I HATE EA!

[VIAN]

And EB or whoever sold it to you. So what. They didn't make it.

EA, is like a movie producer, they have a say in what they release.

 

[PsharkJF]

Originally posted by: obsidian

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: linkgoron
But EA could've caused Dice to rush the game.

Exactly. Get it? :roll:

All publishers push their developers, but they still did not make the game. Dice has had forever to work on this game. EA only very recently purchased the majority of their stock. Dice is also big enough and has enough money to where they don't have to worry about publishers pushing them around very much. Sort of like id and Activision.

Stopping blaming developer bugs on publishers just because it is cool to hate on EA at the moment. Besides, you have absolutely no grounds for your argument that these bugs are the cause of EA pushing them to release early. It's crap you've made up because you don't like EA.

Isn't 2 gigs of RAM a little insane? Just a little memory hungry? Hell, I call The Sims 2 a memory hog. Task manager reported to me that it was using ~760MB of RAM on a 1.5GB system.
To put it in perspective, UT2k4 uses ~200MB. Steam TFC uses ~140MB. Guild wars uses ~220MB.

I'm drawing parallels between two (vastly) different developers, the same publisher, and the same memory hogging issues. Perhaps all EA published developers use the same crappy compilers?

Now, as for the bugs, I blame them on the publisher. Why? All developers are pushed by publishers, to an extent, but EA and Lucasarts are two of the ones that will push a half done game out the door. I haven't played the game and I have a very good idea in what areas were done at the last minute. The UI? Server Browser? This kind of stuff shows. Sticks out like a sore thumb. Kinda like the end of KotOR 2?

 

[imported_obsidian]

Well lets see, UT2004 is how many years older? Not too mention TFC (Team Fortress Classic?). I know WoW and Doom 3 both use a ton of memory so maybe it is their publisher's fault to? Your argument here is just dumb.

EVERY PUBLISHER pushes their developers. Every single one. Stop acting like Dice deserves some special treatment when thousands of other games have been able to support Windows 2000, GF4 cards, and have a decent server browser all finished within their development time. Dice has been working on this game forever. They get full credit for the bugs.

I'm not a fan of EA either but the sudden coolness of bashing everything EA despite whether they deserve it or not gets old.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: obsidian
Well lets see, UT2004 is how many years older? Not too mention TFC (Team Fortress Classic?). I know WoW and Doom 3 both use a ton of memory so maybe it is their publisher's fault to? Your argument here is just dumb.

EVERY PUBLISHER pushes their developers. Every single one. Stop acting like Dice deserves some special treatment when thousands of other games have been able to support Windows 2000, GF4 cards, and have a decent server browser all finished within their development time. Dice has been working on this game forever. They get full credit for the bugs.

I'm not a fan of EA either but the sudden coolness of bashing everything EA despite whether they deserve it or not gets old.

But how much pressure did EA put on Dice(?) to get the game released? You can rush a game but not too much, but you can rush a game too much. There is a difference.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: linkgoron

Originally posted by: obsidian
Well lets see, UT2004 is how many years older? Not too mention TFC (Team Fortress Classic?). I know WoW and Doom 3 both use a ton of memory so maybe it is their publisher's fault to? Your argument here is just dumb.

EVERY PUBLISHER pushes their developers. Every single one. Stop acting like Dice deserves some special treatment when thousands of other games have been able to support Windows 2000, GF4 cards, and have a decent server browser all finished within their development time. Dice has been working on this game forever. They get full credit for the bugs.

I'm not a fan of EA either but the sudden coolness of bashing everything EA despite whether they deserve it or not gets old.

But how much pressure did EA put on Dice(?) to get the game released? You can rush a game but not too much, but you can rush a game too much. There is a difference.

OK then show us REAL EVIDENCE that EA pushed them. I'm not talking about the fact that the game is buggy. That in and of itself is not necessarily because EA pushed or didn't push Dice.

Where is the evidence?
If you want to make an assertion..... back it up.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Googer
I started at 800x600 and got 90 fps (rarely 100, but only for a sec or less). I bumped it up to 1024x768 and noticed no drop in performance using fraps. At 1152x864 It seems to sit around 50-53 FPS (A bit higher when looking at simple things like the sky) with all driver settings on performance and all special effects on low or off on a Trinitron GDM-F520 CRT (I have not connected the other 2 yet), Battlefield 2 supports multiple monitors.

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x&body_pagenum=1

By looking at the benchmarks, im gonna call shens. Hell even a 9800 pro didnt run close to those fps. Were you sitting in a dark corner?



Get on a 64 person server (even in 800x600) and take a couple SS with action going on.

No, Using Fraps I have seen the FPS counter Jump to 90-100 fps momentaraly At 800x600 using the lowest possible settings in the game and custom driver settings using RadLink I was able to sustain a range of 60-80FPS with the ocasional dip down to 25-45 FPS . I have no way of taking an average FPS and I have not figured out how to run the time demo benchmark yet. At 1152 x 864 my Fraps counter seems to range between 30-55

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Googer
I started at 800x600 and got 90 fps (rarely 100, but only for a sec or less). I bumped it up to 1024x768 and noticed no drop in performance using fraps. At 1152x864 It seems to sit around 50-53 FPS (A bit higher when looking at simple things like the sky) with all driver settings on performance and all special effects on low or off on a Trinitron GDM-F520 CRT (I have not connected the other 2 yet), Battlefield 2 supports multiple monitors.

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x&body_pagenum=1

By looking at the benchmarks, im gonna call shens. Hell even a 9800 pro didnt run close to those fps. Were you sitting in a dark corner?



Get on a 64 person server (even in 800x600) and take a couple SS with action going on.

No, Using Fraps I have seen the FPS counter Jump to 90-100 fps momentaraly At 800x600 using the lowest possible settings in the game and custom driver settings using RadLink I was able to sustain a range of 60-80FPS with the ocasional dip down to 25-45 FPS . I have no way of taking an average FPS and I have not figured out how to run the time demo benchmark yet. At 1152 x 864 my Fraps counter seems to range between 30-55

Finally we get the whole picture. With custom driver settings (Radlink) and at 800 X 600 with crap settings you are considered at an acceptable level (60FPS). While it is great you can play the game, I wouldn't call it truly playable until you can stop sniping from on top a polygon.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Googer
I started at 800x600 and got 90 fps (rarely 100, but only for a sec or less). I bumped it up to 1024x768 and noticed no drop in performance using fraps. At 1152x864 It seems to sit around 50-53 FPS (A bit higher when looking at simple things like the sky) with all driver settings on performance and all special effects on low or off on a Trinitron GDM-F520 CRT (I have not connected the other 2 yet), Battlefield 2 supports multiple monitors.

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x&body_pagenum=1

By looking at the benchmarks, im gonna call shens. Hell even a 9800 pro didnt run close to those fps. Were you sitting in a dark corner?



Get on a 64 person server (even in 800x600) and take a couple SS with action going on.

No, Using Fraps I have seen the FPS counter Jump to 90-100 fps momentaraly At 800x600 using the lowest possible settings in the game and custom driver settings using RadLink I was able to sustain a range of 60-80FPS with the ocasional dip down to 25-45 FPS . I have no way of taking an average FPS and I have not figured out how to run the time demo benchmark yet. At 1152 x 864 my Fraps counter seems to range between 30-55

Finally we get the whole picture. With custom driver settings (Radlink) and at 800 X 600 with crap settings you are considered at an acceptable level (60FPS). While it is great you can play the game, I wouldn't call it truly playable until you can stop sniping from on top a polygon.

It does not stay at 90ish FPS for long, that is just the highest number I have seen displayed.

Also this is the most stable Battlefield EA has ever released. Much better than the Vietnam or 1942 as far as stability is concerned. It is stable, but I know that it can be better; the game still has problems.

 

[SportSC4]

how do you find out the fps in battlefield 2? BTW, i'm running the demo.

anyways, i'm running at 1024x768 with everything set on high and it appears to run smooth (geforce 6800, amd xp2600+, 512 ram) but i'm not going to purchase it because EA continues to actively not support widescreen players. sigh.

edit: oh, BF2 does take a freakishly long time to go into the menu when i hit ESC...

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: SportSC4
how do you find out the fps in battlefield 2? BTW, i'm running the demo.

anyways, i'm running at 1024x768 with everything set on high and it appears to run smooth (geforce 6800, amd xp2600+, 512 ram) but i'm not going to purchase it because EA continues to actively not support widescreen players. sigh.

edit: oh, BF2 does take a freakishly long time to go into the menu when i hit ESC...

Use Fraps
http://www.fraps.com/

Download it at major geeks
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3934.html

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: SportSC4
how do you find out the fps in battlefield 2? BTW, i'm running the demo.

anyways, i'm running at 1024x768 with everything set on high and it appears to run smooth (geforce 6800, amd xp2600+, 512 ram) but i'm not going to purchase it because EA continues to actively not support widescreen players. sigh.

edit: oh, BF2 does take a freakishly long time to go into the menu when i hit ESC...

renderer.drawFps 1 in ~ console
displayed in top left as current/average FPS

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: fibes
I can't even get the fvckin' game started. The game will not support the 6600GT AGP, eventhough the retail box states that you need a Nvidia 5700 or better to run the game. I have contacted Tech. Support a couple of times. No resoultion to my problem. I emailed them a third time and they stopped answering my emails. EA should spend less time on marketing their product and should spend more time on testing their software, so it performs properly. I'm with you, I HATE EA!

if u look in the manual it says they support the 6600GT

it also says they support the 6800GT AGP and PCI-E, but only the 6800Ultra AGP and not the 6800Ultra PCI-E

they are identicle cards bar clock speed yet the PCI version isnt supported?

your right EA SUCK THE BIG ONE

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: rise4310
my 6600gt agp ran it fine. it must be something else going on there.

I think the game is like the PSP. There are a lot of people playing fine, but a lot of people who are having tons of troubles. It's just a roll of the dice w/ this one. Nobody can find a pattern as to which configurations have the most problems, so I'm gonna blame faulty copies.

EA seem to have this ability, its in all their games, SHEER RANDOMNESS of problems is what theyre good at

one guy will play it fine, and the guy next door's car alarm will go off when he puts the disc in his DVD drive, its just EA

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: SportSC4
how do you find out the fps in battlefield 2? BTW, i'm running the demo.

anyways, i'm running at 1024x768 with everything set on high and it appears to run smooth (geforce 6800, amd xp2600+, 512 ram) but i'm not going to purchase it because EA continues to actively not support widescreen players. sigh.

edit: oh, BF2 does take a freakishly long time to go into the menu when i hit ESC...

renderer.drawFps 1 in ~ console
displayed in top left as current/average FPS

I have looked all over the internet for a refrence of console commands and have found very little out there. I was able to get the FPS going via console in BF1942, where can I go to find a complete refrence for these?

 

[lobadobadingdong]

I got burned with BF1942, I bought it when it came out, and it wouldn't play at all on my 9700pro until 6 months later when a particular patch and driver update came available.

edit: and then 6 moths later they added punkbuster, which forced me to open a crap load of known ports on my router to play on the internet (the only way, i've ever played it).

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
I got burned with BF1942, I bought it when it came out, and it wouldn't play at all on my 9700pro until 6 months later when a particular patch and driver update came available.

edit: and then 6 moths later they added punkbuster, which forced me to open a crap load of known ports on my router to play on the internet (the only way, i've ever played it).

I see that the deal EA has with nVidia is working well for them. There should be a mode that alows the user to make changes to the OS.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
I got burned with BF1942, I bought it when it came out, and it wouldn't play at all on my 9700pro until 6 months later when a particular patch and driver update came available.

edit: and then 6 moths later they added punkbuster, which forced me to open a crap load of known ports on my router to play on the internet (the only way, i've ever played it).

I see that the deal EA has with nVidia is working well for them.

Googer what settings are you playing on to get 90 fps with a 9700 pro?

 

[Farmer]

Heh, I cant get the installer to work. Probably my fault on that one.

 

[erorr404]

Originally posted by: Googer
I have played on 64 Player maps and everything is fine. A fast Broadband Connection is needed more than a fast CPU. Early benchmark results show that the CPU Plays almost no role in makeing this game run well, a celeron performs the same as an Athlon 64 FX55; you get the same number of FPS. Battlefield 2 is entirely dependant on the GPU or Graphics card to run.

By the way is any one else having trouble tonight connecting to the accounts server? I am getting a message saying "Connection to the accounts server has been refused" in both the full version and the demo.

that cant be right.. im getting piss poor performance compared to other people with 6600GT's. some people are getting over 40 fps average on all high settings, while im usually in the 20's on all high.




i dont know what is up with BF1942 and BF2, but in both games i have two of the exact same major problems. the first one is that text is very blurry with AA on (unreadable with high AA). the second is that i dont get 90% of the chat that goes through. i seem to get all kill/death messages, but barely ever see anyone typing. how can this be? how are these two games related? ive had two seperate video cards, and have the issue with both of them, so its not a video card problem.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
I got burned with BF1942, I bought it when it came out, and it wouldn't play at all on my 9700pro until 6 months later when a particular patch and driver update came available.

edit: and then 6 moths later they added punkbuster, which forced me to open a crap load of known ports on my router to play on the internet (the only way, i've ever played it).

I see that the deal EA has with nVidia is working well for them.

Googer what settings are you playing on to get 90 fps with a 9700 pro?

Read My previous post. Last night using 1152x864 after landing on top of a mountain on the Sharki Pensula map looking down over the helipad and guarding the UAV/Satt trailer my frame rate stayed at 90FPS untill I got out of the chopper and looked down at the UAV/SATT standing next to the chopper It then Dropped to 58-60. I have the game set currently at 1152x864 with all the settings turned to off or lowest and my driver settings have been modified using RadLink for maximum performance.

EDIT: I always play with the cockpit instruments off or removed from the screen.

 

[fibes]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: fibes
I can't even get the fvckin' game started. The game will not support the 6600GT AGP, eventhough the retail box states that you need a Nvidia 5700 or better to run the game. I have contacted Tech. Support a couple of times. No resoultion to my problem. I emailed them a third time and they stopped answering my emails. EA should spend less time on marketing their product and should spend more time on testing their software, so it performs properly. I'm with you, I HATE EA!

if u look in the manual it says they support the 6600GT

it also says they support the 6800GT AGP and PCI-E, but only the 6800Ultra AGP and not the 6800Ultra PCI-E

they are identicle cards bar clock speed yet the PCI version isnt supported?

your right EA SUCK THE BIG ONE

Unfortunately, according to the README notes, it states it does not support the 6600GT AGP.

From EA README notes:

- Video Cards
Battlefield 2 only supports the following video cards:
Radeon X700 (PCIe)
Radeon X600 (PCIe)
GeForce 6600 (PCIe)
GeForce PCX 5900 (PCIe)
GeForce 5800 Series (AGP)
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
ATI Radeon X800 PRO
ATI Radeon 9800 Series
ATI Radeon 9600 Series
ATI Radeon 9550 (RV350LX)
ATI Radeon 9500 / 9700 Series
ATI Radeon 8500 Series
ATI Radeon X300 Series
NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra
NVidia GeForce 6800 GT
NVidia GeForce 6800
NVidia GeForce FX 5950 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5900 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5700 Series

I have contacted tech. services numerous times and they still can not help me out. I don't think it's because I bought a specific brand of card, like my "Chaintech" 6600GT AGP. I feel that I have done everything to resolve the problem. I don't think I should go through all this trouble problem solving. EA should have done more testing before they released the game.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: fibes

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: fibes

I have contacted tech. services numerous times and they still can not help me out. I don't think it's because I bought a specific brand of card, like my "Chaintech" 6600GT AGP. I feel that I have done everything to resolve the problem. I don't think I should go through all this trouble problem solving. EA should have done more testing before they released the game.

Did you download the demo before buying? I always do; but not to see if I like it, to see how well it works on my computer. My system is below the specificatins of the game but it works fine.

Windows 2000 professional.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Is anyone playing the game smoothly under x64?

I sure am not :/

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
Is anyone playing the game smoothly under x64?

I sure am not :/

You are not the first to be running x64 that I have heard about having trouble with battlefield 2.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
Is anyone playing the game smoothly under x64?

I sure am not :/

You are not the first to be running x64 that I have heard about having trouble with battlefield 2.

What kind of troubles?