Author Topic: I am sickened (Read 5053 times)

Howitzer · « **Reply #90 on:** April 15, 2005, 12:26:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by red420
Thanks for the info Pup. I last played FA when it was version 2.5 and after that they sold it to some company that ran it into the ground. I used to love that game, especially the realistic arena.. no radar, no icons, it was sweet. Sorry for all the *****ing guys, I was truly frustrated. I don't know how long I have been playing this game, since before they started talking about releasing 2.. I guess I should be more understanding about the lengthy evolution of the game, considering the relatively small size of HTC, and if I angered anyone, I apologize.

No worries. I got frustrated a few times here as well, and those led to a small break from the game on my part. Maybe something you may want to consider just to get the juices flowing again. Heck, even after a week I'm dying to play again

hyena426 · « **Reply #91 on:** April 15, 2005, 02:26:45 PM »

i like the new patch and trees and my frame rates have picked up a little with my geforce fx 256mb..and im using a pent 1.4 gig..the new explostions dont cause any lag when bombs are dropping for me anymore and look way better then they did...happy as hell with it so far:)

they have to update the game or it will turn out like air warrior 3 with no imporvments and die a horrible death...how do ya expect to get people playing it when eye candy is half the game?..if eye candy didnt matter we would still be playing old games like secret wepons of the luffwaffa<~~game had horrible grafics but a decent fly sim with alot of options..but it would be laughable today as a pay to fly multiplayer flight sim..good work hightech keep the eye candy going:aok

Elfie · « **Reply #92 on:** April 15, 2005, 04:34:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FiLtH
I have a 1.6 w/ 512 ram ,and a 128mb gforce. I have to king my sliders full right at 1024 to maintain 30+ fps.

Very similar system to mine, and I also have to keep all sliders to the right to maintain 30+ fps. We are running systems that are twice as good as the min req's, yet we dont get much better performance than a min setup. Something about that just isnt right imo heh.

It shouldnt take a system that is 4x as fast as the minumun req's to run this game at acceptable levels. Skuzzy thinks high 20's is acceptable, for me it isnt. Dropping from the low 30's into the high 20's has a very detrimental effect on my gunnery.

Quote

People had almost a year to prepare for it.

Prepare for what? I was already running my Athlon 2000XP which is twice as fast as the listed min req's. I think that is the root of the complaints that people are running machines much faster than the stated min req's to play, but they cant maintain acceptable frame rates.

Btw, for all of you running a motherboard with a VIA chipset AND a Sound Blaster sound card.......rip that SB out of your sytem and get a cheapo offbrand sound card. It REALLY helps your system performance.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #93 on:** April 15, 2005, 04:36:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eilif
i had some majore fps problems when i ran at 1024 by 768, but when i moved it down to 800 by 600 it worked great but looked awfull, i turned on antiliasing to 4x, and it looks better than the higher res setting and gets better fps.

When i run at 800 by 600 i get a black rim around my screen for some reason tho.

another strange thing is, i cant change my gama in the video settings anymore, in fact none of the video settings seem adjustable anymore. I may have to reinstall ah i sopose.

eilif, are you using an LCD or CRT? Most CRT's have controls to stretch the screen to occupy the full display, some LCD's have this also. With LCD's look in your Vid card setup and see if there is a setting for screen stretch, this should fill the screen. Might reduce quality though.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #94 on:** April 15, 2005, 04:45:17 PM »

No offense guys, but if you are running 1024X768 your res is too high to be calling the minimum spec PC into play. Try it at 640X480 or even 800X600 and you should see the frames climb drastically. You can edit the config file to make changes not allowed via GUI, I chose 1920X1200 for the widescreen on my laptop that way.

Elfie · « **Reply #95 on:** April 15, 2005, 04:56:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert
No offense guys, but if you are running 1024X768 your res is too high to be calling the minimum spec PC into play. Try it at 640X480 or even 800X600 and you should see the frames climb drastically. You can edit the config file to make changes not allowed via GUI, I chose 1920X1200 for the widescreen on my laptop that way.

I tryed the 640x480 setting and never got ABOVE 35fps with that setting. Performance was absolutely horrible. I also tryed 800 x 600. While 800x600 was better than the lower setting, 1024 x 768 seems to be the *sweet spot*.

Actually, I just thought of something. I havent tryed lower resolutions since I ripped the SB card out of my system. I'll try 800 x 600 tonight and post later on how it went. Dont think I am gonna try 600 x 480 tho, that was just terrible.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #96 on:** April 15, 2005, 06:03:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Dont think I am gonna try 600 x 480 tho, that was just terrible.

You got that right bro! And to think that used to be called high res...LOL.

Of course ugly is better than a slide show.

culero · « **Reply #97 on:** April 15, 2005, 07:35:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigR

9 Years Ago...and
snip

~sniffle~ I miss it

culero (but has come to like the new thang)

Elfie · « **Reply #98 on:** April 15, 2005, 09:31:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert
You got that right bro! And to think that used to be called high res...LOL.

Of course ugly is better than a slide show.

You misinterpret what I am trying to say. It's not terrible because of the quality of the graphics (which DO suck btw), it was terrible because of the crappy frame rates at that low resolution. Any kind of a fight with more than 2 or 3 planes involved was a slide show. I cant even select 640 x 400 in Windows XP, maybe that has something to do with it?

Elfie · « **Reply #99 on:** April 16, 2005, 03:31:58 AM »

Things were more stable at 800 x 600 with textures at 128. My fps did go below 30 at times still. At one point it was in the high teens. My system still does bog down now, but I can go to a little bit bigger fights now.

flyingaround · « **Reply #100 on:** April 16, 2005, 03:44:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flit
Looks like most of the one's complaining have been here less then a year, and therefore don't have a clue about about much HTC care's for and listen's to thier customers.
Or how often the game is improved.

Is this ID old 'nuff? or do I have to dig out the one BEFORE this back from my AirWarrior days?

LTARokit · « **Reply #101 on:** April 16, 2005, 05:22:29 PM »

AW..........Ahhhhhhhh,...the memories.

guttboy · « **Reply #102 on:** April 16, 2005, 07:53:16 PM »

I LIKE BUNNIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

ZZ3 · « **Reply #103 on:** April 16, 2005, 09:08:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
My office system is an 850Mhz Pentium III with an ATI8500 video card. Previous patch I was hanging in the 30's to low 20's in frame rate.
With 2.03, I start in the tower at 50+ FPS and drop to around high 20's FPS. Very playable.

Look thats all fine and dandy Skuzzy, but most of these guys have numerous progs running, possibly spyware on their systems and who knows what else.
Whats running on that system, probably nothing... You running AV, Office toolbar, etc ?
Not picking a fight, but you full well know that most systems out there are poorly configured, even the store bought systems. Those things have so much junk on them it's pathetic.
I say, if you cant afford to play due to lack of a system. Save your money, then come back.

LTARokit · « **Reply #104 on:** April 16, 2005, 10:24:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ZZ3
I say, if you cant afford to play due to lack of a system. Save your money, then come back. [/B]

_____________________________ ___________

That's exactly what I had to do

FR's became so bad last Oct. decided to take break while gaming rig was built. came back on in late nov. & for those of you that say "can't afford a gaming rig at the drop of a dime", took me a year of saving up to get what I wanted.