hahaha sounds like SH I:har:

Dont forget the x86 math co-processor

And a partridge in a pear tree. :haha:

Damn, I need to upgrade.............:D

I know the feeling. My machine was stretched thin for SH4 and it can go no further.:wah::wah::wah:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I looked at my old P2 custom system that I paid almost 3K for when it first came out. That was about 10 years ago... Prices sure have come down.
I would hate to add up the money on computers and upgrades since I bought my first Tandy....

that and cellphones...gawd, those were expensive in the beginning.

Well, i was thinking in change my rig in the next months but now all plans will be halted until receive more information about sh5 :hmmm:

I was thinking of building a new system next year - might have to put in on hold.........

My projected configuration to run the game very well (with all graphic options enabled, in 1280*1024) is:
dual core at 3 GHz (quad core is appreciated but not mandatory)
2 gb of ram
nVidia 8800 GT 512mb (ATi 4850 512mb)

512mb on the video card is a minimum to play the game with every option checked. We're trying to make the game to fit into 256 mb of video memory (with the lowest settings).

Assassin's Creed was created by a completely different studio with a completely different engine. Those requirements are caused by the fact that their main target is the Xbox 360.

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.

The game will run on Windows 7, even the 64bit edition.

Much appreciate the heads up maerean_m http://www.psionguild.org/forums/ima...s/thumbsup.gif

I respectfully disagree and maintain my original post specs.

SH has virtually nothing to do with eye candy mass released games. The games yo8 mentioned were made for 360 and then tweaked to PC.

UBI knows there is a much wider age group in SH and also knows many guys (like me) never buy any of the other games.
My specs were based on the real world of everyone not the real world for game keeks.

Again, whatever you view on this wait, you will be doing yourself a big favor if you wait until this releases.

Perhaps few remember how SH3 was designed so called Nvidea compatible but ran better on ATI cards (Corrected n 2006 released cards). If you built to the prereleased hype you bought the wrong card.

Whatever it needs, whichever runs it better waiting will insure you get the best upgrades for the least money.
Build now in ignorance and pay more or build after release in knowledge and pay less.
It is simple math

Wulfmann

Ditto, thanks :yep::up:

My SUPER computer
 

1 tb memory 10 gb ram 512 mb nvidia geforce 8800 gt quadcore something lol and I run Sh4 on highest and on 1680X1200 or whatever the highest resolution is

Nvidia
 

I think a nvidia GEForce 9800m GS 512/mb video card should take on sh5 as i play sh4 on it with everything set on high with no problem.

I do realize that you (Ubi Romania) were not responsible for Assassins Creed. I was just using it as a prime example of a graphics intensive, AI intensive game. Graphics and AI take a terrible toll on system resources let alone involving a realistic physics engine, weather engine, etc etc etc... simulators in general are extremely resource needy. But I was also using it as an example of the tendency of game dev's to 'under-estimate' the recommended specs to run the game 'maxxed out'. I started this thread because I just wanted to know what the requirements were to run the game at it's fullest possible potential. Thank you for answering that question!

And thank you for not porting SH5 over to console... it kills so many good games! (like IL2...)


@Wulfmann -
EVERY game relased today has to compete in a world of advanced graphics, uber-intelligent AI, and incredible play-ability. Whether SH5 is created for the 'mass-console market' or not... it still has to compete - it has to intrigue people into playing it (mostly by being graphicaly superior to is predessors/rivals thereby making it resource intensive game) so to put it another way - Ubi doesn't give a damn about you or me or any specific end users (No offense Ubi Romania and the Dev Team - I'm talking about the suits). They're looking to make a product as in-expensively as they can, that will sell the most units as possible and to do that it has to be pretty, exciting, and interesting to the average person who has an attention span of about 5 seconds - they don't care how resource intensive it is or isn't... that's on the development team. If the development team can make a good product using 'mid-range' materials then good for them (and great for us) - but if they have to 'pull out the big guns' to make the suits happy, they will and who cares if we have the hardware to run it or not (ie, Crysis). That's why there are so few 'PC Exclusive' titles - it costs far too much to develop for not enough return. Hell, the last time I looked at a sales report of Console Games vs PC Games Sales it was more than 30 to 1 and that was about 2 years ago! The sad truth is that the PC gaming market is dying due to the ease of use and cost effectiveness of console gaming. So simply - if Ubi Romania doesn't make this a blockbuster of release... you probably won't see a SH6... atleast not on a PC.

And yes, the games I mentioned earlier are EXTREMELY resource needy because where initially dev'd for console then ported or re-dev'd for the pc - but that's because the market is dying. Sooner than later, as desktops go the way of the dodo, your home PC will be a laptop or a netbook and your games will only come on a console. Like it or not...

and btw... I'm not a game geek... I'm an IT professional/journalist who enjoys the occasional game - and 90% of the time it's SH3/GWX!

yeah i'm pirtty sure nVidia8600/Ati3850 in going to be the min when it comes to GPUs so with 9800 you should be in the clear

;)Hot damn, those are my specs exactly! I'll probably have my GPU upgraded by launch anyway. Just in case.

Let's hope they finally have included (some) multicore support (which I've tongue-in-cheek asked for 2 years back). With pretty much everybody running multicore cpu's these days, there a big performance benefit (ie. AI, prefetching/preloading). This all ran on a single core for SH4... If they have, one might get away with a 2-3 year old rig (although you'd likely have to run at lower then optimal resolutions). [edit] whooptiedoooptie, I see maerean_m hinted about multicore \o/

All the new/extra interiors don't worry me too much. So many games are capable of rendering entire worlds that I don't see why extra interior space compared to SH4 would cause a heavy strain on current or somewhat older hardware. I'm pretty sure they have rewritten this part of the engine (I tend to think they redid a whole lot more, pretty much a new engine) just to make it work because the legacy code (SH3/SH4) doesn't seem up to the job.

But it's quite obvious that modern/new hardware is recommended if you want to enjoy the full beauty of any new game...

YukonJack, I can't be bothered to explain why you are wrong. Give this a read, I hope it explains it.