Lost Coast Released

[woah]

Or spend your money more practically.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

kerosine99 wrote..

I think the invincibility with commentary on was a feature, not a bug.

While the commentary is playing, sure, I'd agree with you that it's a feature. But after playing all the comments, walking outside to battle the final chopper, and standing there as it pelts me with absolutely no damage taken? No commentary bubbles around to explain that one, at least not in my mind.

hugo-rj wrote..

HAHAEHAEHUAEhaeiuaheuihaeAHEHeaiuaehuhAEHAEUAHE
!!!!!

XP2600+ and a 6600GT @50FPS (everything on HIGH and AA2x AF4x)!!!!!!!



That was the funniest.

I'm confused, are you mocking my system because yours is better, or because you get better FPS with a similar system? Do explain.

[hugo-rj]

Man, I have an A643000 oced to 2.5GHz, a 6600GT@550/1150 and at 1024x768 with everything on max but AF off (trilinear) and AA off, it's not smooth.



I can't even believe you could get 30+ fps with AF4x and AA2x with your 2600+ and the GF6600GT.



And you know I'm being realistic. That's funny, just make a search on google, you'll find more and more lies like "hl2 runs fine with my sempron 2200+ and my FX5200 on maximum settings with 4X AA".



C'mon, don't be a liar.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

What purpose would I have to lie about my system performance? On a website that I help run, no less... that wouldn't help anyone, and I think my history shows I don't brag about my ePenis.



I can imageshack some screenshots tonight after I get home if you'd like, I suppose, but if you're utterly convinced I'm lying, you could just make the claim that I was either copying them from somewhere else, or l was lying about my system specs.



Either way you can believe what you want, but it's really not that impressive of a claim in the first place, so I don't know why you're bringing my character into question. Use cl_showfps 1 and check what you're averaging with your superior system, eh?

[hugo-rj]

Why ppl with low-spec pcs can't stand the fact that having a better machine does not mean someone is trying to be better than them?



My machine is not even high end, I have the same vga card as you, my processor is an outdated 754 one... shut up, dude, don't take it personally, it's all about electronics and silicon.



You lied, and was cought. Shut up, pls.

[ph03nix(k)]

I had below the recommended system req. and it ran as smoothly as regular hl2.. It was pretty short though..

[wolf8218]

I have an Fx-57, 4GB PC400 dual channel ram, and 2 ATI x850XTs.... It was at a constant 200-210 FPS, so no problems here.

[Vlux]

I know Lost Coast was suppose to be a tech demo level for HDR, but does it have any combat scenes you can involved in? I don't have DX9 capabilities so I don't care much about visuals.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Vlux, yes, it plays just like any other part of HL2, mainly just combat with combine soldiers (and the occasional super-soldier), plus two choppers and three spiders thrown in for good measure. Nothing particularly new in the combat, but I did like the rappelling enemies. The point is, it's not particularly long... maybe 30-40 enemies in all on normal difficulty?



Funny that killing that many people would seem like a 10-15 minute venture, but yeah... they don't call 'em FPS games for nothing. :) Look around and enjoy the pretty views when you're not busy, eh?

[Zips]

hugo-rj wrote..

Man, I have an A643000 oced to 2.5GHz, a 6600GT@550/1150 and at 1024x768 with everything on max but AF off (trilinear) and AA off, it's not smooth.



I can't even believe you could get 30+ fps with AF4x and AA2x with your 2600+ and the GF6600GT.

... Well.



2500XP at stock speeds, 6800GT (AGP) at stock speeds, 1GB of PC2700 RAM.



High on Everything

2x AA

4x AF

HDR on Full



30+FPS on 1024x768, usually around the 50's and only slight hitching since I'm CPU limited. Also, since I'm CPU limited I can go to any other resolution and my FPS will still be about the same for the Lost Coast.



So, you better start believing.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Just grabbed a few screenshots here:







Like I said, it can fluxuate from area to area, and I saw it dip just under 20 at one point, but by and large it seems to stay in the mid to high 40's. Much higher if you're looking directly at a wall, of course, but I tried to throw in a few screenshots with some variety and plenty on-screen. Take them as you will, they're just a sample.



Now to see if I can max out the settings in 1600x1200 (virtually unplayable, I'm sure) and get some good no-hud screenshots to use as wallpapers. :)

[hugo-rj]

Zips wrote..

2500XP at stock speeds, 6800GT (AGP) at stock speeds, 1GB of PC2700 RAM.



So, you better start believing.

I think someone does not know the diference between a 6600GT and a 6800GT.



6600GT - 8 pixels pipeline, 3 vertex shaders, 128bit memory interface, 500/1000 gpu/mem clock (clocks vary a little, agp version usually is 500/900, for instance)



6800GT - 16 pixels pipeline, 6 vertex shaders, 256bit memory interface, 350/1000 gpu/mem clock.



So you see now? 6800GT is A LOT faster than 6600GT. You can't even compare... 6800GT is in another league.



So you better start shuting up your mouth.

appended @ [time="1130651202"]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

Just grabbed a few screenshots here:Like I said, it can fluxuate from area to area, and I saw it dip just under 20 at one point, but by and large it seems to stay in the mid to high 40's. Much higher if you're looking directly at a wall, of course, but I tried to throw in a few screenshots with some variety and plenty on-screen. Take them as you will, they're just a sample.

Some tests:

1) 1024x768, 4XAF, 2XAA, everything at highest settings:

title screen: 35fps

just like your second ss, but looking at the water: 33 fps

about the same as your 3rd ss: 55fps

inside the 'church' or something like that, looking at the broken windows, 12 fps on the worst case, 16 to 30 average with the windows intact.

20 to 29 fps fighting enemies inside the 'church'.



2) 1024x768, 4XAF, 2XAA, model and texture quality: medium, shader and shadow at low

title screen: 33/35 fps

just like your second ss: 55 fps

just like your 3rd, but looking at the water: 33 fps



So... is one of us lying?

[-:Nighthawk:-]

I don't think you'd have any particular reason to lie, but at this point I can only assume that despite having purportedly faster hardware than mine, you've got something else in your system slowing you down.



The title screen is one we can definitely compare, since it's a locked position with exactly the same elements on-screen. I don't know how you're only getting 35 on that, but whether you want to believe the numbers I type here, the screenshots don't lie. At least for that view, apparently I'm getting nearly 1.5x the performance of your system, which is pretty concerning.



Likewise, looking at those numbers, I'm finding it hard to understand why you aren't seeing any FPS boost at all with lowering the graphical details. That kind of stuff makes me wonder if you've got something besides your graphics card and processor bottlenecking your system (because if the graphics card was the choke point, lower details should have definitely improved your FPS, and if it was the processor, knocking down shadows usually boosts things a bit). This is assuming you didn't do something dumb like enable vsync, but I wouldn't expect that.



So I dunno, I'd check your other drivers or something, see if your sound settings need adjustment (I play without EAX or A3D), or whatever else might affect it. Because honestly, you should be getting better performance on the system you're claiming to have.



Sorry to see you've got an attitude of believing that different performance on different machines automatically equals dishonesty. On an unrelated note, I'm curious what the game acts like for you at 1600x1200 with max details and 4xAA/8xAF. I tried that with no hud and no view model to try to get some screenshots. It gets pretty glitchy for me for some reason, and at times everything looks fine and beautiful, but frequently the skybox has whole sections go slate gray and just be tweaky.



As expected it's often near unplayable at that mode, but sure is pretty. Looking back through the screenshots, one I took looking straight up the cliff looks pretty close to a photograph... I'm liking HDR. :)

[SubNeoN]

Edited by [user="180474"] @ [time="1130688434"]

Ok done some "benchmarks"

3000+ venice at 235

1.5gb XMS3200XL at 470

7800GT at 482/1.16

Creative X-Fi

2x200gb in RAID 0



All settings high..

Taken with fraps

A - Beach

B - Tunnel

C - Courtyard

D - Church

Final - Near Basket



EDIT: transparency AA was on max btw..



1280x960 (forced with Nvidia profile 8xaa 16xaf)

fps on title screen : 32

point a : 29

point b : 46

point c : 28

church : 25

Final : 30



4xaa 8xaf (application controlled profile)*as recommended by valve*

fps on title screen : 54

point a : 51

point b : 85

point c : 50

church : 40

Final : 51



no aa Tri af (application controlled profile)

fps on title screen : 92

point a : 80

point b :115

point c : 75

church : 68

Final : 62



i've got screenshots of all of it if it's wanted

[heldorado]

Has anyone ventured to the other side of the map yet, near where the factory and city is? I made my way over there hoping to explore but all the textures and buildings are incomplete... You can't even walk on the dock leading to the wrecked boats you see... But it was fun just walking forever and ever past where I'm supposed to be.



Also, when you shoot out the windows in the church, you can jump on a pew and look out one of them... The view from this window is basically just random environment, as you can't see the factory over the bay. Little things to check out, that's all...



It was short but it sure was damn sweet. Here's to another year or two until Aftermath.