sh5 game specs straight from the devs

[Steeltrap]

Meh, trying to get it to run in 256Mb graphics? That's 4-5 year old technology FFS!

Bite the bullet....512Mb should be stretching to play on basic settings.

As an aside: As far as I know, if you don't have a 64-bit OS, there's no point in having more than 4Gb of RAM as the OS is limited to using about 2.9Gb. Even with 64-bit, there's no performance boost in going over 6Gb in 99.99% of cases. It's a way to save money, and that money is better spent on a higher graphics card. Similarly, high-end quad cores without high-end graphics cards (by which i mean 2 in SLI or XFire, or a dual chip single card) is a waste of money....you'll get bottlenecks in the video. People wanting to look at specs and builds etc can do a lot worse than spending a few hours in www.tomshardware.com

Cheers

[PL_Andrev]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Meh, trying to get it to run in 256Mb graphics? That's 4-5 year old technology FFS!

So what?

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Bite the bullet....512Mb should be stretching to play on basic settings.

Hi-end graphic is not central point of game, especially in simulation game.
Take a look at the gaming market: almost all games offer advanced graphics ... but what of that, since 99% of the game is weak? After a week of playing this game is in the trash, and people have the impression that the money wasted. The center point of game is playablity and the developers forget about it.

Buy our hi-end graphical game: you need hi-end processor, hi-end OS, hi-end graphic card and your life will be better...

[Sgtmonkeynads]

Originally Posted by Antar

So what?

Hi-end graphic is not central point of game, especially in simulation game.

So if ShVI came out and was 100% historically correct, and had all the real life weather patterns, moon phases etc..ect..but had the graphics of an Atari 1700, you would be OK with that?

[cjbeattie]

ok thanks webster

btw is the Inno3D 9500GT 512MB DDR2 much faster than the 9400? i have read mixed reviews.. some saying its fantastic and some saying its crap...

i will restrain from now buying one and wait until you guys say how it runs on your systems..

i have 3 gig of ram

and athlon 64x2 4000+ whatever that is

i hope also once i get my card that will be enough..

now its a waiting game ! u guys better report quickly how your rigs handle sh5 !

thanks for your help if I'm honest i hope SH5 looks like the pics do on medium,Im happy to play it in medium settings as long as the actual simulation is up to scratch...medium will do me i hope as i think the bulk of us are after a the actual sim not eye candy

Cjb

ps.. as for halflife 2 i map with the source engine and i for one can tell you its very system heavy corridor based engine (even more so when bloom is used) .. as in i can run flight sim X nearly maxed out and i still struggle to do that with Halflife 2 on same system .... overhyped if anything i think the Source engine is but everyone seems to love it lol so shhhhhh be quiet

my mod if your interested using source engine:-

http://www.thegate.half-lifecreation...e2homepag.html

and on mod db - http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-gate-2

[PL_Andrev]

Originally Posted by Sgtmonkeynads

So if ShVI came out and was 100% historically correct, and had all the real life weather patterns, moon phases etc..ect..but had the graphics of an Atari 1700, you would be OK with that?

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".