Low Spec - will it run?

  • Thread starter old.[EoD]Whippet
  • Start date
O

old.[EoD]Whippet

Guest
Ok, so I know I'm sad, but I'm sure I'm not alone.

I only have a PII-350, 128MB, Voodoo3 3000 set-up (until I can afford an upgrade next year).

Will RTCW install? and will it run ok? (Q3A with a lot of tinkering I can get up to 50fps).

Anyone out there running RTCW on a low spec machine? how is it?
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
my p3 1 gig processor with gf2 mx and 400 mb ram appears to be low spec for rtcw! its the width of the maps i think.it goes from 50-90 fps back and forth like a very annoying thing.it only drops to 50 cos i turned quite a few things off (fog etc).
my suggestion? try DoD m8 :)
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
lmao DoD ish good innit?

p.s. i do like rtcw i just dont like my fps going down to 30 in some places,even AFTER pissing about no end grr no fog no extras bloody hell rant rave
 
W

WPKenny

Guest
??? I don't know what you guys are on about moaning that your fps drops below 50???? My average frame rate is about 30 - 60. That's 1024x768 with details up to max.
I don't really notice much difference in frame rate at all. I only knew the frame rate was different because I had the fps counter going in the corner. It always VERY smooth.
My system:
Tbird 1.4gig
GF2 MX 400
256 Meg PC133 ram.
Win2k.

I even had it running in 20XX (whatever stupidly high res that is) the other day at 30fps. :) I had to put it into 16bit colour and turn details right down but it ran nice n smooth and everything was SO crisp. :) Especially the ice map..you know where you start next to the Sub.
The fog still looked good too.
Heh.
No one really NEEDS fps above 30-ish. The human eye only registers about 25-30 fps anyway. Above that it's overkill.

/me strokes his puter
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
i have to disagree kenny :) you surely DO need more fps for q2/q3.i cant be sure of this for rtcw but i'd assume its the case.to say you cant see the difference between 100 fps on 70fps on q3 is ,well all i can say is try it m8.
however i realise im a bit obsesive about fps.i may try it capped at 40 next and see how i feel.i DO agree that smoothness is important thats what ive been aiming for :)however running onto a q3 server with 100 fps and playing 3 or 4 ppl with 30 fps,you will murder them im sure.
 
W

WPKenny

Guest
Aye, for online gaming high fps is better but I was talking in the context of single player in RTCW.
If someone can hover around 60 fps I can't see how much higher fps would be of significant benefit.
Of course we can only base all this on personal preferences and experiences but I tend not to notice any difference in frame rate above, say, 50 fps.
But then I don't play fast paced games all that much any more. I used to play Action Quake 24/7 but now I stick to single player games and Ultima Online.

The reason being I have a cunt of a house mate who leeches all the bandwidth 24/7 by downloading pr0n and buffy episodes. I've spent about a week looking for a some sort of "bandwidth throttler" or some way to divide the bandwidth up so there's always a resonable stream reserved for others in the house.
I tried AQ a couple of times but the PL is piss poor.
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
lol o i see sounds like he needs a slap m8.
i was talking purely online,i doubt if ill ever finish the single player game!
i never finished half life,i never STARTED the expansion pack (whatever its called...) .i never bought op flashpoint...
i guess its just online for me :)
 
S

Sawtooth

Guest
You could probably play it but I remember being in the same position when Q2 came out. I could only play it with the window reduced in size and on low res.. pants really though I did finish it in jerkovision.

Saw
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
i could JUST play q2 on me old pc,tho not the expansion packs as they took up too much hard drive!
 
O

old.ZiEgE

Guest
I play RTCW on a P2 450MHz with a geforce gfx card and if i turn the resolution down and all the affects off it plays ok, i dont even want to know my fps in that so i dont ask :)
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
just for the record i put rtcw on my old pc, a 400 celeron with a voodoo 5.5 pci and 300mb ram.with vertex lighting (yum) and everything off it made 7 fps at the top of that tower right at the start of the game.or in other words,it was horrible and was removed there and then :(
However on me proper pc its now making a sensible fps and multiplayer is very nice.i'd recommend the game to anyone,but i'd also recommend a processor upgrade at the same time:D
 
W

WPKenny

Guest
Originally posted by -T0p*G>N-
Originally posted by WPKenny The human eye only registers about 25-30 fps anyway.

Lol where did you hear that?

Tis true. TV pictures are only recorded at 24fps. The only reason they use higher shutter speeds sometimes is cos it's good for slow mo replays without blurring.

I've never heard anyone complain "the frame-rate on my TV isn't high enough. Waaaaa!"

TV refresh at 50hz and you may notice them flickering sometimes out the corner of your eye but not when you're watching it. It would give everyone headaches otherwise.

Have a look at some of your MPEG etc, you'll notice the FPS is usually around 25.
 
E

Embattle

Guest
It seems people are having problems running RTCW although it doesn't effect everyone.
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
The difference above from kenny's point of view is he's playing single player only.so its not SO important.
the ppl who are having trouble emb are the ppl with lower spec pc's i would guess.'cept u cos i keep beating you lol :p
 
E

Embattle

Guest
Actually we were about even dude.....but its not only people with lower spec machines it seems to be affecting. When I played it I had a TB 1.2Ghz, 512 DDR, GF3 yet it seemed to run like a dog with two legs on mine
 
O

old.-T0p*G>N-

Guest
Yes, but thats not the point. The human eye and the part of the brain that deals with messages sent to it does'nt refresh at a certain rate.

You said the human eye (ergo the brain) only registers at 25-30 fps, which is'nt true. Its quite obvious to someone when playing a game. The whole point of having more fps is so the game runs smoother for our feeble little minds to cope with.

A crude example (try this offline):

\com_maxfps

Try running Quake 3 with maxfps at 30.
Then try playing with maxfps 70.

The difference is all to plain to see. It helps aiming no end.

Then for a laugh try hitting anything with maxfps at 5.

'They mostly come at night... mostly'. :eek6:
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
embattle i know m8 i was only kidding.:)
this is a turnaround for me i know,but ive got mine to run mostly at 50 fps and im quite happy with it.i remember saying to you that at one stage it went down to 17 (!) and so it did,but its only momentarily then its back going along more or less at 50 ish.the point i was going to make is i tend to look at things as a quake player where speed is everything,but with rtcw that isnt (so far) the point .for me the game seems to be,speaking very loosely,a cross between c.s. type games from the stratagy/speed point of view,and quake 3 'cos of the familiar engine.
i must say i like it very much atm,and will be playing a LOT more of it !
 
O

old.[EoD]Whippet

Guest
Thanks

Thanks for all the replies.

I think the message is that, with me averaging 37fps in Q3A RTCW will probably be similar but a bit slower.

I expect it'll play ok in SP most the time and just chug in some places, but, in order to play competitively in MP I'll need an upgrade (especially with me being a modemer as well).

So...I'll play it in SP and hopefully by March next year when I've upgraded I'll be playing it MP...until then I'll be going easy on my poor old PC and playing CounterStrike.
 
S

ShockingAlberto

Guest
Can anyone tell me how well it'd un on my system.

P3 800
128mb RAM (I reckon i can afford some more after xmas, so that isn't such an issue)
TNT2 m64 (I really wish i could afford something better here :()

I use Linux as my main desktop and duel boot for certain games, but there are Linux binaries for Mp now, and they may do some for SP. As far as i know, Linux deals with ram better than win(ME :(), so will that help?

FPS isn't a huge bother, as i can play HL at around 20 without notiing it too much (for some reason i can play at 50fps in linuxm, but only 30 in windows).
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
i feel sure 800mhz would run it m8 yeah.sorry im pimping a bit here but give it a try its a great team game.
 
O

old.[EoD]Whippet

Guest
Well here's how it runs

Much as expected, but a bit slower.

On my PII-350, 128MB RAM, Voodoo3 3000 AGP set-up at 800x600 res with lowest detail settings and fancy stuff turned off.

RTCW runs at an average 24FPS or so, so far. It's highly variable though, first couple of levels it often dipped as low as 9FPS in places and often struggled to get above about 15, while as level 3 and all of mission 2 played at an average ~30-35FPS pretty much all the time and often reached the dizzy heights of 50+FPS.

All in all in SP it's uncomfortably chuggy on some levels but perfectly playable on others, overall result a just about playable SP game which certainly encourages me to upgrade as soon as I can.

Very much reminds me of playing Quake2 in software mode on my P133 with 24MB RAM though not quite as bad as that.
 
C

Chameleon

Guest
Kenny is correct. The human eye can only cope with an fps much lower than most people aspire to in their configs. When online however, there are reasons why fps can affect a connection, i.e. 2 people with cable modems, one with 200 fps, will under certain conditions, get a better game than someone with 50 fps, despite the biological limitations.
Above a certain level though, it's only an issue on-line. There is some quite interesting, more technical info at the UCguide. There have been some things done in the past I beleive by ID, osp, etc to try and counter these kind of effects ....... but im not sure the current standing on it all.
 
O

old.-T0p*G>N-

Guest
Right, read my post properly instead of just spamming a reply. Then open up quake 3 and try my little test. Then come back here and tell me your brain (if you have one) did'nt notice the difference :rolleyes:
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
top gun u idiot chamelion is not spamming a reply im fairly confident he knows a lot more about q3 configs than you,and im sure uc guide does ffs.
and hes actually agreeing with you if you took the time to look:rolleyes:
 
O

old.-T0p*G>N-

Guest
Originally posted by throdgrain
top gun u idiot chamelion is not spamming a reply im fairly confident he knows a lot more about q3 configs than you,and im sure uc guide does ffs.
and hes actually agreeing with you if you took the time to look:rolleyes:

It's got nothing to do with configuring Quake you sap. I'm sure Upset Chaps know an awful lot about Q3, I myself looked into it for my config. The guide is about Quake 3 and configuring it, not how animated images are interpreted by the brain. Quite what it has to do with this argument is beyond me.

It's to do with Kennys statement "The human eye only registers about 25-30 fps" which is'nt correct. To say it 'registers' means that anything above is n/a because our brains don't notice the difference, which simply is'nt precise.

Whether a T.V displays images in low fps or high frame-rates cause head-aches is irrelevant. Yet, only proves that a higher rate would have some effect and therefore is being acknowledged by the brain!

Whether it can 'cope' is another matter entirely. Two different points you seem unable to distinguish.
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT.everyone in all the post subsequent to yours has agreed with you.what do you want?
jesus wept.u just finish youre biology exam or something sonny?
tell u what why not just stfu ay before you make youself look even more stupid.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads

S
Replies
3
Views
600
.cage
C
W
Replies
20
Views
993
throdgrain
T
O
Replies
0
Views
619
old.AFX-TWIN
O
O
Replies
14
Views
573
old.almighty_monkey
O
Top Bottom