This kinda sucks

[JOACH1M]

My computer runs the game Max Graphics (everything on), anti-aliasing all the way up, and 2048 texture, with 60FPS

I run BF3 60FPS and War Thunder 60FPS.

Don't think I will be having problems with this game anytime soon.  

not all of us have super computers Chris 

[Debrody]

Thats the thing, the FX chips are not good... being nearly the same as an FX chip is like being slightly worse the terrible...

performance-wise, the newest 8 core FX is like 10-15% slower than the newest i7. Thats absolutely not bad, most of us couldnt even tell the difference.
Where the AMD is way behind the intel is the consumption - this goes from the technology, 32nm vs 22 - that makes a huge difference.
While the 6-core phenom isnt top notch, that CPU is enough for anything. Considering that he is playing on 3 monitors, i wouldnt be sure that he is CPU-limited in the DX11 games.

Either way, his Phenom is still faster than your i5... tell him his puter is terrible... 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The way it was explained to me is, vs. other games that ppl use to benchmark and often criticize AH for not looking as pretty as...those games have very small arenas that all players are funneled into.

That's the mistake people keep making all the time for some reason. A graphics engine is deeply flawed if it renders invisible objects which are far far away. A properly optimized graphics engine renders only visible things, meaning that also from ground objects nothing but the surface which is visible to the client at any given time, gets rendered. Not insides of objects, not backsides of objects - only the visible surfaces.

So if the engine can handle a small map with 100 players in close vicinity it can as easily handle 10 000 players more which are beyond visual range, grapchics engine wise. This of course applies only to the graphics rendering part and disregards all the other challenges of tracking the 10 000 extra players.

AH for an example has distinct ranges beyond which objects first turn into dots and then disappear from sight totally. This is the only 'size' the developer needs to think about when thinking rendering.

[The Fugitive]

Yes, please.   The cockpit looks cartoonish.  Not much better than mine, frankly.   The water looks better though.

While mines not completely cranked up it is close...



Also, when you start the game for the first time the game adjust so what your system is capable of. If you push the setting to far it will give you a message saying it turned down your graphics. So "default" settings is what your system can handle.

The new graphic systems that HTC has pre-viewed I think will be a bit more optimized than what we are running now. I'm hoping that weaker systems will be able to push the graphics up a bit with out a penalty that they seem to get now.

[Vraciu]

^^^^^ Not bad.

So I need to be thinking Vid Card, more RAM, or CPU upgrade....   Which one first?  Video?

[The Fugitive]

^^^^^ Not bad.

So I need to be thinking Vid Card, more RAM, or CPU upgrade....   Which one first?  Video?

run a Dxdiag and post the first third of it....upto and including <SOUND DEVICES>.

You'll get more opinions/suggestions seeing what you have.

[Vraciu]

run a Dxdiag and post the first third of it....upto and including <SOUND DEVICES>.

You'll get more opinions/suggestions seeing what you have.

Roger that.

[LCADolby]

This is pants wettingly funny. Thanks for the read. 

[Max]

^^^^^ Not bad.

So I need to be thinking Vid Card, more RAM, or CPU upgrade....   Which one first?  Video?

Post your current system specs (including case & power supply) along with your budget in the Hardware-Software forum. You'll get good advice from a lot of savvy folks.

[PFactorDave]

While mines not completely cranked up it is close...



Also, when you start the game for the first time the game adjust so what your system is capable of. If you push the setting to far it will give you a message saying it turned down your graphics. So "default" settings is what your system can handle.

The new graphic systems that HTC has pre-viewed I think will be a bit more optimized than what we are running now. I'm hoping that weaker systems will be able to push the graphics up a bit with out a penalty that they seem to get now.

In all fairness...  The graphics in AH start to look worse the closer to the ground that you get.  Your shot at altitude, with clouds that seem too rare on most maps, is somewhat of a best case scenario...

[Vraciu]

Post your current system specs (including case & power supply) along with your budget in the Hardware-Software forum. You'll get good advice from a lot of savvy folks.

Good idea. Thanks.    

[Vraciu]

In all fairness...  The graphics in AH start to look worse the closer to the ground that you get.  Your shot at altitude, with clouds that seem too rare on most maps, is somewhat of a best case scenario...

My hardware won't change that then as it is due to the engine, right?

[PFactorDave]

My hardware won't change that then as it is due to the engine, right?

Well, the better the hardware is, the better stuff looks down low.  I was just pointing out, that from a graphics/look standpoint, that screen shot he posted really is a best case scenario.

Personally, I love the game.  But, I also am realistic enough to agree with the folks that point out that AH will slowly bleed to death (many believe they are already bleeding to death) if they don't take steps to counter the competition.

I am hopeful that the new terrain system will help.

That said, I think HTC needs to do some major work (which they may be working on already) and then they should re-release as AH3 and re-market the game.  But I think they are going to need more than just a new terrain system.

I would like to see AI missions (that players can join or oppose) running 24/7 in the MA.  Allow the AI to fight the war too, with real players mixed in, perhaps tipping the scales one way or the other.

Just some thoughts.

[olds442]

performance-wise, the newest 8 core FX is like 10-15% slower than the newest i7. Thats absolutely not bad, most of us couldnt even tell the difference.
Where the AMD is way behind the intel is the consumption - this goes from the technology, 32nm vs 22 - that makes a huge difference.
While the 6-core phenom isnt top notch, that CPU is enough for anything. Considering that he is playing on 3 monitors, i wouldnt be sure that he is CPU-limited in the DX11 games.

Either way, his Phenom is still faster than your i5... tell him his puter is terrible... 

While his Phenom is faster than my i5 for processes that use the cores correct, per core the i5 2500k is faster than the Phenom x6 1100t. This is really important given that aces high only uses 1 core on AMD based systems. Happened to me when I had my Athlon x4 630 and happens to my friends fx-8350...
Also the i5 2500k has more cache, more rename registers for pipeline bubbles, and just generally better out of order execution on a per core bases.

And you're correct I shouldn't have said terrible but the actual core architecture is far behind intel's. And please show me a chart where this fx 8 core is only 10% slower than the "newest i7"

[wiskyfog]

I grew up before Pong.  AH is dated and kids playing COD and War Thunder think this looks like Pong.  They aren't biting.

YMMV.

Yup, the other games look better, play better,and they are FREE (to a limit)