Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

[CTD-Tiwaz]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

So what is the performance gap between a system getting an average of 60 fps compared to one getting an average 90 fps? Is the person with 90 fps really have that big an edge or is it all psychological?

[Talus]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

Well, it's really during a heavy FIREFIGHT that FPS would make that big a difference. With all settings on high, somebody might get a drop to 30 fps in a firefight, while the super-competitive low-setting player may be getting 60 fps. That COULD make a difference as to who comes out alive.

The player whose computer is hiccupping a bit may not be able to aim and fire as accurately during the hiccups.

I believe THIS is the main reason why people (such as myself) are so obsessed with tweaking and optimizing their BF2 game. I don't want to have to sacrifice any graphics quality due to what I believe is a shortcoming of programming and optimization on DICE's part (and pushing for the deadline on EA's part).

The other issue is the fact that there are no shadowed areas with settings on low and with the background textures being super bland, players stand out a heckuva lot more.

[Rambo]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

Who cares you could still see the red name tag.

and adds more skill and realism!

i play 4x on windows 4x everthing on high @12x10 on bf2 graphics but have 7800 gtx on 64 amd(dont get 6x with that card ingame?)

[raceacontari]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

i play with what makes it look nice. I still get lots of kills...so I don't really care if they are "hiding" in the shadows or not. Most players are too stupid to do something like hide...they'd rather start shooting their m16 or something at my tank...or something stupid like that lol.

[Maxor127]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

Turning lighting shadows off shouldn't be allowed. That's just stupid. I thought about tweaking my settings and seeing into the dark but I don't care that much. If I wanted to play a game that looked 7 years old, I'd go play Counter-Strike. I have my settings low-medium except for maybe Geometry and 100% distance.

[Punisher18]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

I normally have my settings on 1600x1200 with all high and 4x AA, but recently my comp moniter "cracked" so i have tio set the res. lower or the middle is very blurry. The problem that caused it was i had it at 100mhz but it can only do a max of 85. So i screwed myself.
But here is a photo of mine at 1280x1024@74Hz
also it is a png because i cant use thwe jpeg version for some odd reason.

[abtomat74]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

People playing on Low certainly do have a slight advantage when it comes to seeing hidden people you normally wouldn't have.

But, if I wanted my nice game to look like that I'd buy a Playstation :)

[sackynut]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

I play at everything max. 4x AA everything set at High. I sometimes put AF at 16x, on my nvidia drivers but cant tell any difference. I keep vsync on because I like the way it looks compared to the refresh lines going across the screen. But my fps Is Constant at 75 which is my refresh rate/vsync cap. It rarley drops lower, and if it does like 40fps is the lowest it will drop to in REALLY intense firefights. I can really really tell the difference, because I used to play on low settings on my old comp.

[<}US{>BlackHawkPilot73]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

LLLOww

[abtomat74]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

I sometimes put AF at 16x, on my nvidia drivers but cant tell any difference.

Someone mentioned before that BF2 does not recognize out-of-game card settings...perhaps why you couldn't notice a difference. As such, you should have your card on "Application Preference" for BF2 at least.

The in-game setting called "Texture Filtering" is AF by the way.

[Rambo]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

I normally have my settings on 1600x1200 with all high and 4x AA, but recently my comp moniter "cracked" so i have tio set the res. lower or the middle is very blurry. The problem that caused it was i had it at 100mhz but it can only do a max of 85. So i screwed myself.
But here is a photo of mine at 1280x1024@74Hz
also it is a png because i cant use thwe jpeg version for some odd reason.

MAN that looks nice CRT??? is it @ 16x12???

[{USI}_DirTyDeeDs]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

My computer is four years old and can barely play BF2. :evil:

Dell Dimension 8200
2 ghz
768 rdram

I have textures medium, everything else low, and lighting and shadows off.
I want to add the lighting and shadows, but on my computer it equals about 5 fps. I simply dont have a choice about it.

LOL i maxed out my setting to watch a battlerecorder game and it was playing in slow motion at normal speed :hmm:

I am fortunate I can play this game at all, and I refuse to upgrade until Armed Assault

[Punisher18]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

MAN that looks nice CRT??? is it @ 16x12???

crt? lol im lost.
But if i understand what you meant by 16x12 the answer is no, that pic is at 1280x1024@75 htz because i cant do 1600x1200 anyore until i get a new moniter. But it still looks almost perfect. Also if uyou ntice that picture is funn to because that is a person sticking out of the tanks tread. The person stayed in the tread and moved with the tread as the tank moved. LOL
looked hilarious to watch the bottom half just wiggling when he back up and went forward.
here i found out how to get a jpeg so you can see the pic better.
you also get to see one of my cool localizations files changes. courtesy of saladfork

[Pilioka]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

Everything on high with 70-80 FPS. I'll take everything on High.

[JonnyMacFred102]

Re: Low vs High Settings :Pictures:

I play on low but at high res of 1280x1024 since i have an LCD. Lower res's would enable me to bump up settings but then it looks bad on the monitor.