Pc specs bullshit

clessoulis · Post by **clessoulis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:46 am

I hate how games just bullshit so bad on there pc specs.
I was totally dissopointed thinking Phantasy Star universe wouldnt run on my pso computer untill i installed it.

Minimum: 1.6GHz P4, 256MB RAM, 9.0GB HDD, 64MB video card, DirectX 9.0c
Recommended: 2.8Ghz P4, 512MB RAM, 128MB Video Card

Thats what it says it needs. I only got

752mhz, 768MB Ram, 256mb video card.

So who else is playing it now anyways?

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:45 am

hate to derail threads like this, but cless, you know you can put a my computer, etc icon on the desktop without making it a shortcut, right ?

</off-topic>

How does PSU play on your computer ?

PHoNyMiKe · Post by **PHoNyMiKe** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:29 am

remove desktop shortcut arrow.reg wrote:Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\lnkfile]
"IsShortcut"=-

Ichinisan · Post by **Ichinisan** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:44 pm

adventure_of_link wrote:hate to derail threads like this, but cless, you know you can put a my computer, etc icon on the desktop without making it a shortcut, right ?

But why would you want to? The Windows XP Start Menu makes all of these accessible without having to minimize everything or use the keyboard.

phOnYmIkE wrote:
remove desktop shortcut arrow.reg wrote:Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\lnkfile]
"IsShortcut"=-

That's stupid. I personally want to know if it's a shortcut that I'm deleting or a data file

clessoulis · Post by **clessoulis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:09 pm

Runs on my pc at a constant 30 fps.

Textures are turned up to full detail
Resolution is 1280x960
Draw distant and other clipping is turned to low however.
Frame Skip of 2 is turned on.

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:51 pm

whats your fucking video card? 256meg doesn't tell us much.

clessoulis · Post by **clessoulis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:33 pm

I think its a 9600 pro

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:35 am

clessoulis wrote:I think its a 9600 pro

You think?

clessoulis · Post by **clessoulis** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:49 am

Joe Camacho wrote:
clessoulis wrote:I think its a 9600 pro
You think?

Its a 9250 256mb. Just a pos video card and yet still runs this game fine.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:23 am

at what i would assume to be half of the desired frame rate.

i don't know of any pc games that run at 30 fps. i think that console games stopped running at 30 this generation.

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:33 am

After 30fp, it becomes an e-penis thing. The human eye can only see about 24fps anyways, so it's not like you get anything useful out of having higher frame-rates.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:36 am

cless: start -> run -> in the box type dxdiag and click OK -> click YES @ the WHQL digital signatures prompt if needed -> click video tab

post output of this.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:42 am

i'm just saying that games run at 60 fps. i would assume that there's a reason, since i actually can tell the difference between my NWN running at 30-40 as compared to 60 fps.

BUT, that wasn't my beef. my beef is that games aren't made to run at 30 fps anymore.

if the game's engine is made to run at 60 fps, and it doesn't, you can tell.

and then there's the question of why having a monitor refresh rate of at least 60 Hz is the minimum for comfortable viewing.

clessoulis · Post by **clessoulis** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:07 am

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:09 am

Some people need at least 60fps.. the perception of smoothness is different from person to person.

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:19 am

Well, yeah, but if it's a video game, stuff is going to go on to distract you from ~30 fps.

casualsax3 · Post by **casualsax3** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:01 am

Aerdan wrote:After 30fp, it becomes an e-penis thing. The human eye can only see about 24fps anyways, so it's not like you get anything useful out of having higher frame-rates.

That's just fucking retarded - a fucking goldfish could see a noticable difference between 30 and 60fps. 75+ is where it gets to be pointless

MisterJones · Post by **MisterJones** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:24 am

Speaking of which, this article looks interesting.

casualsax3 · Post by **casualsax3** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:39 am

very good read, thanks

AntoineWG · Post by **AntoineWG** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:45 am

That article does bring up an interesting point about video games. Because they don't render any motion blur (usually), they require higher framerates to make the nice crisp images look fluid. If you've ever played an FPS, you sure as hell notice the difference between 60, 30 and 12 fps (around the minimum for film to be perceived as fluid).

And yeah 30 fps pretty much went out the door with games optimized for display on a standard TV. 60 fields per second on a TV would be equivalent to 30 fps on a progressive scan monitor/TV. Displaying 30fps on a progressive scan TV would look jumpy, though, so engines evolved.

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:34 am

casualsax3 wrote:
Aerdan wrote:After 30fp, it becomes an e-penis thing. The human eye can only see about 24fps anyways, so it's not like you get anything useful out of having higher frame-rates.
That's just fucking retarded - a fucking goldfish could see a noticeable difference between 30 and 60fps. 75+ is where it gets to be pointless

I'm legally blind, keep your fucking insults to yourself.

[Granted, these days I can tell if an LCD or a CRT is at 60Hz or not...]

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:36 am

uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh..........

you did make the retarded comment, though. maybe if you had kept your mouth shut, this wouldn't have happened.

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:50 am

MisterJones wrote:Speaking of which, this article looks interesting.

Great read I must say.

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:57 pm

Don't forget this:

When the game can only be rendered at 30fps or less, all the physics calculations are also not going to be as smooth. So, in an FPS if you were to get 60fps, it would appear more smooth even if you couldn't notice the actual framerate improvement because your actual movement on screen will be smoother and less jerky.

Anyone who's programmed a game before should know what I'm talking about. Rather than seeing your character move every pixel per frame like your maximum frame rate would probably allow, you'll instead have more jerky motion because you are only doing 30 calculations per second.

This is very generalized of course. Games can handle this a variety of ways. It's just somethign to be aware of before judging if and why you see a difference at 60 versus 30 frams per second. There are several factors that go into it.

MisterJones · Post by **MisterJones** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:20 am

Nightcrawler wrote: When the game can only be rendered at 30fps or less, all the physics calculations are also not going to be as smooth. So, in an FPS if you were to get 60fps, it would appear more smooth even if you couldn't notice the actual framerate improvement because your actual movement on screen will be smoother and less jerky.

Anyone who's programmed a game before should know what I'm talking about. Rather than seeing your character move every pixel per frame like your maximum frame rate would probably allow, you'll instead have more jerky motion because you are only doing 30 calculations per second.

Either you are forgetting what frameskip is for, or you play games without different threads for rendering and physics calculations.