What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

[=98=]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

24 players for console BC-2 and................
40 players for PC BC-2 says it can't handle what BF2 had (64 players ).

And seems we are meant to be moving forwards , BF3 should be able to handle atleast 80 players , but frostbite will not allow that , not even 64 players

Hence why I said a tweaked version would be most likely. They'll work with the engine i'm sure. The only barrier is machine power, so it would most likely be a case of optimising the engine and being able to add more players without adding a huge deal more strain.

I'm sure you remember when BF2 first came out, about 50% of people couldn't play 64 player servers due to the fact it was a lot harder on PC's. I myself with my Pentium 4 and Radeon X600 steered well clear of things like Kubra Dam 64 player :p

Also, i'm not sure there is a need for over 64 players. More doesn't always mean better, I personally never play 64player, I stick to maybe 32 player at the most simply because the amount of retards goes up proportionally with the number of slots.

[jake_]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

Hence why I said a tweaked version would be most likely. They'll work with the engine i'm sure. The only barrier is machine power, so it would most likely be a case of optimising the engine and being able to add more players without adding a huge deal more strain.

I'm sure you remember when BF2 first came out, about 50% of people couldn't play 64 player servers due to the fact it was a lot harder on PC's. I myself with my Pentium 4 and Radeon X600 steered well clear of things like Kubra Dam 64 player :p

Also, i'm not sure there is a need for over 64 players. More doesn't always mean better, I personally never play 64player, I stick to maybe 32 player at the most simply because the amount of retards goes up proportionally with the number of slots.

:nod:

I occasionally like tp lay 64, but 48 was just as good for me.

For games like TF2 even less is better; I can never stand to play on 32 player servers. 24 is best for me.

[PCGamer121.]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

I'm sure you remember when BF2 first came out, about 50% of people couldn't play 64 player servers due to the fact it was a lot harder on PC's. I myself with my Pentium 4 and Radeon X600 steered well clear of things like Kubra Dam 64 player :p.

Yeah , back then I also had a P4 , nvidia 7600 , and only 512MB of ram , and it would lag like crazy if the player count got to high , or when flying a jet , helis would be fine thou

Also, i'm not sure there is a need for over 64 players. More doesn't always mean better, I personally never play 64player, I stick to maybe 32 player at the most simply because the amount of retards goes up proportionally with the number of slots.

I don't really want more than 64 players , but we are meant to be moving forwards and i would like the chance to play 80 or 100 slot servers if i so wished , witch ATM i don't as there is too many idiots on 64 player servers

[RangerXML]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

In the life of my computer playing I went from a 6600>>6800GT>>7600GT>>8800GTX and CPU from A64 3200+>>A64 4000+>>A64x2 4600+>>C2Q 6700 (OCed 3.33Ghz). Each one demonstrated just how poorly the thought through the release of BF2 and what type of a system they had in mind the player would be playing the game on. I mean the game was released pre nvidia 7 series and the 7600GT seemed to be the sweet spot and pre dual core, the 4000+ was an expensive processor at the time but after it rarely dropped below 60FPS, but the dual cores even if the game wasn't written for them really shined. After Crysis I shudder to think what they expect for BF3.

[=98=]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

In the life of my computer playing I went from a 6600>>6800GT>>7600GT>>8800GTX and CPU from A64 3200+>>A64 4000+>>A64x2 4600+>>C2Q 6700 (OCed 3.33Ghz). Each one demonstrated just how poorly the thought through the release of BF2 and what type of a system they had in mind the player would be playing the game on. I mean the game was released pre nvidia 7 series and the 7600GT seemed to be the sweet spot and pre dual core, the 4000+ was an expensive processor at the time but after it rarely dropped below 60FPS, but the dual cores even if the game wasn't written for them really shined. After Crysis I shudder to think what they expect for BF3.

I thought it scaled really well. Upon release, the top end card iirc was a Radeon X800 or X850 which could play it on all high (maybe 4x AA). Yet, awful cards like my ancient Radeon X300 and X600 could still play on all low.

It spanned the hardware market a lot better than games do today I think.

[M0t0rBreath]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

I know not a lot of ppl play 64 players, but to have that option is good. Some maps are great for 64 players like Jalalabad, but I know most play around 40 players in a round. To me having more options of player count changes the map. I hope BF3 has at least 50 players or 64, wouldn't mind having more. Since the Frostbite Engine take a lot of resources, I find it difficult seeing the game having more than 64. I know Dx11 and the new cards will make for more powerful and efficient games, but we'll have to wait and see.

[jesus]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

I thought it scaled really well. Upon release, the top end card iirc was a Radeon X800 or X850 which could play it on all high (maybe 4x AA). Yet, awful cards like my ancient Radeon X300 and X600 could still play on all low.

It spanned the hardware market a lot better than games do today I think.

I agree. when I first played BF2 I was playing with a 2.0ghz pentium 4, 768mb of RAM and a 5200FX. It sucked, but was still playable.

[Leopardi]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

I thought it scaled really well. Upon release, the top end card iirc was a Radeon X800 or X850 which could play it on all high (maybe 4x AA). Yet, awful cards like my ancient Radeon X300 and X600 could still play on all low.

It spanned the hardware market a lot better than games do today I think.

Upon release the game ran 200% better without the canadian chewing gum fixes in game.

[MrChris_CJ]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

got to remember that BC2 doesn't mean Battlefield 3, its not just a case of the engine but having suitable maps as well that work well with larger numbers

I think BF3 will expand upon 64 man, although the highest I liked playing with was around a 40 man server

[jesus]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

Upon release the game ran 200% better without the canadian chewing gum fixes in game.

The canadian chewing gum fixes made my game run 1050% better.

Sucks if it didn't for you.

[=98=]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

Upon release the game ran 200% better without the canadian chewing gum fixes in game.

Not on Windows 7 or Vista it doesn't.

Some patches made it worse, some made it better. 1.5 is damn good though :)

[Leopardi]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

The canadian chewing gum fixes made my game run 1050% better.

Sucks if it didn't for you.

nah it didn't. 1.0 maps load twice as fast, fps is much better and everything is much more smoother online.

[=98=]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

nah it didn't. 1.0 maps load twice as fast, fps is much better and everything is much more smoother online.

I found map load times are much the same, FPS a lot better now and online much better (at least in 1.5)

[Leopardi]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

I found map load times are much the same, FPS a lot better now and online much better (at least in 1.5)

That's not true at all. In 1.0 you have much better hitreg, and there is no stupid packetloss issues like sniper scope unzooming by itself getting you killed in many situations.

In 1.0 maps load at the same speed, as you would now when you have just loaded a map and the server changes the map. In about 5-10 seconds.

[=98=]

Re: What do you guys think system specs for BF3?

That's not true at all. In 1.0 you have much better hitreg, and there is no stupid packetloss issues like sniper scope unzooming by itself getting you killed in many situations.

In 1.0 maps load at the same speed, as you would now when you have just loaded a map and the server changes the map. In about 5-10 seconds.

Meh, not for me. With 1.5 I find hitreg is almost perfect. Obviously I can't talk for others, but in my opinion it works great. Map load times haven't changed that much really.