Upvote
0
Next mid-week update
- Thread starter [TW]Wilsonam
- Start date
I'm not so worried about nade spam anymore 
.
With 8 guys resting weapons you'll be hard pressed to take them out.
.With 8 guys resting weapons you'll be hard pressed to take them out
.
Upvote
0
Please take this as CONSTRUCTIVE criticism!
Please take this as CONSTRUCTIVE criticism!
I gotta say, this game is looking BEAUTIFUL. I just hope it'll play ok on my FX5500 ... it's gonna be a little while before I can afford to get a PCI-E board and a new video card.
Anyway, I do have a comments to make AND a question to pose about the screenshot where you're looking down the sights of the Mosin Nagant.
First, the question: Is that a carbine (M38 / M44) or a full-length rifle (91/30) that is shown?
Then the comments: carbine or rifle, there's some problems with the model! In the morning I'll take a couple pictures of my M38 and 91/30 to illustrate, but in the mean time I'll describe my problems.
1. The rear sight is -far- too narrow. On a pre-1936 rifle (with a hex receiver, like you show here) the rear sight is significantly wider than the upper receiver flat. (Even the carbine sight is wider, if you can find one build on a pre-'36 receiver)
2. There isn't any gap between the top part of the cocking piece (the square silver bit on the top of the bolt) and the sides of the receiver. In order for the rifle to be cocked when the bolt is opened, that has to be pinched between the two "ears" of the receiver. With as much play as that rifle would have, I doubt you could even turn the bolt far enough for the cocking knob to catch on the groove at the back of the bolt body.
3. The "ears" at the rear of the receiver. There is no flat surface on the top of them, except for a very -small- bit at the very front, at the stripper clip guides. The sloped surface extendsall the way from the right edge to the innermost edge. Also, there is no vertical flat surface at the front - it's a smooth curve from the outer edge of the stripper guide into the angled surface.
4. Speaking of stripper clip guides ... where are they?
Like I said, tomorrow I'll take some pictures of my rifles to illustrate these points a little better - I can't get 'em out right now, though - they're in the bedroom, my wife is sleeping, aaaaaaaand it could be hazardous to my health if I wake her up.
Please take this as CONSTRUCTIVE criticism!
I gotta say, this game is looking BEAUTIFUL. I just hope it'll play ok on my FX5500 ... it's gonna be a little while before I can afford to get a PCI-E board and a new video card.
Anyway, I do have a comments to make AND a question to pose about the screenshot where you're looking down the sights of the Mosin Nagant.
First, the question: Is that a carbine (M38 / M44) or a full-length rifle (91/30) that is shown?
Then the comments: carbine or rifle, there's some problems with the model! In the morning I'll take a couple pictures of my M38 and 91/30 to illustrate, but in the mean time I'll describe my problems.
1. The rear sight is -far- too narrow. On a pre-1936 rifle (with a hex receiver, like you show here) the rear sight is significantly wider than the upper receiver flat. (Even the carbine sight is wider, if you can find one build on a pre-'36 receiver)
2. There isn't any gap between the top part of the cocking piece (the square silver bit on the top of the bolt) and the sides of the receiver. In order for the rifle to be cocked when the bolt is opened, that has to be pinched between the two "ears" of the receiver. With as much play as that rifle would have, I doubt you could even turn the bolt far enough for the cocking knob to catch on the groove at the back of the bolt body.
3. The "ears" at the rear of the receiver. There is no flat surface on the top of them, except for a very -small- bit at the very front, at the stripper clip guides. The sloped surface extendsall the way from the right edge to the innermost edge. Also, there is no vertical flat surface at the front - it's a smooth curve from the outer edge of the stripper guide into the angled surface.
4. Speaking of stripper clip guides ... where are they?
Like I said, tomorrow I'll take some pictures of my rifles to illustrate these points a little better - I can't get 'em out right now, though - they're in the bedroom, my wife is sleeping, aaaaaaaand it could be hazardous to my health if I wake her up.
Upvote
0
JesseCuster said:
Basically if you can run the Mod, you can run the Game...
I personally use a Geforce4 Ti4200, and get an average of 55 FPS on most Maps (lower while in Tanks, but still very playable), and most of my settings are high (and turned on
) while running in 1280x1024. One should have decent GHz (about 3) and i would suggest 1 GB of RAM
Upvote
0
Witzig said:Basically if you can run the Mod, you can run the Game...
I personally use a Geforce4 Ti4200, and get an average of 55 FPS on most Maps (lower while in Tanks, but still very playable), and most of my settings are high (and turned on
I've never played the mod before, never had any of the UT games. I came over here from the COD2 forums ... there's too little realism over there, too many script kiddies bunnyhopping and using shotguns.
Anyway ... I'm really looking forward to this game, can't wait for it!
(As far as system specs go ... I should be ok, then. AMD 64 3200+ chip, 2 GB RAM, etc.)
Upvote
0
awww I only have a 2.4. Am I going to lose big time?
I have a 9800pro though. That's better than a gf4 right?
I have a 9800pro though. That's better than a gf4 right?
Upvote
0
Same card as me Sleb, and yes its significantly better than a GF4, although the UT2.5 engine is one of the few if not the only one that goes for higher CPU over graphics card. To find out how good it would run I decided to d/l the UT2k4 demo and play that. That runs at around 50-100 odd FPS, slower when there is a lot of action, but even at 50 FPS it looks reasonably smooth.
I don't know how UT2k4 compares to the Mod though for speed. Usually mods run slower than standalone games, and RO:O runs about the same or slightly quicker than the mod apparently.
I don't know how UT2k4 compares to the Mod though for speed. Usually mods run slower than standalone games, and RO:O runs about the same or slightly quicker than the mod apparently.
Upvote
0
I'm running a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz, 1GB of RAM, and a GeForce 6800, and I run UT2K4 and the RO mod version smooth like butter. Hell, UT2K4 ran smooth like butter on the same proc., 256MB, and a FX5700, way back when I first started playing it. You shouldn't really have any trouble, the engine is insanely scalable (I know someone who ran UT2K4 on an laptop with a 1GHz Pentium 3, 128MB, and integrated graphics).Sleby said:
Upvote
0
Mormegil said:
I can run COD2 fine ... in DX7 mode, at 800x600, with fairly low settings for everything. Turning up any settings or (god forbid!) using DX9, and I can count the FPS on one hand, and still have fingers left over.
COD2 was the first thing that I installed after a system reformat, so there wasn't anything causing problems with the system, interfering with it. I've got all the latest drivers, too.
On the COD2 boards, all anybody will tell me is "get a real video card."
My system:
Windows XP Pro SP2
Gigabyte K8NSC-939
Athlon XP 3200+ (not OC'd right now)
GeForce FX5500 AGP, 256 MB
2 GB RAM, dual-channel configuration
SB Audigy 2 ZS
Western Digital 200GB SATA
(and another ~300GB of misc. IDE drives)
Upvote
0
JesseCuster said:
If you just get a new graphics card you will have no problems at all with Ostfront
Upvote
0
Hmm, gotta ask.
Are we seriously going to have a changelist, from the mod to Ostfront?
Is that necessary anyways? Its like 90% of the game is changed.
Are we seriously going to have a changelist, from the mod to Ostfront?
Is that necessary anyways? Its like 90% of the game is changed.
Upvote
0
Chances are you won't see a proper changelist at all. It is, as has already been reported, far too long to read through and release, so instead a feature list of key selling points of the game and how it differs is far more likely. There is so much changed that really wouldn't mean much to most people.
Upvote
0
Fu. Svedberg said:
My girlfriend just got a BFG GeForce 6600 OC 256 from CompUSA for $120 (rebates) on her (my old) Athlon 1800+. She put it in to play The Sims 2 smoother, but has been playing UT2004 really smoothly instead ever since. I'd say she's running at at least 50 fps, which is just a bit slower than what I run on my 6800 GT that cost 3 times more over a year ago.
So yeah, I think the video card is the bottleneck.
Upvote
0
daschewy said:
you'll be fine then for everything on high at 1280x960
with his current videocard he probably can play everything at low or close to medium.
Upvote
0
Never had any problems with RO the mod. I have a GeForce FX 5900 SE, and CoD2 ran perfectly fine at 1024x768 with everything turned up and 4x AA, but on DX7 mode. On DX9 mode it ran awfully. Will RO:OST run well?
Upvote
0
I run (if you can believe it, I know I can't) a p4 1.8 with a ti4400 and 512 of RAM, and I get along alright. It's certainly not ideal, but still very playable. So you don't need to worry too much about minimum specs, as you can go quite low.
Upvote
0