Post computer specs...

[Oberst Oswald]

"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)." maerean m

Since most, if not all, the people on Subsim will probably buy the game I think it would be helpful to the developers to post what we have. I, for one, would want SH5 to be the Crysis of subsims so as to not have last years graphics on 2010 game. Hopefully a rez of 2560x1600 will be available to those who can run it (will lower details if necessary).

maerean m configuring the game to a low rez like 1280x1024 has me worried...

CPU: Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition
Motherboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe
RAM: Corsair 6gb 1600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T
HDD's: WD VelociRaptor 300gb, WD VelociRaptor 300gb
OS: MS Vista 64 Ultimate SP2
Video cards: SLI- eVGA GTX 280 FTW, eVGA GTX 280 SSC
Monitor: Gateway XHD3000 30"
Sound card: Creative X-Fi Titanium> Stello DA100 DAC> Travagan's Red Amp> Stax SR Lambda
Speakers: Logitech Z-680 5.1 with Boston CR57 speakers
PSU: Corsair HX1000W
Case: SilverStone TJ07

[Arclight]

You're just bragging.

Doesn't matter what we have, all that matters is SH5 is coming!

[Sledgehammer427]

a low res like 1280x1024?
dude, my monitor still needs degaussing! not to mention its wonderful ability to heat up my room in the middle of winter

[YukonJack_AK]

Originally Posted by Oberst Oswald

maerean m configuring the game to a low rez like 1280x1024 has me worried...

Seriously... 1280x1024 is NOT that bad of a resolution. Do you realize that most benchmark test occur at that resolution because it's currently one of several optimal settings for todays gpus? Yes certainly it would be very nice to have 1440, and full widescreen support, blah blah... but just remember that at a lower primary resolution, you can achieve better special effects and more advanced/lifelike details (ie 1st person, AI subs, and everything else you guys want) WITHOUT sacrificing fps... think about it

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer427

a low res like 1280x1024?
dude, my monitor still needs degaussing! not to mention its wonderful ability to heat up my room in the middle of winter

:rotfl:

Can you believe I recently actually bought a new CRT, instead of LCD?



1280*1024/1280*960 is pretty much todays standard.

[YukonJack_AK]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Can you believe I recently actually bought a new CRT, instead of LCD?

I can't believe you paid money for a CRT! Was it a specific size or the response time that was the requirement? If you really needed one I have a CLOSET full of CRT displays... though shipping those heavy beasts was always a real b***h!

[Ragtag]

Actually a good CRT monitor beats the crap out of any LCD when it comes to visual quality. The only reason that i own an LCD myself is the size and weight of a 20"+ CRT.

[Nexus7]

Originally Posted by Ragtag

Actually a good CRT monitor beats the crap out of any LCD when it comes to visual quality. The only reason that i own an LCD myself is the size and weight of a 20"+ CRT.

What about the electromagnetic emissions ?

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by YukonJack_AK

I can't believe you paid money for a CRT! Was it a specific size or the response time that was the requirement? If you really needed one I have a CLOSET full of CRT displays... though shipping those heavy beasts was always a real b***h!

Good money too, gave him a bonus because I was so glad to find a new CRT.

Its about color correctness, contrast and the option of going to any resolution I want without drawbacks. Run desktop and most games at 1280*960, but older games like Dangerous Waters at 1600*1200. LCDs are stuck at their native res unless you're willing to accept the drawbacks of scaling. Being a perfectionist, that ain't gonna happen.

* trying to make sense of the LCD market is a nightmare, with all the different panel types, varying standards for dot pitch, false brightness and contrast specs because they are artificially boosted with some questionable technique, etc. Figured I'd just stick with what I know works.

[TDK1044]

The OP needs to understand that Ubisoft makes their PC games to sell to the guy who buys a $600 system at Walmart or Best Buy.

The kind of hard core gamer/subsimmer that you find on a forum like this represents a very small percentage of total sales. Ubisoft needs this game to be playable and enjoyable on a system with 2GIGs of RAM, a decent mid range 512MB video card, and a decent mid range duo core processor.

1280 X 1084 is perfectly fine for a required res for the game.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Oberst Oswald

"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)." maerean m

WTF what are they planning to do with the graphics
with my good ole 256mb 8600GTS I can run CoD:WaW on maximum settings, and from what I've seen from the preview CoD:WaW graphics are a thousand times better.