Bluewings Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 That is just about right , nice chart . :thumbup: Cheers . :3starSK: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewings Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 What about CPUs now ? :roll: :wink: Cheers . :3starSK: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Easy: Faster is better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewings Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 In this case , let me add this :Anything over 2.0 gig (AMD XP2600+) or Pentium III 2.2 will do nicely , but the faster the better .Cheers . :3starSK: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 How about GeForce FX 5500 AGP 8X? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewings Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Just below GeForce FX 5600 ... Cheers . :3starSK: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisotto Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Nooooooooooooo.(GeForce 3 Ti 200)Upgrade time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiefcatcher Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 hehe, 6600GT 125MB, 1 GB RAM and a 64bit 3200 seems to be enough! TC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobrabase Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Easy: Faster is better.LOL!!!Nuff said.Thanks again for advising me early about graphics cards. I'm ready to go with my Radeon 9800 Pro. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell_Hound Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Anything over 2.0 gig (AMD XP2600+) or Pentium III 2.2 will do nicely...I'm running a 1.4GHz Athlon, and that (even by my pretty-tough standard) is fine if you play 800x600. Go to 1024x768 or bigger and you'll start to get dips which won't bother an F8/F5 player but will make stress gunnery impractical. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewings Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Thanks HH , but 800x600 is not "standard" anymore nowadays , if you know what I mean :wink: Cheers . :3starSK: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Sean Posted December 1, 2005 Administrators Share Posted December 1, 2005 The majority of the world is still using 800x600 as a standard resolution. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell_Hound Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I agree that 8x6 is substandard for action gamers, and I've got a Radeon 9800 I'm going to try and get working over the Christmas break.Take my remark as "You can get gunnery-sufficient frame rates with a 1.4GHz if you're willing to turn your display down to 8x6". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapman Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 How about GeForce FX 5500 AGP 8X?Hmmm...me too TH :-(I thought I was in pretty good shape for ProPE. I started upgrading last Christmas with and AMD 3000+ and 512k ram with 160gigs on the hard drives.I added the GeForce FX5500 AGP 256k which I thought would be good based upon what was published for System Requirements at the time (and I got it new for $44!!).I have a 512k stick arriving today to bump me up to 1 Gig memory, but now it looks like I will want to get a better graphics card :-(.Well....something else to look forward to...LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BipBip Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Really ? I don't think so. 1024x768 is now the standard, and greater resolutions are very common in new games. The point that is quite sad IMO, is that I did bought a laptop last year, one of the main reasons was SB PPE. The "nearly best" was ATI Radeon Mobility 9700, and I see that I will barely be able to run the sim at medium detail with a poor resolution (800x600 is a poor resolution, as I run most games at least at 1024x768). That means that SBPPE will be, if this benchmark is true, the simulator will have the worst performances on my laptop... When I consider that I run prettier sims like SilentHunter4 or SWAT4 in 1024x768 with all options ON, I'm surprised !! Also considering that SilentHunter4 is nearly as complex, and graphically challenging than SB (huge cargo convoys, storms, dynamic campaign simulating all tha Atlantic Ocean... etc). Is it true ? Or is it not smartly coded ? My guess is that those benchmark are pessimistic... I hope I'm true ! 125$ for a 800x600 sim is expensive... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 How about GeForce FX 5500 AGP 8X?Hmmm...me too TH :-(I thought I was in pretty good shape for ProPE. I started upgrading last Christmas with and AMD 3000+ and 512k ram with 160gigs on the hard drives.I added the GeForce FX5500 AGP 256k which I thought would be good based upon what was published for System Requirements at the time (and I got it new for $44!!).I have a 512k stick arriving today to bump me up to 1 Gig memory, but now it looks like I will want to get a better graphics card :-(.Well....something else to look forward to...LOLI am thinking about blowing a few grand (yep, I have been a cheap bastard for the past decade, thus an 18, soon to be 19 year old having a few grand laying around) on getting me what I would need to build a computer from scratch when summer comes. That or find a mother board that I can install a better graphics card on, but would be able to keep the rest of the hardware that I have on this computer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell_Hound Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Keep in mind SB's tank gunnery demands smoother frame rates than even a FPS in some situations. Even infantry sniping is easier because targets stop periodically and fire rates are higher.Tracking a mover while under artillery fire, with the view zoomed, means your frame rate takes a beating at the exact times that you need a nice smooth track to score a hit. It doesn't mean the engine is weak, it's just the nature of armored combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BipBip Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 This is just what I expected to read. If I can run at 1024x768, I'm happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bewing77 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 One question when on the topic of graphics. What resolutions will be supported? Will only standard resolutions work or will there be support for widescreen. I am asking this because my screen is a 20 inch widescreen with a native resolution of 1680x1050. And since it's a LCD it looks crappy when you run it at anything else then the native resolution. Apart from that I should be set. Just blew over 30000 kronor (about 3500 bucks) on a new rig and I have yet to find a game that won't run fine at max settings and 1680x1050 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapman Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Ok...so now I am jealous! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Sean Posted December 2, 2005 Administrators Share Posted December 2, 2005 Bewing, I have a similar widescreen LCD from dell, and Pro PE looks good on it. :-)The game will run in whatever resolutions your graphics adapter supports. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Will SB2 be using the exact same graphics engine with the same textures and poly counts that will be in SBProPE? I understand that the above recommendations are 'conservative and based on subjective gut feeling', but I'm just curious if the list applies to SB2 also or will SB2 actually need higher requirements?Thanks in advance... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Sean Posted December 7, 2005 Administrators Share Posted December 7, 2005 Since SB2 doesnt exist yet, its too early to tell. But, I would guess there will be more eye candy type animations and effects added over time, and they will end up in pro pe too. When that happens, it might take more horsepower to run things well in high detail mode. Its really tough to speculate on what it will take to run what doesn't exist yet though..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Thanks for the prompt reply, Sean. Your reply brings another question to mind; after SB2 is released, will owners of SBProPE be able to modify their version to look and feel like SB2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 8, 2005 Members Share Posted December 8, 2005 Most likely, at least in all major areas. Should we make the decision to oversize certain visual effects for eye candy purposes, we may scale them down in SB Pro to keep them realistic. But otherwise I don't see why we wouldn't want to keep a high degree of commonality wherever possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.