Jump to content

Is GRAW just too advanced to play on today's hardware?


  

187 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

THIS IS A NON-TECHNICAL POST. DON'T DISCUSS HOW YOU MISS AA OR OTHER SUPPOSED "STANDARD" GRAPHICS OPTIONS. KEEP IT SIMPLE.

After reading many posts about how even high-end systems are having difficulty playing GRAW with decent resolutions and frame rates, I want to ask this question to the forum.

Is the Diesel engine in GRAW just too advanced for today's hardware?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I voted "maybe". I think its pretty harsh on systems. But, in all reality if you think about it BF2 has a minimum requirment for an FX5700 ultra. A year later a newer DX9 game now can no longer carrry the FX series. Thats not really suprsing. Im just kinda on the fence about it. I know my system which has a 7600GT struggles at times. I'll agree with the fact the engine should have scaled back some more. Remember Quake 3 and how far it scaled back and scaled forward. It would run on an 8meg card at lowest settings and push a 64 meg card to its limit. Now thats scalability!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 2.8 ghz dual core, 2gig of ram, and a 256mb 7800GTX, with and X-Fi card. I play at 1680x1050 with about 30-35 fps, and it's very playable and looks excellent. Effects on medium, and dynamic shadows off.

I understand that games should scale to lower end systems. But I think it's a good thing that GRAW pushes the envelope, because in a year or two it will still look good imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted no, but it depends what hardware. On the average gamers hardware, maybe. My rig is 6 months old, I am running an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego Core CPU Overclocked @ 2.8Ghz, 1GB (2x512MB) Mushkin Redline XP4000 DDR500 @ 2-2-2-5 1T command rate, X850XT PE PCI-E (not overclocked), Audigy 2 ZS Gamer Edition Audio card, Western Digital 250GB SATA2 16 MB Cache HDD, DFI LanParty uT NF4 Ultra-D Motherboard, Tagan 480W PSU. I am running everything on high (including textures) except for the ground detail, as I get black splotches everywhere. I get an average of 25FPS, and my minimum FPS at these settings is 22. My resolution is set at 1024x768. I never get any lag or choppiness either.

Edited by Prodigy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted for maybe... First i had a 6600GT with which i could play ''ok'' but not fast.

So i bought a 7900GT and now everything is fine.

Bad points:

-Not every-1 can afford expansive videocards, or not every-1 wants to do it.

Good points:

-With graphics like this the game will look good for a few years it has amazing effects

Verdict:

Maybe.

:grin3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted "No". Most of the games presented at E3 last week won't have lower requierements. Just think of Crysis or Alan Wake. Not to mention Brothers in Arms 3...even though it will be released in 2007. The coming generation of games just require a new rig to enjoy them. But I'm confident my little buddy will handle coming games fine. (AMD 64 3200+; 2GB Ram; 6800Ultra AGP) And with Vista comes DX10 end of the year at least then, most people will upgrade to DX10 supported graphics cards. GRAW is just a bit of what we'll have to expect from now on. Oh, I forgot about R6: Vegas. Ingame graphics are just amazing...one way or the other, new games force you to buy a new setup, if you want to enjoy. GRAW threw out GF FX support last minute.

Edited by rookie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with the DIESEL engine is that its not very optimalized for the current hardware and that its designed for the future hardware. Brings me to the question: Why does GRAW look worse than Half-Life 2 on current hardware? It would mean that in the "future" the DIESEL engine finally can compete with the Source engine? (in terms of graphics). :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear of very few systems breaking 60+ fps, and i have to say in my gaming history that is a first. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that GRIN havent considered the average or even committed players. Who wants to buy a game now, that we cant fully appreciate until technology catches up to it?

I want to grab a game, load it up, and see the best graffix I can get for my money. My system, while not the best, is no slouch as a gaming machine, but I feel like Im running a game on my old Celeron 700mhz with a TNT2.

So in response to your question: Either GRIN have made the graphics too demanding, or what I think has really happened, GRIN has bogged down the system with the 200, 000 buildings (objects) and the CPUs and GPUs just cant handle that load efficiently. I would be interested to see how the engine would perform if even half of the objects were erased from the game. Id suggest thats what will happen in a patch to try to optimise the game.

It also raises a serious issue for me - what will happen in large vegetative areas. Will all those objects bog down the game too - can this engine handle it, especially with this demanding Lighting-style which they chose.

Will watch and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear of very few systems breaking 60+ fps, and i have to say in my gaming history that is a first. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that GRIN havent considered the average or even committed players. Who wants to buy a game now, that we cant fully appreciate until technology catches up to it?

I want to grab a game, load it up, and see the best graffix I can get for my money. My system, while not the best, is no slouch as a gaming machine, but I feel like Im running a game on my old Celeron 700mhz with a TNT2.

So in response to your question: Either GRIN have made the graphics too demanding, or what I think has really happened, GRIN has bogged down the system with the 200, 000 buildings (objects) and the CPUs and GPUs just cant handle that load efficiently. I would be interested to see how the engine would perform if even half of the objects were erased from the game. Id suggest thats what will happen in a patch to try to optimise the game.

It also raises a serious issue for me - what will happen in large vegetative areas. Will all those objects bog down the game too - can this engine handle it, especially with this demanding Lighting-style which they chose.

Will watch and see.

If you've ever played EverQuest 2, during launch no system could go near the highest graphical settings, and there still aren't a whole lot of systems that can play that game now with everything on max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is.

And that is a good thing.

I don't understand why people have a problem with it... if it is going to have great graphics for cards and such in the near future, why complain? Just because you upgraded to play the game on high doesn't negate the greatness that it is. I think it is smart to create games that are made for future systems... its smart production.

Crappy rant, I know, I'm exhausted, but I hope I got my opinion across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is weird is that there seems to be a stopping point for performance on this game. I mean, i have a FX-60 processor, X1900XT 512mb graphic card and 2 gigs of corsair XMS ram. Im maxing out at 60 FPS but my aveage is 50. If i turn everything down to the lowest setting i see no increase in FPS. Also, someone with a 7800 256mb card and lower processor gets the same FPS as me...whats up with that? This engine is weird.. Its like it either runs or dont...If you have a decent rig and run it on high...dont bother going to a really good rig thinking it will get better...cause there is a peak on its performance. It doesnt seem like this engine is designed to get better performance out of future hardware which doesnt seem like a good thing to me. I think if you have a 7800 256 mb vid card..dual core processor and 2 gigs of ram...you will max out this games performance capabilities. I know that is a good thing but its just such a narrow margin..i mean 6800 256 cards are basicly the low end of performance for this game and 7800 256 mb is the high...doesnt that seem odd?

Edited by }PW{ Postal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postal, what kind of frame rates do you get in other games? I'm not sure if theirs a vsync setting in the options, but if there is, disable it. It will allow you to yield higher framerates, With vsync on, it will max out at your monitors refresh rate, which 60hertz is default for most monitors as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that GR:AW is too "too advanced for today's hardware" as

you put it.

A game should run just great on an average machine with a

good videocard. There should be no need to spend $2000,-- on a

new machine, maybe a minor upgrade like more memory to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear of very few systems breaking 60+ fps, and i have to say in my gaming history that is a first. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that GRIN havent considered the average or even committed players. Who wants to buy a game now, that we cant fully appreciate until technology catches up to it?

Gr1 didn't break 50 on firefight until almost a year in even with the highest computers. At that time my PIII 600b was the shizzle and i was lucky to be in the 25-30 on co-op with a geforce 256 32mb card. My god did i go nutz when i saved up and got my TI4600 Ultra that put me at 150FPS (still 60-80 on co-op but with 125 guys without shadows, 35-60 with)

After more optimization and the next years current hardware we will be saying how did i ever play that with my 256mb card?

Truthfully how many games did you even check the FPS on? (30-60 seems smooth as pie on most games)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postal, what kind of frame rates do you get in other games? I'm not sure if theirs a vsync setting in the options, but if there is, disable it. It will allow you to yield higher framerates, With vsync on, it will max out at your monitors refresh rate, which 60hertz is default for most monitors as far as I know.

Actually, now that you mention it, i dont remember getting over 60 FPS in BF2 either. Dont wanna sound noobish but where would i shut that off, i have looked alittle but cant find it.

Rugg, you are right..40 FPS is ok, im not even complaing about mine...Mine is very playable at 50 to 60. It just seems weird that i max out at that with my rig on this game. Im gonna try to find that Vsync option and update my post accordingly

Edited by }PW{ Postal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, now that you mention it, i dont remember getting over 60 FPS in BF2 either. Dont wanna sound noobish but where would i shut that off, i have looked alittle but cant find it.

With Forceware drivers (Nvidia) the Vertical sync (vsync) options are under the Performance & Quality settings tab in the driver panel. It will be somewhere similar with Catalysts (ATI) I'd think. Change the setting from Application Controlled to Off:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, now that you mention it, i dont remember getting over 60 FPS in BF2 either. Dont wanna sound noobish but where would i shut that off, i have looked alittle but cant find it.

With Forceware drivers (Nvidia) the Vertical sync (vsync) options are under the Performance & Quality settings tab in the driver panel. It will be somewhere similar with Catalysts (ATI) I'd think. Change the setting from Application Controlled to Off:)

Ty, i will look now.

Edit..

Ok, i found it in my catalyst control. Its not an option to disable but to increase the refresh rate, i increased it to 120 hz and it did increase it. Now i average 60 FPS and max out at 70 to 75. So maybe i was wrong on my previous post..sorry Would be nice to see some posts from other high end users about what FPS they are getting average. I always do it during gameplay for awhile to get my average...i mean at one point i saw 99 FPS but i dont count that because it only happened once. I could say that i max out at like 700 FPS but thats on the black loading screen... :rofl:

Edited by }PW{ Postal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way Graw is too advanced and that means the current GPU limitations that are available this year. But it does not make sense to release a game with hardware requirements that are not be available. The best thing to do was release Graw with AA and bloom and when ever the new GPU's that are capable of displaying Grin's take on ilumination then you release a patch ala Farcry that implements the special HDR.

Edited by UberSoldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way Graw is too advanced and that means the current GPU limitations that are available this year. But it does not make sense to release a game with hardware requirements that are not be available. The best thing to do was release Graw with AA and bloom and when ever the new GPU's that are capable of displaying Grin's take on ilumination then you release a patch ala Farcry that implements the special HDR.

Agreed, scaleability is the key which this game sorely lacks. I mean I planned on upgrading my PC the end of next month with a nice Opty 170 and a X1900XT but its not gonna run all that much better than my current setup. I will just be able to turn on more AF or up the textures to high(which frankly dont look all that much nicer than the Medium Im running now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutly not. GRAW is simply built on a sub-par engine. Look at Half-Life 2 Lost Coast, it has HDR, it looks better then graw, and it still runs great. I can't really blame GRIN for that though, there isn't many developpers that have the experience and resources to build efficient and versatile engines. EPIC, id Software and Valve do that and they are extremely good at it. The thing is, if GRIN would have chosen a third party engine like the Unreal engine, Source engine or even the Cry engine, instead of building their own, they would have saved a whole lot of time and the game would probably look, play and perform better. Why ? Because Epic, id and Valve are veterans at building game engines. Look at the Doom 3 engine. It is scalable, you can play doom 3 on a very low end PC and it still is playable. On the other hand you can play doom 3 on a very high end PC and it will look damn nice. And last but not least, their engine is mod-friendly, because they built the engine with mods in mind. Same goes for the Source Engine.

I think it all comes down to "programming skills". How can you explain that GRAW looks almost on par with let's say, Far Cry, yet, it runs 10 times worse than FC. The way they coded it is not the most efficient way to do it. You can't really blame them for that as they didn't have time to build a whole engine. And I doubt Ubisoft wanted to pay 500k - 1M USD for a Unreal/Source/Cry engine license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, scaleability is the key which this game sorely lacks. I mean I planned on upgrading my PC the end of next month with a nice Opty 170 and a X1900XT but its not gonna run all that much better than my current setup. I will just be able to turn on more AF or up the textures to high(which frankly dont look all that much nicer than the Medium Im running now)

I'm kinda in the same boat...

I don't want to upgrade now because the current hardware just doesn't seem to support the game. The last thing I want to do is spend $2k (about what I was anticipating on a new rig) that won't run Vista and/or DX10.

So what are we left with? Possibly sub-par performance until hardware finally catches up with the engine? (this worries me...)

Personally, I'm not going to spend much money on hardware until the industry figures out which direction things are going. Yes, I realize that this is a moving target...but I'm hopeful that DX10 and other Vista improvements will start a new standard.

----------

Additionally, I'm grateful that some of us have a sense of humor (the "shut up" voting category). Ahhh...my fellow sarcastic brethren!!! :)

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...