Re: 1152x864 and higher
Any reason in particular you only run 2x AF?
Originally posted by D|sso
-
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
1600x1200, All high except medium lighting, shadows and 4xaa and 16xAF for 64 man matches at constant high FPS. All high is no problem but in SF 64 man(sometimes BF2 Vanilla) at all high 6xaa it sometimes drops to 25fps in intense action and that is not acceptable!Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
mmm..Because running at 1280x1024 Resolution itself already makes up for some AA and AF, and textures have alot more detail by far, so more AF at higher resolutions isn't as required. Also, putting the AF to 4 gave me hints of stuttering on chinese maps like Daqing oil fields, so I just wanted to play safe and reverted back to 2.Originally posted by slideroComment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
Surely not?Originally posted by Area51Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
1600x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF
Opteron 146 @ 2.7
2 GiB RAM
7900GTComment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
I'm sure he doesn't have much AA or AF on though.Originally posted by KurtComment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
Hi folks, first post.
1600x1200 All high, 2XAA. I could go 4x but I'm a stickler for high framerates. I don't like to dip too low at any given time.
I can run 1920x1440 (with a few things toned down) , but the tags become so small I cant' make out who I'm playing with ;-).
I choose the higher resolutions rather then lower ones with higher AA and AF. I seem to get steadier framerates, and I perfer the crisper picture rather then one with heavy AA and AF.
It's very refreshing to see graphic topics where people actually list the resolution they are playing at, and specs. Being a semi-reg at PBF, it was infuriating that people would just blurt out that they could play everything on high, but not mentioning they're playing on a 17" monitor at 1024x768, nor commenting on their specs.
Very interesting to see some of the possible settings I might be able to acheive with an upgrade by comparing posts. Of course it's only possible with coherent posters, who understand hardware, graphic settings, and displays.
THanks, Hope my first post helps in this thread.Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
Athlon XP-M @ 2.5GHz
1GB PC3200
6800GT @ 410/1100MHz
On my old 17" CRT and running at 1024x768 my system could handle all settings on high. However, the native res of my new 19" LCD is 1280x1024 and I now need to turn things down a little or it can get a bit choppy from time to time. Load times also seem to suffer. I now run at:
Terrain - High
Effects - Medium
Geometry - Medium
Texture - Medium
Lighting - Medium**
Dynamic Shadows - Low
Dynamic Light - Low
Antialiasing - Off
Texture Filtering - High
View Distance Scale - 100%
**This is the setting that p*sses me off most in BF2. I hate the look of the game with this setting set to low but yet I know that loads and loads of players out there are running with it set to low as it gives them an advantage in darkened areas. I would love to see the low option removed completely.Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
Wow, a 2inch difference in moniters sure makes a lot of difference! Your performance really suffered. Was it really worth it switching to such a big or high res monitor if you can't even max out ingame settings?Originally posted by ~~ArdEnuff~~
Also, I completely agree with the lighting setting. It looks absolutely horrendous with it on low, because all static shadows disappear completely, leaving everything very very bright and vibrant, making the game look overwhelmingly unrealistic. Even so, alot turn it off because of the advantage, it's almost a hack!
I wish those static shadows could not be turned off, it really is an unfair advantage.Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
1600x1200 4xaa 16xaf
specs in the sig
19in flat screen crt. death to lcd's
EDIT:
~~ArdEnuff~~ when i had my 6800gt, and my 3500+ a64, i could run at 1280x1024 everything high and 4xaa, and achieve a steady 50+fps. You need to upgrade that proc mangComment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
Agreed totally.Originally posted by D|sso
1024X768
I could and have run Higher but I like having smooth high frame rates. This res looks good to
me.Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
well i have dual monitors at 2560x1024 but I still play on just one screen for now in BF2. I may change that up later by editing the files!Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
Yep, going to 1280x1024 really stretched my system. However, I find the higher settings in BF2, while nice, actually don't look all that much better than medium anyway. Overall, moving to a 19" LCD provided a much better computer experience from word processing right through to gaming.Originally posted by D|sso
I'd love to but my mobo is end of line now I'm afraid (Socket A). Upgrading now will involve new CPU, mobo and graphics card - all in one hit!Originally posted by rhohan
I'll be upgrading sometime in aabout a year to 18 months. I feel it is worth waiting for DX10 and Vista.Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
1280x1024, all medium expcept geometry on high. Could run all high, and its playable, but I prefer more FPS. Specs in sigi.Comment
-
Re: 1152x864 and higher
I hate to just post the same thing as everyone else, but...
1280x1024 (I won't use anything less)
Everything is on medium, except geometry on high (I think - not at home now).
PC specs:
256MB 6600 GT PCI-e, P4 3.0GHz CPU, 1Gb PC3200 ram (although I bought another 2Gb, which should arrive soon!), 800MHz FSB, 17" LCD, 200Gb SATA hdrive, 120Gb IDE hdrive, (old school) Creative SB 5.1 Platinum sound card.
Nothing special, but it gets the job done... sorta.Comment
Comment