have the latest "beta" drivers not only for video also for audio. It's also cool to tweak the system bios. Does the majority of people know what they are doing there? I guess no. The magazines that previewed the game said GRAW is demanding on hardware, but they not saying it doesn't run on current midrange systems.

This is why consoles are so great for developers. They know how a console responds to the product. I think these start problems get sorted and people can enjoy the game. And I think also that this is ATI's or nVidias part not only GRIN's. I read that people with the same gfx and memory configuration like me have big problems running the demo and at this point I must say, the problem is in the hardware/software configuration not the game itself.

We all have the choice to go to a standardized platform like the consoles and have less trouble with that or stay on PC always patching always configuring from the early days to the future. :rocky:

You may have had issues running HL2. But once again, look at the reviews and vast majority of the opinions. It scaled well for the great majority of the public. Is that happening here? And I believe you said HL2 looked like 1995 Gfx.

Nope, I was refering to the engine I had to use at work, it looked like 1995 still in 2001 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Striker,

If you look here, or if you visit other sites you will find it isn't just the tweakers. It isn't just the stock players either. I personally have tried 4 different iterations of Nvidia drivers myself. When I had issues I ran the demo under a gamer config and all that does is stop loading everything in the background that isn't necessary. Still the same. My brother has a stock Alienware system. Same issues with a 7800.

The fact is the PC isn't a console as you stated and all developers have to deal with multiple system configurations. Some teams have little issue with such variances. Dealing with those issues is a dev teams job, not the gamers - you know, the 'whiners - to such a degree they are pulling out plastic at Best Buy.

I reread your statement on 1995 Gfx. What was I looking at. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Striker,

If you look here, or if you visit other sites you will find it isn't just the tweakers. It isn't just the stock players either. I personally have tried 4 different iterations of Nvidia drivers myself. When I had issues I ran the demo under a gamer config and all that does is stop loading everything in the background that isn't necessary. Still the same. My brother has a stock Alienware system. Same issues with a 7800.

I have a 7800GT with current official driver and no problems. All the RTY who played the demo don't had problems. Problems with that config are not OK. If they happen after release, then the tech support will have some hard weeks.

The fact is the PC isn't a console as you stated and all developers have to deal with multiple system configurations.  Some teams have little issue with such variances. Dealing with those issues is a dev teams job, not the gamers - you know, the 'whiners -  to such a degree they are pulling out plastic at Best Buy.

Let's say it is the publishers job to give technical advise and help the people. Dev's normally working on spec supplied by the hardware and software manufacturers. I hope it's no the Ageia driver?!?

I reread your statement on 1995 Gfx. What was I looking at.  :lol:

Maybe my bad english, I still fight against the grammar :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Striker,

Each studio varies. Some studios do tech support along with the Publisher. At RSE we have our own Tech Support guys there. Yet Ubi still supports the same titles. What I meant by it being the dev teams job is during the time before the game is complete. That is when it is the dev teams job. It is the publisher, with dev team input, after the title is complete. Dealing with multiple system configurations has to begin during game design, not 2 weeks after shipping. If you don't look at those items during design, things may be done that cannot be corrected by a patch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Striker,

Each studio varies. Some studios do tech support along with the Publisher. At RSE we have our own Tech Support guys there. Yet Ubi still supports the same titles. What I meant by it being the dev teams job is during the time before the game is complete. That is when it is the dev teams job. It is the publisher, with dev team input, after the title is complete. Dealing with multiple system configurations has to begin during game design, not 2 weeks after shipping. If you don't look at those items during design, things may be done that cannot be corrected by a patch.

I think they did looking on that but maybe the QA department in Romania use a different language or they don't had enough systems to test on. We will see some clarification or some driver updates popping up in the near future. :rocky:

Next week will tell us more,

good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember GR1? It was the same... no one could run it in may of 2001 without bad fps in the demo. It didn't even look close to the screenshots we saw ahead of time. even the hud changed. Now what made it so great... one is patches... but #2 is and probably the greatest. Hardware upgrades. The game is ment to be one that scales. Currently we don't have enough hardware for the engine to look (extremely good). I am betting though the engine has many features that in the next year will come to life. I remember 2 years down the line when i got another "great card" i was so taken back by the beauty of GR1 that i could not see when it was released that i was getting killed staring at the scenery.

As for older cards not working... i think also this is to make sure your fps is correct for a good gaming experience and also to keep it fair on mp and not let older cards get an advantage with lower bland settings that can pick enemies out easier (like in GR1... all mp players turn there settings down as you can see things you can't on high like enemies in bushes and such)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey tech let me explain this to you =)

1680x1050 with a monitor that not only supports it .. but is the naitive resolution looks absalutly stunning.

and AA and AF arent really required at that size...

I can run graw at that with everything high but 30fps annoys me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...