2024-11-24, 06:10 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Wirehead Studios > General Discussion > Entertainment > Official Doom3 Hardware Guide (By [H]ardOCP)
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: Official Doom3 Hardware Guide (By [H]ardOCP)  (Read 20155 times)
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
ConfusedUs
 

Elite (2k+)
**
Posts: 2358

WWW
« on: 2004-07-30, 02:21 »
http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQ0

A few things to note, especially for those of you that run older systems:

Quote
If you have a 1.5GHz Pentium (or equivalent) and a 3D card that has been made in the last couple of years, you should be able to enjoy the DOOM 3 experience as it was meant to be.

This is very good news, and makes me laugh at those people who went out and spent $1000 or more upgrading for Doom3. A 2500+ with a 9800pro (my system) is capable of playing at high quality at 1024x768 without a problem, and the difference between high quality and ultra quality is next to nothing.

Older systems play and look great too!
Logged
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375
« Reply #1 on: 2004-07-30, 15:36 »
stil going out to buy 1 gigh of ram  (making me have 1.5 gigh ) and those zalman headphones .
« Last Edit: 2004-07-30, 15:37 by games keeper » Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8814

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2004-07-31, 00:12 »
When did you get a 9800Pro?  I thought you were always broke!  Sipgate - Evil
« Last Edit: 2004-07-31, 00:13 by Phoenix » Logged

I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375
« Reply #3 on: 2004-07-31, 00:47 »
now you know why he is always broke
Logged
ConfusedUs
 

Elite (2k+)
**
Posts: 2358

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2004-07-31, 03:00 »
Quote from: Phoenix
When did you get a 9800Pro?  I thought you were always broke!  Sipgate - Evil
mom bought one for me for my birthday

It's not here yet, but it's coming
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2004-07-31, 04:28 »
They're a little bit too enthusiastic about this whole 'you don't need powerful hardware!' thing, fi you ask me. They proclaim that the game is playable with older videocards too: avg fps: 29.5 -- that is NOT playable, for me :]
As soon as the average runs up into the 60-90, it's an acceptable gaming experience. Otherwise, I might aswell render the scenes in max, and flip through them on a rainy sunday afternoon. ;]
Logged
Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299
« Reply #6 on: 2004-07-31, 07:18 »
id says the game is designed to be playable at 30 fps, and as for your range, tabun, the engine is locked at 60 fps.
Logged
Genialus
 

Shambler
*****
Posts: 119
« Reply #7 on: 2004-07-31, 15:06 »
Please not that the 30 fps is average, meaning it WILL drop below. For me I would like it to never drop below 30, then I'd be happy.
Radeon 8500 should be enough but my card doesn't seem to know so I need to change that to maybe a 9800 pro. *sigh* but I'm still waiting for the big price drop i thought the X800 and 6800 would cause...

*RANT*
I don't like how this pci-express is affecting my buying options. Buy mother board now I need to have one with pci-express and that means i have to?change my gfx-card as well (GAAAaah)
buy Gfx now I'd have to go for something with agp 4x which means that my completely new gfx card would have to fly out the window if I want to upgrade the MB. (GAAAaah)
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #8 on: 2004-07-31, 15:30 »
Oh yes, the engine limit of 60fps. _total bollocks idea warning_ I'm going to refrain from playing it extensively until that is resolved. It's a total bullshit hack to prevent 'trickjumping bugs' as seems to be their main reason. I'm confident that after x months, people will start to complain about the engine not allowing their next-next-next generations videocards from using their raw power. If that's not the case, the game can get bent, for all I care.
I wasn't born in the age of the Fruitbat to see idiotic limitations applied. '640k should be enough for everybody!'.
Logged
Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Chilvence
 
Ogre
**
Posts: 55
« Reply #9 on: 2004-07-31, 16:04 »
I wouldn't be surprised if you could remove it straight away with the com_maxfps cvar...

Doesnt bother me though, since my LCD refresh rate is 60 Slipgate - Smile
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8814

WWW
« Reply #10 on: 2004-07-31, 19:26 »
Chivilance:  If it were that easy [H]ardOCP would have changed the setting.  They said it was an engine cap, which sounds a lot like there's no way to undo that.

I'm not really too thrilled with a 60FPS max myself.  60 looks like a bloody slideshow to me, and if I can get hardware (eventually) that can render at a higher framerate I'd like to use it for just that purpose.  They better have compensated for the choppiness in some way.  If there's a technical reason for the limitation let's hear it, otherwise I'm in agreement with Tabun.  If the problem is exploits, why not just lock the client's command rate in the same way the server runs at a specific clock?  I see no reason why the rendering framerate and the client's command framerate have to be linked.
Logged

I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Genialus
 

Shambler
*****
Posts: 119
« Reply #11 on: 2004-07-31, 20:14 »
Phoenix are you seriously sayng that you can tell the difference between 60 fps and 90 fps WITHOUT the fps counter in the corner?

Besides that I just wanted to remind you that Doom 3 is a much slower game than q3 so high fps shouldn't matter so much.
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #12 on: 2004-07-31, 21:49 »
Genialus:

Unless you have very very poor eyesight, low refreshrate on your monitor or you blink all the time, it is easy to spot the difference between 60 and 90 fps.
Hell, I can easily spot the difference between 100 and 120, or 110 and 120 even, in quake 3. I'm pretty damned sure that with the proper hardware, I'd be able to tell the difference between 150 and 200 fps. Easily. The fact being, that you're not looking for something that is but something that isn't there, namely: (flickering, choppyness - ie.) the absense of smoothness.

I remember people telling me they couldn't spot the difference between 30 and 120 fps, and calling me a nut for setting my com_maxfps to 120. I feel really sorry for these folks, since they must be looking at the world with a constant stroboscope effect :]

--

Btw, in addition to Phoenix's post: Even if there was a good reason to prevent multiplayer problems by limiting the engine to 60 fps, I still don't see why that couldn't be disabled for single player mode. If you can't code a game to distinguish safely between the two, what the hell kind of programmer are you, anyway?
« Last Edit: 2004-07-31, 21:52 by Tabun » Logged
Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8814

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2004-07-31, 23:14 »
Quote from: Genialus
Phoenix are you seriously sayng that you can tell the difference between 60 fps and 90 fps WITHOUT the fps counter in the corner?
Yes.  If a monitor is set to 60 Hz it drives me nuts, and I can tell just by looking at it.  I run my screen at 140 Hz at 800x600 and lower, and 100Hz at 1024x768.  In Quake 2 or Q3 I can easily tell the difference between cl_maxfps and com_maxfps values, with or without a frame ticker for the exact same reasons Tab mentioned.  I prefer to keep my game as smooth as I can, which is why I sacrifice a little resolution for more speed.  If it weren't for the fact it increases network lag I could push for an even higher refresh on my system, I've gotten over 200 fps in Q3, but I also run r_swapinterval 1 at the cost of framerate so rotational movement doesn't chop as bad, and vsync so I don't get any tearing.  I also run m_filter 1 so I get that smoothness on the mouse.
Logged

I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Genialus
 

Shambler
*****
Posts: 119
« Reply #14 on: 2004-08-01, 00:48 »
Quote from: Tabun

I remember people telling me they couldn't spot the difference between 30 and 120 fps, and calling me a nut for setting my com_maxfps to 120. I feel really sorry for these folks, since they must be looking at the world with a constant stroboscope effect :]

--

Btw, in addition to Phoenix's post: Even if there was a good reason to prevent multiplayer problems by limiting the engine to 60 fps, I still don't see why that couldn't be disabled for single player mode. If you can't code a game to distinguish safely between the two, what the hell kind of programmer are you, anyway?
Tab I think WE should pitty YOU! You are the one that requires a high standard to enjoy a game Slipgate - Tongue

Then in addition to your post, If it's an engine cap that would suck for the mod community, say you wanted to create a... well...
Doom 3 : Generations  Slipgate - Ownage  
It wouldn't be nice to have a cap there since games at certain paces like more fps than 60. I used to play Q3 at 90 fps but then capped it at 60 because phoenix, I think it was, said it was better for my ping.
But still you two claim you can see the difference and I'm sure you're not alone, that would make people choose the hl2 engine or am I guessing completely wrong here?
What other reasons could there be for this cap? What kind of trick jumping are we talking here? If it's only a slight advantage I would say that this is similar to allowing 5.1 sound in the game, which is surely an advantage as well.
Logged
Kain-Xavier
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 917
« Reply #15 on: 2004-08-01, 01:15 »
Well, I can't really spot differences between 60 FPS and anything greater than 60 FPS mainly because I haven't been exposed to much of anything over 90.  I peak out at about 90 FPS in Quake 3 on 640 x 480, and I average 35 or so with UT2004 at the same resolution and with mostly default settings.  Both look great to me and do not seem to play choppy for the most part.  However, if I drop below 60 FPS in Quake 3, I begin to notice it immediately, but I can't really complain because I used to play Quake 3 with an average FPS of 8 or 10.  And as for monitor refresh rates, I can tell immediately what the setting is.  I don't ever want to go back to 60 Hz, it hurts my eyes.
Logged
My backlog: http://www.backloggery.com/KainXavier
Chilvence
 
Ogre
**
Posts: 55
« Reply #16 on: 2004-08-01, 05:48 »
The main thing I think you should worry about is can you even get 60fps fairly consistently from this game Slipgate - Laugh
Logged
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375
« Reply #17 on: 2004-08-01, 12:33 »
you dont need that much frames , I ownder more in sof2 whe I was playing with 2 fps , then now when im playing with 90 fps
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #18 on: 2004-08-01, 13:36 »
Oh I can easily enjoy games with sub-par FPS, colors, detail and resolution. I have, for years and years. Right now, I live in 2004, and I'm ready for mo' betta'. The new stuff ought to be proper. Why suddenly re-invent the wheel and make it square? Next thing you know they're going to go back to adlib sound, just because it prevents someone from hearing more then they should. Or why not just make it black and white? Or perhaps write the entire game in comic-book form and just mail it to everyone ;]

It's a matter of principle for me. I don't NEED to play Doom3. I will play it, when it makes sense. Scary games shouldn't be choppy or stuttery, because that takes you out of the experience. I have no difficulty waiting, and I'm sure that if I play it in july 2005, it will be quite enjoyable too.
« Last Edit: 2004-08-01, 13:39 by Tabun » Logged
Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375
« Reply #19 on: 2004-08-01, 14:51 »
hmm , that gives me an idea.

doom3 the text based game .
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to: