I think this game should run at 250 fps
- Thread starter theR1
- Start date
- Status
As long as the frame rate is above 25 frames a second the game will play smooth.
Why people or so obsessed with hig FPS I've no idea...surely getting 50 to 100 fps is just as good as 250? Can your eyes differentiate between 50 and 250?
Makes me laugh...cos it wont make a blind bit of difference.
Also saying you need a top end PC to run the game is a load of sh1t.
I have some settings on ultra and some and high and the only two below high are shadows and foilage and I have post processing at medium.
Win 7 64bit
ATI 4870 1 gig
A poxy 2 gig of ram
AMD x 3 @ 3.4.
Takes a couple of seconds to laod all textures at first then plays well.
Why people or so obsessed with hig FPS I've no idea...surely getting 50 to 100 fps is just as good as 250? Can your eyes differentiate between 50 and 250?
Makes me laugh...cos it wont make a blind bit of difference.
Also saying you need a top end PC to run the game is a load of sh1t.
I have some settings on ultra and some and high and the only two below high are shadows and foilage and I have post processing at medium.
Win 7 64bit
ATI 4870 1 gig
A poxy 2 gig of ram
AMD x 3 @ 3.4.
Takes a couple of seconds to laod all textures at first then plays well.
Last edited:
Multi core implementation on UE3 is problematic it seems.
I can not think of a single UE3 game with good multithreading.
Contrary to BFBC2's Frostbite, which does it well.
Not that it's superbly optimized or anything, it's just that it evens the load across the cores pretty good.
This is the biggest BFBC2 map - by far.
Still less then 2 km^2.
Most of BFBC2 maps are tiny and like 100m wider then COD maps.
I can not think of a single UE3 game with good multithreading.
Contrary to BFBC2's Frostbite, which does it well.
Not that it's superbly optimized or anything, it's just that it evens the load across the cores pretty good.
This is the biggest BFBC2 map - by far.
Still less then 2 km^2.
Most of BFBC2 maps are tiny and like 100m wider then COD maps.
Last edited:
BC2 maps are not bigger than ro2 maps, well maybe apartments, but everything else i would say is larger. And bad company 2 maps have less objects and detail, the maps practicaly are consisting of following: sand, sandstorm, snow, snowstorm, a row of copy pasted houses, and a palm or pine trees. That pretty much sums up all the maps.
aesthetics>graphics People need to remember that. When someone says that something looks good he is not referring to the gazillion poly count or the shaders. He means that the game looks nice. I would say that HOMM3 looks better than most 3d strategy games out there, however graphically it is inferior
Last edited:
i7 920 4.0ghz
1600mhz 6 gigs ram
5970 2GB card
Now its understandable if the maxed settings drain your frame rate, but with those specs i just played barracks and got 30 fps when running around outside and 20 fps when the artillery hits even though I'm in a building and cant see it. This is the frames I get at the lowest possible settings 800x600 70 FOV, the game looks like **** at the lowest settings but i only notice about 10-20 fps increase over when i have maxed settings 1920x1080 90 FOV. It's ok for the highest settings to be hard to run with how good it looks but the lowest settings with how bad it looks should not be owning my system.
I try to get 120FPS in games by turning settings down so i can utilize my 120hz monitor but if i cant ill settle for 60FPS but in this game it isn't possible to hold that usual frame rate.
1600mhz 6 gigs ram
5970 2GB card
Now its understandable if the maxed settings drain your frame rate, but with those specs i just played barracks and got 30 fps when running around outside and 20 fps when the artillery hits even though I'm in a building and cant see it. This is the frames I get at the lowest possible settings 800x600 70 FOV, the game looks like **** at the lowest settings but i only notice about 10-20 fps increase over when i have maxed settings 1920x1080 90 FOV. It's ok for the highest settings to be hard to run with how good it looks but the lowest settings with how bad it looks should not be owning my system.
I try to get 120FPS in games by turning settings down so i can utilize my 120hz monitor but if i cant ill settle for 60FPS but in this game it isn't possible to hold that usual frame rate.
Last edited:
- Status