Might want to upgrade to a SAN storage solution for those extra large saves, and a centralised backup to protect those important mods if you re-install. Also, for multiple concurrent configurations, virtualisation is the way forward.

Should be no more than £18k :rotfl2:

If a quad-core processor, 9800GT and 6gb of memory can't run the game then it won't be worth upgrading for :timeout:

LOL you are right - i forgot about about Ram drives being the future

mrwho
 

my old dell xps will have to do. :|\\

I was planning to upgrade my pc for some months. I'll wait for the release of SH5 before upgrading.

not until the prices come down to earth where normal people can afford them

right now they are still way too expensive AND small sized for my needs

I expect it must be difficult for the devs as it will always be a compromise so that there is a broad spectrum of acceptable running specs to the end users- it would be no good if you were forced into upgrading to high end gear just to run the game, as obviously that would hit sales. Hence the popularity of consoles, devs are working to a common platform, ie, everyone has got a PS2/3 or an X-Box so they can wring every last scrap of performance from a title.

Remember too, that a lot depends on the resolution / size of screen you look at, I've got a 20" LCD @ 1680 x 1050 so a mid range card should cope perfectly well.

Which is why I would like a 24" screen and a 5870 :o


Hah! Just been promoted to "Nub"- whatever they are...

My System
 

I have a Dell Studio XPS with 8Gig of ram and a 1gig nVidia card. Think this will be enough for it. I'm pretty sure it would work other than maybe updating the video card later. Look forward to the game, but just hope it's not a lot of eye candy.

Well as for processor usage, MW2 ain't much more demanding than SH5 will be i guess. There are generally a whole lot of AI objects, each of which has to execute their code. SH5 won't have much more AI visible. A few sailors inside the sub and some ships, that's all.
And the MW2 graphics might be very optimised, it still has a huge poly count and absolutely stunning lighting.

And crysis, you know of ANY computer that can play crysis on high settings?:)

No, MW2 is much less demanding than SH5 will be - I guarantee it. Being able to run MW2 won't tell you much about SH5.

SH5 will (presumably) need to keep track of all the shipping that criss-crosses the atlantic at all times. Sure it won't be rendered until it strays within your detection radius, but the game still has to track where they are - a job of the processor, and a big one at that. MW2 doesn't have to do any of this. They are fundamentally different types of games and being able to run one doesn't say anything about your ability to run the other.

Yes. You can buy a prebuilt system which can run Crysis on Enthusiast (the highest settings) at high resolution with maxed AA and all that for less than £600, much less if you build it yourself. It's still a demanding game which simulates an open world environment though, so it's a better test of your system's capability for running SH5 than Modern Warfare 2 is.

I doubt that. In terms of poly count, i dont think it will matter much. SH5 ain't got high-poly trees and cars and stuff, basically it only has to render the sub, AI ships, the sea and occasionally some land. As you can see in the screenshots the land is relatively low-poly, so count like 1000 polys for all the visible land. Count a couple of 10,000s for all the waves, again something like 10,000 for each ship and thats all.
In terms of lighting, which is much more GPU-expensive than drawing a few simple textured poly's, SH5's lighting is good but not as advanced as MW2's.
As far as you saying that MW2 aint got an open world environment, check the following screenshot:
http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/c..._3852/mw21.jpg
about everything you see here (and even more), except the background, are high poly models you will pass close by sometime later in the level.

I'm sure the devs have come up with some good way to track the shipping. Besides, it are only really easy calculations. the game just has to run through the list of ships and update their positions according to speed and location of next waypoint. Not very processor heavy. Sure, it has to be done for a certain amount of ships but its not like there will be 10s of thousands of ships and convoys at sea at the same time.
MW2 doesn't have to loop through this list of ships, no, but it does have to loop through a list of sometimes a couple of dozens of AI soldiers/vehicles, each having lots of much more CPU demanding code than the simple position updating SH5 ships will have (ships beyond rendering distance, that is).

Anyway, no one but a dev can really tell which one of us is right, and since I dont expect a dev to suddenly show up and start comparing SH5 to MW2 we'll have to wait till the release to really know:)

Yes we'll see when it comes out, and when I'm right you'll owe me a beer.:|\\

oh, if you're right you can get a whole CRATE of virtual beer from me:()1:

And the other way around of course, if I'm right I get beer from you!
(Bavaria please)

The poll has no option for people who are not upgrading...

I just did for Rise of Flight and I am sure it will play SH5 more then adequately. I usually get a new system every 14 - 18 months anyways.. I hate low FPS... Some people spend their cash on tricking out their cars or whatever.. with me it is always having a decent PC.

The polls is for 2 reasons.
I need to know that i am not the only one spending money on there computer system just to play SH5 . I need to justify spending the money to myself . (Yes i have a life as i do other things as well as sit in front of the computer ) .
The poll shows that people are willing to spend big to play SH5 so i guess the expectations are high .
If you dont need to upgrade then good luck to you .