Help on game performance?

[ability]

this really isnt the place to ask this, you should try searching in some bf1942 forums for config tweaks to help your game out

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: TheOasis
maybe it has something to do with the insanly complex physics engine?

That, and most of the maps are huge, and the terrain is quite detailed.

You should definitely turn down the game and graphical detail settings if you only have 512MB of RAM. Cranking *everything* up *will* make it slow down a lot.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: ability
this really isnt the place to ask this, you should try searching in some bf1942 forums for config tweaks to help your game out

Of course it's the place to ask... why wouldn't this be the place to ask?

 

[TheOasis]

well he obviously isnt getting a good answer so ability is right, try to find a good BF9142 forum and ask for tweaks.

 

[dr muska]

Thanks mates, but my question was not answered if an ati aiw 9800 pro 128mb will be able to run bf2 nicely, should I get 256mb graphics card or something?

 

[Waylay00]

go to forumplanet.com/planetbattlefield . I post over there some. Very helpful for tweaks and such for performance.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Battlefield is developed by EA Games, which is the reason why the game sucks performance wise.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: TheOasis
maybe it has something to do with the insanly complex physics engine?

That, and most of the maps are huge, and the terrain is quite detailed.

You should definitely turn down the game and graphical detail settings if you only have 512MB of RAM. Cranking *everything* up *will* make it slow down a lot.

lol@ all the people that thought he was serious...the physics sucks worse then anything evar.
bf1942 is way overhyped IMO, jesus its so old and a 6600GT cant play it at what i consider playable (50fps+). the gameplay isnt even that good, id much rather play a game of CSS or HL2DM which works MUCH better then BF1942...

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: zakee00

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: TheOasis
maybe it has something to do with the insanly complex physics engine?

That, and most of the maps are huge, and the terrain is quite detailed.

You should definitely turn down the game and graphical detail settings if you only have 512MB of RAM. Cranking *everything* up *will* make it slow down a lot.

lol@ all the people that thought he was serious...the physics sucks worse then anything evar.
bf1942 is way overhyped IMO, jesus its so old and a 6600GT cant play it at what i consider playable (50fps+). the gameplay isnt even that good, id much rather play a game of CSS or HL2DM which works MUCH better then BF1942...

Well, they do actually model actual actual ballistics for every single bullet, bomb, and piece of shrapnel, unlike the other games you mentioned. That does take a little bit of memory and processing power. It certainly has much more of a physics engine than any shooter that came out before it did.

It's not as fast-paced as Counter-Strike, but has a much deeper teamplay aspect (whereas unless both teams are VERY good, a handful of skilled players can dominate a Counter-Strike game easily), and was one of the first shooters to really do vehicle combat well and not do it in a totally arcade-like fashion. It's really not comparable to a DM-style game in terms of gameplay, although I do enjoy a good round of mindless killing once in a while.

And while EA (as a company) does suck pretty bad, they didn't develop the Battlefield games (Digital Illusions developed them -- they're just the publisher!), and it's really a pretty fun game.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: zakee00

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: TheOasis
maybe it has something to do with the insanly complex physics engine?

That, and most of the maps are huge, and the terrain is quite detailed.

You should definitely turn down the game and graphical detail settings if you only have 512MB of RAM. Cranking *everything* up *will* make it slow down a lot.

lol@ all the people that thought he was serious...the physics sucks worse then anything evar.
bf1942 is way overhyped IMO, jesus its so old and a 6600GT cant play it at what i consider playable (50fps+). the gameplay isnt even that good, id much rather play a game of CSS or HL2DM which works MUCH better then BF1942...

Well, they do actually model actual actual ballistics for every single bullet, bomb, and piece of shrapnel, unlike the other games you mentioned. That does take a little bit of memory and processing power. It certainly has much more of a physics engine than any shooter that came out before it did.

it came out two and a half years ago though
EA just really sucks at coding. sims 2, MOHAA both are total system HOGS when they really shouldnt be.
im looking foreward to BF2 though, i liked desertcombat. i guess i just wasnt into arcade WWII games, i prefered realistc COD/MOA style games.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: zakee00
Well, they do actually model actual actual ballistics for every single bullet, bomb, and piece of shrapnel, unlike the other games you mentioned. That does take a little bit of memory and processing power. It certainly has much more of a physics engine than any shooter that came out before it did.

it came out two and a half years ago though [/quote]

Uh, and nothing really got more sophisticated than its physics until very recently.

EA just really sucks at coding. sims 2, MOHAA both are total system HOGS when they really shouldnt be.

True, but irrelevant to this discussion, since EA didn't write BF1942.

 

[PumkinFest]

WTF....i played 1942 with a Geforce2 32mb, full settings and view distance at 800x600. No lag.

 

[PumkinFest]

WTF....i played 1942 with a Geforce2 32mb, full settings and view distance at 800x600. No lag.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: PumkinFest
WTF....i played 1942 with a Geforce2 32mb, full settings and view distance at 800x600. No lag.

I set my view distance at 1024x768

Seriously though... you must be very tolerant of low frame rates. Are you a casual game by chance? Maybe a console gamer?

 

[dripgoss]

EA just really sucks at coding. sims 2, MOHAA both are total system HOGS when they really shouldnt be.
im looking foreward to BF2 though, i liked desertcombat. i guess i just wasnt into arcade WWII games, i prefered realistc COD/MOA style games.

Sorry, I just ran across this thread and not to raise the dead, but EA only publishes most games - i.e. they do not develop all of the games that carry the EA logo. DICE Sweden develops the battlefield franchise, Headgate develops most of the Tiger Woods games and so on. Even the dev firms that merged with EA over the past years such as Tiburon (Madden) and Maxis (Sims) still have many of their originating staff on hand. So get your facts straight before you just hop on the EA bandwagon.

As for the NFL exclusivity, I think everyone either wasn't aware or tends to forget that the NFL was soliciting exclusivity from ALL publishers. EA just did what they had to do - pony up the cash to make sure they could continue publishing one of thier bread and butter titles. You think you don't like EA? How many people would be pissed if 2005 was the last year for Madden's long and rich history all of a sudden? Seriously now. I could just see it now - sorry Madden fans but now you'll just have to be stuck with Sony's NFL Happy Fun Joy!! or Ubisoft's Viva La NFL: Futbol Les Etates Unis. I mean a little perspective here people...