Not exactly, but you have right.
For example in multiplayer games:
the old SH2/DC games are better than SH4 ADV mode.

"Historically correct, and had all the real life weather patterns, moon phases etc, etc" are nice but only additions.
The center point is playablity, not graphics or "historical accuracy".

im very opinionated but that doesnt mean that i know what im talking about lol, i do have strong reservations about telling anyone who is buying a video card for sh5 to use any video card less than the 8800gt 512mb or better that the devs mentioned they designed the game for.


i have the 8800gt 512mb so im right there on the button so just like you im hoping they are correct but as far as not worrying, im a little worried i might see some slow fps at times but i hope not because i have no budget to upgrade my card.

i never like telling someone anything about what specific card they would need or should get because then i might give bad advice ... :06: after all i dont think anyone knows for sure.

i agree with you in that we can definately trust the devs more than the suits but they (the devs) sometimes arent allowed to tell us everything so things could have changed since they told us that.

Now you got me worrying too. :lol:

The thing in the back of my mind is that SH has a fairly small audience; it's not in their best interest to have a requirement exceding a 8800GT: they would force half their market to upgrade. Considering the wait-and-see attitude of a lot of people that got burned by SH-woes in the past, they would be commiting suicide (or rather, murder the series).

The problem of course is that these kind of decisions aren't always made by sensible people. :-?

Still, if the suits make the calls, a primary focus is revenue. I have at least some :shifty: confidence even they understand the situation.



And you're right; telling anyone what specific card is best for them is impossible. What I know is that the $100,- bracket is the bang-for-buck bracket. Go lower, and you get only half the card for 2/3 or even 3/4 of the price. Imho that bracket is the minimum if you want to play your games "as intended". Anything above is a matter of preference and exactly how much someone has, or wants, to spend. :-?

*sigh* fingers crossed. Let's hope Dan's predictions are on target. :-?

built a good few rigs, played a few demanding sims, but iam with webster on this one, no painc but for my individual concerns i see lots of movement inside sub, and of course all the stunning pictures, as for actuall combat scenarios to what volume of traffic will be facing? how much action ubove and beneath, the elements, etc, na not taking any chances, myself personally nothing below a 1gb fairly fast card. by no means want my card screaming on high settings, i never do, but just for an extra days wage etc complete peace of mind, dont want sticking, and all the crap, errors etc. ok the devs have said their bit, but remember flight sim X ?? struggling frame rates, black patches appearing on screen on low settings etc, classic example of underestimated system requirements. :hmmm:

Mihai is only stating 3.0 GHz processor because that is required in order to achieve maximum time compression in the game.

Maybe I missed this point while reading this thread, but does SH5 fully support multi-core CPUs ?

3.0GHz processors aren't any expensive anymore btw, even the 3.2GHz aren't. At least not as dual cores. But the quad cores aren't that much more expensive either.
Would be great to finally see their power fully used by upcoming games.

My reading of Mihai's quote below is that multi-core CPUs are supported.


"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)"

Hummm I'm not 100% sure I will be able to play this...

Manufacturer - Dell
Model - XPS XPS_420
Rating: 5.9
Proccessor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz 2.33GHz
Memory (RAM) -4.00 GB
System type: 32-bit operating system
ATI Radeon HD 3870

Maybe getting Windows 7 64 bit would help?

Sky, I have the same machine. Its easy to upgrade this CPU to 3 Gigs. Just google it.

I have upgraded my original card (same as you I think) with an GTS250. Works great, I think.

EDIT: Sorry, I have the q6600. FOr info check this link: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=546760

Question: Isnt the screen resolution posted in the first post kinda low, and in 4:3?

I'm reasonably assured I'll be able to run it. My dual core can handle anything! :yeah:

64-bit is recommended for everyone. Glad to see it'll support Windows 7 as well. Love this OS!

:rotfl2:
Yeah, especially that almost all applications are 32-bit...
I see that MS advertisement department is working for his salary.
:D

My old machine works very good on old, good XP.
OEM license give me no choice: new OS only if new computer.
So, I will wait to Win8/Win9... or SH6+DX11
:haha:

eheh, you're damn right ;)
There's but a handful of softwares that makes use of 64 bits, so as for now, it's a bit useless for your everyday users. Mostly a bunch of "artistic" software truly uses it and takes benefits of this architecture. Handy if you're an 3ds max user or things like photoshoping or sound/music editing. That kind of thing... Will takes some time for gaming industry to move to 64 bit

The only direct benefit to any user is the ability to use 4GB RAM properly. Apart from that, 64-bit doesn't offer much to the average user.

Sky, the first and perhaps only thing I'd look to replace is the graphics card. Maybe the CPU would struggle with high TC, but I'd wait and see how it runs first. ;)

TC?

Time compression; speeding up time during gameplay. The higher you go, the more demanding it is on the CPU. ;)