What spec for BF1942 to make it run sweet?

[andyf]

I've tried running it on two machines here, one is a Duron 1200 with 700mb ram and a Geforce 3 and it runs pitifully, BUT loads pretty quick, exits to windows easily and reloads without problem.

The other PC is a P4, was 1.8 now a 2.4 with a GF4400, 256mb
Now once the game is up and running and I've moved around for a couple of seconds, this is great. Sweet frame rates and all that. However it takes well over 4 times longer to load than the Duron. sCary on shacknews posted that once he put 512mb in his machine it ran better, is it the same for anyone else here, than under 500mb and it's slow, over and it's quick? Also there is a fair amount of disk thrashing on the P4 now and then, and after about 10 mins playing goddamn windows dialog boxes try to appear on screen telling me that the virtual memory is being resized (I get a windows mouse cursor at this point and it stays until I quit the game and restart). The game takes FOREVER to quit out of a server and join a new one. and when I alt-f4 back to windows and quickly open up Task manager, I can see the mem usage is about 570mb or so. Both machines run Win 2000 Pro

Anyone else experience either slow loading - if so, how much ram and what's your CPU.

Anyone else get massive ram usage (and windows V.mem errors pop up) - if so, how much ram!

[Mr Footlong]

I have used it on 3 machines at home, with different results.

1.

Dual PIII 1Ghz- 256MB CAS2 PC133
GF2 MX400-64MB

A fair bit of ram swapping going on such as major lag out for the first 5 seconds after first spawning on a new join in, then generally slow frame rates due to the awful card. Didn't play for long enough to get a vmem warnings, but the pagefile was fixed at 768MB

2.

Athlon 1400@1533 - 512MB CAS2 PC133
GF4 Ti4200-64MB

No probs at all. No apparant swapfile munching going on and fairly smooth gameplay. quick to load and fairly quick coming out.

3.

P4 2.2@2.88 - 2x 512MB Corsair XMS3200C2 DDR400
GF4 Ti 4600 - 128MB

The swapfile is actually disabled on this machine. Very quick to load, no performance issues/slow down. No errors at all with regards to running out of RAM. Quick between menus and quick to shutdown.

The safedisc/cd check between multiplayer levels does irritate me somewhat tho:(

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Nick :)

[Tang0]

p4 2.2, 1gb pc800 rimms, ultra 160 scsi, gf4 ti4600, audigy platnium.

all runs sweet @ 1600x1200 with everything on max

[Noodleman]

what OS are yu running?

If it's 2k pro there is something you need to change in the registry to do with file paging and memory access.

win2k "predicts" that your machine has 256mb ram and automaticly sets the default paging size acordingly. you can change this from control panel. But there is also something to do with kernel paging which if you set to 1 in the registry disables it and really improves performance! Might help ya out if you are getting memory probs. Not sure if this has been solved in XP but I would have thought so...

[Wizzo]

Don't run BF with anything less than 512 MB... the damn thing uses over 300 MB memory... 'nuff said!

[narcose]

how can you stop windows using the swap file ( curr. using win2k + 640 rdram ) ?

[Mr Footlong]

I probably wouldn't bother mate. You have a fairly good amount of RAM, but I would say 768 before you consider switching it off.

Right click my computer. Advanced tab. Performance Options. Virtual Memory, change. Set the pagefile size at 0 for both min and max. it will disappear. Reboot and done.:)
Cheers,

Nick :)

[lyn]

I have just now upgraded to 768mb ram and it runs lovely, no jerking, very smooth, maybe thats the answer

[narcose]

thx for the advise :)

[Baz]

wizzo..u say 500 mb...but what about 256 of ddr (equililent of over 500 sdram?)

just thought id ask. i have 1400 athalon 256 ddr with geforce ti 200...loads like a DOG but plays lovely (tho my current skills are a bit below par in the game:))

Ill see you on the beach...but you better not nick that tank ive been driving around for the last 10 mins

BAz(amataz)

[Mr Footlong]

I have no idea where you have been getting your hardware information from:eek: . DDR stands for Double Data Rate, not double data capacity.
Think of a sine wave (or whatever) with the peak and the trough. SDRAM only bursts data on the peak of each cycle. DDR bursts data on the peak and trough of each cycle. Therefore it is faster by design. Your 256 is 256, nothing more.

Cheers,

Nick :)

[Dizzie]

Right. i have 4 machines.... I know, i'm selling 1 :D
here goes....
(all on win 2k with SP2 apart from mine on SP3)

My Gaming PC:
1800xp
512 DDR
Radeon 8500 (6166 drivers)

1600x1200 everything on - fine

TripWyre server:
Dual 1ghz P3's
1024 Pc133
Voodoo 3

Won't load - I wonder why ;) runs dedicated's nice though :D

Pos's PC:
1ghz T'bird
768 pc133
Radeon 7500 64mb DDR (6038 drivers I think)

Runs fine at 1024x768. Don't know much more cos I don't use it that often.

My 'spare' PC for friends to use:
P3 733mhz
192 pc133
GF2 ti 64mb DDR (40.41 drivers)

Take an age to load but plays ok once started.
I haven't actually played on it, but the friend using it last LAN didn't complain. :)
I'm not a Nvidia man, but I guessed they were the drivers to use.


One of my other mates has a 1.4ghz t'bird with 512 pc133 and a Kyro 2 and it plays, just things are blue and planes are see-thru. No T&L see. :)

[KBB]

althon xp 1600
512 ddr
gf3 ti200

i run it at 1280 x 960 with all details on full, and it runs excellently

[andyf]

Anyone with a Duron chip, whatever speed, how much luck are you guys having?

[Gifted]

Pentium 4 2.0ghz
512 DDR333
Geforce 3 Ti

Runs fine!

although i would say this..... i took 256 meg stick out at the weekend to put in the other pc and it ran like a dog! as in it took ages to load and lagging like a bitach! stuck the extra ram in and it works fine!

building 3 pc's next weeks so i gonna slip in another 512megs of ram into the order!...... that should get rid of the problem for sure!

[andyf]

Well, thanks for all the updates guys! I'm currently stuck between two opposites: On one hand I have a duron with loads of ram, loads very quick but is extremely un fun to play on. Then there's the P4, smooth as er something smooth, but takes about 3 days to load.

Pay day beckons, ram is on the agenda. Get this skippy slow loading thing sorted :)

(Anyone wanna buy a duron??)

[Njoroge]

the long loading times are something to do with loading your vdo card up with 128Mb of the textures it needs.

Ask any UT player that's upgraded from 3dfx to nvidia - loading times increase because of the time it takes to do all of the texture compression.

Makes it run nicer though :)

[Noodleman]

Originally posted by andyf
Anyone with a Duron chip, whatever speed, how much luck are you guys having?

Not a lot... Laggy..

[Templar]

For any one getting badframe rates ect , check out post i made on this same board

[andyf]

well I turned off sound hardware acceleration in the DirectX config on the Duron - it's now running somewhat smoother! In fact I ramped it up to full detail at 1024x768 and it's coping fine ... how bizarre..

Where did you find out that information?

[Templar]

Originally posted by andyf
well I turned off sound hardware acceleration in the DirectX config on the Duron - it's now running somewhat smoother! In fact I ramped it up to full detail at 1024x768 and it's coping fine ... how bizarre..

Where did you find out that information?


On a link from offical site in some forum, some bloke was asking for help with his muse xl and thats what they told him to do, so i thought id try it...worked like a charm so thought i'd pass on info

[t!mo]

I got a p2.4 with original geforce 3 64mb. win2k. the load times are pretty mad.

I've only got the game on ata66 drive and my ata100 drive is a dodgy ibm one. Would an ata133 make the game load appreciably quicker or is it just dodgy?

[Templar]

Originally posted by t!mo
I got a p2.4 with original geforce 3 64mb. win2k. the load times are pretty mad.

I've only got the game on ata66 drive and my ata100 drive is a dodgy ibm one. Would an ata133 make the game load appreciably quicker or is it just dodgy?

Suggestion is get rid of win2k, get xp or go back to win98
and yes it may load a bit faster with ata133 but i couldnt tell you how much depends on aspects of the board and things like that

[Big Giant Head]

P4 1.8, 512mb RDRAM, ATA66

The load times are a touch on the long side but well in the bearable range

[Boffykins]

TBH I think you just have to put up with the load times. It's a complex game, and really badly coded imho. Hopefully subsequant patches should fix a number of these issues.

A list of issues I would like to see fixed:

Better server code w/ Web interface a la UT
Less lag on moving carriers etc.
Less loading times
Console to be shown ABOVE all other gfx
Inputing text to be made much easier with copy and paste, especially for server pasting.

Any more for any more? If we compile a list i'll email the developers with them

[Big Giant Head]

What is this obsession with single password admin interfaces on the command line anyway?

I'd like to see a nice little UI, username/password combo allowing multiple user levels, so you can give some people power just to kick people etc etc

The carrier lag you just have to live with, I consider it amazing they managed to do it at all given how badly large moving objects have been done in other games

[t!mo]

The load times on my sys are less then a minute per level but the overall impression I get is that the game is just dodgy at loading. I know I can get a bit more speed running 98 but the hassle of having to goto fat32 partions and unreliable system are like not an option. xp is just a win2k fancy front end. I really don't like that activation stuff and am not going out my way to install it. Soonish i'm going to acquire some ata133 hard drives and creating a raid set but if the game is being held up by loading textures into gfx mem this aint going to make much difference.

[r3plica]

athlon 1800xp, gf4 ti4600 gold, 3 gig sdr, sb live plat.

this baby is sweet with all games =] need to upgrade processor tho ;)

[Bootz]

1942 plays lovely on LAN, but I've just started the single player, and it seems really jumpy and laggy like when i played online with a ping over 100+

pc is P4 1.7, 512mb ddr, gf3 ti200,

any ideas or any1 else finding it a bit like that?

[Big Giant Head]

I would assume its because the bots consume extra cpu power, try turning down the graphics a bit I guess?

[Eskimo]

mmm ive got the same system as bootz cept 100Mhz faster.

And i have noticed this too.

I turned all the GFX down too 800x600 and medium detail on everything. And its still jerky. 16 a side. and i would mind if the AI was good but its shockingly ****e.
On easy they are crap aimboting wallhackers and on hard they are aimboting wallhackers...

[b3nny]

Asus A7V333, 512Mb Ram, XP 2000 CPU, GeForce 4 Ti 4600 128mb. Everything runs like a dream. It still takes 20-30 secs to load, but once it has, everything is smooth as silk.

ps - I reckon this post was just an excuse to boast about massive pc set-ups!

[foxtr0t]

i'm running a 1200mHz Athlon, 256mb DDR-266 and a geforce 3 and tbh its laggy as hell, reckon another 512mb will sort the probs, or will i need to do more?

[Templar]

Originally posted by foxtr0t
i'm running a 1200mHz Athlon, 256mb DDR-266 and a geforce 3 and tbh its laggy as hell, reckon another 512mb will sort the probs, or will i need to do more?

Have you tryed turning sound hardware acceleration off in directx?

[BatWick]

I have Athlon 1700+ overlocked to 1900+, 1GB RAM, GF4 Ti4200............and it was jumpy as hell on single pl;ayer, i turned graphics down, no differencce at all, so i put it back up to what i prefer - 1024x768x32 @ 100Hz with all settings on high.

After a brief bit of experimentation i found that the problem is simply the AI, tiurn it down to 10%, play, then go back and recheck it, if its not jumpy, put the AI back up. I found that at 18% CPU time for AI, its perfect, not at all jittery, it was the processor that was the problem (which is the first time ive ever had to say that with this PC, and the last for about a year and a half i hope!)

However ths doesnt solve the crappy internet performance.

[Templar]

Originally posted by BatWick
I have Athlon 1700+ overlocked to 1900+, 1GB RAM, GF4 Ti4200............and it was jumpy as hell on single pl;ayer, i turned graphics down, no differencce at all, so i put it back up to what i prefer - 1024x768x32 @ 100Hz with all settings on high.

After a brief bit of experimentation i found that the problem is simply the AI, tiurn it down to 10%, play, then go back and recheck it, if its not jumpy, put the AI back up. I found that at 18% CPU time for AI, its perfect, not at all jittery, it was the processor that was the problem (which is the first time ive ever had to say that with this PC, and the last for about a year and a half i hope!)

However ths doesnt solve the crappy internet performance.


Ive got p4 1.7 overclocked to 2.1, with 512 ddr gf4ti 128ddr 4600
and was getting same problems ...and although i keep harping on about it ..ill just mention it cause it sorted my online gaming
just for sake of trying i know it might seem silly but turn off hardware acceleration on sound in directx diagnostics , this can be found in c:\programfiles\directx for win98/me or in c:\windows for xp and i think 2000
just give it a go wont effect your sound.

[AcidUK]

while turning off direct sound helps my pc a bit, it still struggles to give me anything smooth at 1024 x 768 at medium / low settings.
Specs are:

Athlon 900 Tbird
512 pc133
GF 3 Ti 500

Whilest it is still fairly playable, when the number of players rises to 20+ things start to jerk. My 3dmark score is very low for my spec im told, i think its a meagre 3.5k points on the 40.x drivers and about the same on 30.x.
HTH.

[Templar]

Originally posted by AcidUK
while turning off direct sound helps my pc a bit, it still struggles to give me anything smooth at 1024 x 768 at medium / low settings.
Specs are:

Athlon 900 Tbird
512 pc133
GF 3 Ti 500

Whilest it is still fairly playable, when the number of players rises to 20+ things start to jerk. My 3dmark score is very low for my spec im told, i think its a meagre 3.5k points on the 40.x drivers and about the same on 30.x.
HTH.

mmm...not to sure, have u turned down the view distance, what net connection have you got ?

[AcidUK]

Cable, and no i havent turned down the view distance, its on the default whatever that is, I would rather run it in 800 x 600 with all settings low, and a little bit of jerkyness than give others a *real* advantage over me. This more than any other FPS I have played brings out the importance of spotting people from a distance. On another point, im not overly concerned about my problems, although it would be nice to find a resolution (pun intended) to them, the information was for people trying to work out what sort of spec they need to play.

[Templar]

kay dude, nuff said i mean now i fixed the sound thing my plays great in all resolutions with all settings at max, so i cant really moan :)

[Baz]

All together now..b/f needs a hardware sound patch
why cant these developers relaes a game that works properley for once eh?:)

Bazamataz

[Templar]

CAUSE THEY IS HAXORING GAY MONEY GRABBERS...

And want to rush games out not fully tested to save on beta testing.
hell they even admit it with statements like..

"We have created a forum for any bugs found" ... i dont rember the old classics having forums for bugs...the reason was they where well tested and always worked

now i may be wrong but when i first got HL and finished it the first time, i cant rember a single bug, most of patches are multyplayer updates and add ons

why cant they all take a page from valves book

[Baz]

simple because they are EA, and desperatly wanted to get some pre - UT2003 sales in. i think sadly, as u said, it all comes down to money, and not the continued quality of the finished product. I doubt well see an update for battlefield, or any new map packs relased for that matter. EA released medal of honor almost 10 months ago. they have patched it maybe twice, for errors due to the netcode rather than hardware conflicts. in this time they have released no new maps, or stated that they support any user made maps. Now, (just in time for christmas) they are releasing the add-on, conatining new maps...whcih of course you have to pay for. Paying for extra content for a game youve already brought. admittedly MOH reload will contain a new single player bit too, but this reportedly is marginal. I find it horrible to think we will have to wait 10 months to get "battlefield 1943" to get hardware conflcits sorted and new maps added.

bit of shame EA keep publishing all these good games really.

Bazamataz

[Big Giant Head]

Half-Life was a mod for a tried and tested engine, not a whole new one

I've had no problems with battlefield at all, everythings worked fine for me

only problems I've seen are the monitor refresh rate issues, the hardware sound and the occassionally dodgy netcode

Not too bad really

and its a damn cool game ;)

[AcidUK]

While halflife was based mainly on the quake 2 engine, it featured a lot from the quake 1 engine, and a fair bit of new code from valve mainly in terms of graphical development.
The problem with using a prebuilt engine for bf1942 would have been down to the size of the maps creating tremendous comp specs to be able to play the maps.
Unfortunately the concept of a whole new engine has several severe impacts: The first is support, the game engine is untested (when compared to using a prebuilt one), so the performance on different platforms will be greatly varied, with far less improvement gone on. This wouldnt be a problem if there were constant updates, but as bazza00 said, EA are notorius for the opposite. The other problem when it comes to using a new engine would be the netcode. I dont know if how many of you have played halflife before and after the patch with the new netcode, but the difference was astounding. At the moment, the netcode in bf1942 is the same as halflife pre-patch. Were the netcode to be completely redesigned, so that lag prediction was used whilest taking ping into account (could be difficult given the games current server spec requirements) then the game would really take off. I spoke to a few friend who played the demo, and the majority of them who didnt buy the full game was because there was no lag prediction / the netcode was very similar to the demo.

[Templar]

well nuff said i think, i mean i love the game and with a meaty t1 wireless connection i dont have any issus with lag, but having once been a low spec gamer and running on 56k i know how horrable it can be to play a great demo but have to suffer bad lag. I do think that games are often rushed out with "iffy" netcode so that release deadlines are met and with a mainly online based game like battlefield this is a major oversight where a bit more tweaking and testing, the consideration of lower net connection speeds should be taken into account. because if (touch wood that it never happens) i was to lose my net connection and have to revert back to modem id have to give up on BF...

[Mr Footlong]

T1?

Don't tell me, you live next door to your ISP

:mad: ;) ;)

I have a client that has this setup. They actually are only a 5 user practice, but they are connected through the wall on a 100 base link to them. ARGHHHHHH! What I could do with that......:(

Cheers,

Nick :)

[Templar]

Originally posted by Mr Footlong
T1?

Don't tell me, you live next door to your ISP

:mad: ;) ;)

I have a client that has this setup. They actually are only a 5 user practice, but they are connected through the wall on a 100 base link to them. ARGHHHHHH! What I could do with that......:(

Cheers,

Nick :)

well i live just down the road from my company who have a 2mb fiber connection so yeah. plus I GET IT FOR FREE!!! it is a nice connection 200kps av downloads its nice

[BatWick]

the game iwould like them ty and emulate the support for most....is total annihilation, patchs, ;maps, units, gradually evolving the game, no tactics can remain the same - the ARM Repair bot changed the balance of the game, the anti nuke mobile things changed a lot of tactics etc. overall a great game.

shame Cavedog went under :-( i would have loved to see TA2 made by them, but TA2 should be interesting, as should the release from Gasplant games or Gaspowered games or whatever the disigners comapny is called. ne1 know what the game is is making is called?