Do you all have 50Mhz 486 PC or something?

[Jarmo]

Agree to the point that whatever system requirements CMII would have, I'd upgrade to meet it. Hell, I got myself an $65/month ADSL just for CM.

But on the other hand. Just yesterday I spotted a demo for WarbirdsIII. And the minimum requirements.

300Mhz G3, check

16MB OpenGL card, check

256MB RAM, oops a bit short

So I wont try it out.

Even if its the best game ever, I'll never know.

Upping RAM is not a viable option, my mac is old enough to not use dimms and the memory that'd fit it doesn't come cheap anymore.

If CM1 had come out this year with those requirements I wouldn't be playing it now.

[John Kettler]

I, for one, am most grateful that the requirements for CM are low...since my rig doesn't even meet them.

Gen One iMac

233 Mhz

64 MB RAM (added 32)

ATI Rage Pro (2 MB VRAM)

6 GB HD

OS 8.6

Would I love a faster, more powerful machine, one with fabulous graphics and all the bells and whistles? Absolutely! I had a 350 MHz iMac on loan while my 233 MHz iMac was repaired. It was a sad day when I had to go back to 640 x 480 after playing for weeks at 800 x 600.

I'm lucky, though, to have the capability to play the game at all. I may or may not be able to upgrade this one enough to run CM:BB. Think good thoughts!

For the record, if one is seeking maximum game sales, the hot tip is to develop on the Mac and port to the PC. This gives both the Mac and the PC markets, without the hassles attendant in trying to port from PC to Mac, which is reportedly much harder than going the other direction.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

No, what a bunch of us have been gently trying to point out is that "all of it" could have been avoided if had used a different tone in your original post.

Now I understand that.

-dale

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or even better, this all could have been avoided if people stopped reading stuff into my post and stopped assuming and instead asked for a clarification if they were in doubt! Ask first, shoot afterwards would be the correct military metaphore her I think.

As a bunch of other people had pointed out.

But enough, Im tired of all this, maybe I could have used another tone, but remeber, english isn't my fluent language. But maybe my "assuming everything" opposits could take some self critizism instead of jump in my face and call me arrogant etc.

Panzer

[Jarmo]

Panzer, I hope you haven't taken my posts as "a jump in the face",

I disagree with you, but no nastyness intended.

John K, Hahaa!

Your pixellated tanks going at 5 fps are no match for my High Res equipped 20 fps cruisers. You're doomed!

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Panzer, I hope you haven't taken my posts as "a jump in the face",

I disagree with you, but no nastyness intended.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ceritanly not. Disagreeing its just fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

John K, Hahaa!

Your pixellated tanks going at 5 fps are no match for my High Res equipped 20 fps cruisers. You're doomed! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzer

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Sgt CDAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

BTW: Just because it stands "Junior Member" next to my handle, it doesn't mean I'm new to this forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you dont have to worry about that now and you did it with just one topic, not bad I am still working on mine. But I think they were going by your member #.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Im not saying that u should have a 1 GHz machine with GeForce 3, but, atleast a PIII/Celeron/AMD 400 with 8/16 MB gfx card.

So what kind of machine do YOU have? I myself have a 1.2 Ghz AMD with a GeForce2-MX 64MB gfx card.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the 1 GHz AMD with a Geforce 3 and I built it with CMII in mind. BTW I think this is what you intended this post for! My hat is off to you for the way you have handled the post fired your way!

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Sgt CDAT ]

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt CDAT:

I have the 1 GHz AMD with a Geforce 3 and I built it with CMII in mind. BTW I think this

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GeForce 3? Man, thats expensive! I hate to buy "top of the line" stuff as you can bet your empty wallet that the price will drop more rapidly than the Nasdaq! Better to buy the value or last generation stuff IMO. But its sure is fun I can imagine!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt CDAT:

is what you intended this post for! My hat is off to you for the way you have handled the post fired your way!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.

Panzer

[Sgt CDAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Man, thats expensive<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was! It was about Half of the cost of my new system!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But its sure is fun I can imagine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is! On my last system I had a diamond monster 3DII with 8 meg with 4 meg MB video!

[Marco Bergman]

I have to say that most of the people responding here have systems which seem to be far in excess of that which most of the people I know here in New Zealand posess... My work machine for 3D CAD is only a P3 600.

Many people I know have P200s

One friend runs CM on a P200 & 8Mb Voodoo 2. In LR it runs just fine.

I have a PII 400, 256 Mb RAM, 8Mb TNT Vanta.

I have been known to use some HR mods }:c)

Ambient sound and HR grass are out for me, but apart from that everything runs fine.

I for one will be happy if BTS doesn't move the required specs too far forwards, or else I won't be modding for CM:BTB I'm afraid. My money is required elsewhere.

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marco Bergman:

I have to say that most of the people responding here have systems which seem to be far in excess of that which most of the people I know here in New Zealand posess... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the prices for computers/parts in New Zealand.

BTW. I was born in Nelson!

Panzer

[Thomm]

I sincerely want to thank everybody who buys a GeForce3 now so that I can buy it for 1/3 of the price next year!

Thank you,

Thomm

PS.: Celeron 466, 128MB, Matrox G400.

Bumper sticker: I do not upgrade for ANYBODY!

[Stacheldraht]

Athlon Tbird 1.1 GHz, boatloads of memory (dirt cheap now), 32MB GF2 vid card, surround sound, lots of other fun stuff.

That's pretty much a mid-range computer nowadays, judging by what Dell, Gateway, and the other big OEM's are selling so cheaply now, let alone Alienware and other niche, high-end manufacturers. (The time is economically right to upgrade, folks.) If you have the cash on hand, there's little good reason to be running less than a 1GHz proc or GeForce card of some type if you're at all interested in gaming.

Here's another vote for a CM game that can scale to take advantage of decent hardware.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

I, for one, am most grateful that the requirements for CM are low...since my rig doesn't even meet them.

Gen One iMac

233 Mhz

64 MB RAM (added 32)

ATI Rage Pro (2 MB VRAM)

6 GB HD

OS 8.6

Would I love a faster, more powerful machine, one with fabulous graphics and all the bells and whistles? Absolutely! I had a 350 MHz iMac on loan while my 233 MHz iMac was repaired. It was a sad day when I had to go back to 640 x 480 after playing for weeks at 800 x 600.

I'm lucky, though, to have the capability to play the game at all. I may or may not be able to upgrade this one enough to run CM:BB. Think good thoughts!

For the record, if one is seeking maximum game sales, the hot tip is to develop on the Mac and port to the PC. This gives both the Mac and the PC markets, without the hassles attendant in trying to port from PC to Mac, which is reportedly much harder than going the other direction.

Regards,

John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is of course Bungie (in its youth) and BTS. Both develop (or in Bungie's case developed) on the Mac and then run the port to PC.

The original IMac crunches the same data as a 500mhz Pentium flavor, but its drawback is limited VRAM. (Don't let the MHZ marketing ploy suck you in -- a 900 mhz Itanium core from the upcoming Intel release crunches twice the data of a 1.7 mhz PIV. The G4 likewise crunches twice the data of its Pentium IV cousin per MHZ. Of course that does not mean an 800 mhz G4 beats the new 2ghz Pentium IV, it does not, but it give a 1.7 a run for its money.

Chokepoints in the computer system included for computer games:

VRAM speed / capacity

Processor Power

Disk Speed I/O

Data pipe size (32bit or 64bit to processor)

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Chokepoints in the computer system included for computer games:

VRAM speed / capacity

Processor Power

Disk Speed I/O

Data pipe size (32bit or 64bit to processor)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Among a number of other things.

[Subvet]

I currently have a celeron 366 (although, I run it at 550), a TNT 16MB video card, and 192MB ram. I built this system myself for about $3000, although since then it has been upgraded to its current level.

I've always been a gamer. I have about 100 games right now. I haven't bought very many new ones in the past year though. Having a kid really cuts into my game time and computer budget. She'll always come before the computer, even with CM.

I run all the latest hi-res mods on the above machine and it doesn't seem to run too bad. I don't normally play the really big games though, and I'm sure it would crawl on those big maps with all my mods.

I like pretty graphics in some games, but for CM I just don't see the need. Yeah, I know I got all those mods, but I rarely zoom in close enough to see the things in detail. The eye candy is nice, but not needed in my opinion. Let's put it this way: if CM2 used the exact same graphics I'd buy it. I'm looking for better game play in the re-write, not prettier pictures.

[thewood]

Something to keep in mind is that many wargamers, and I emphasize wargames, don't have the time to constantly tweak and upgrade their PCs. Wargamers tend to play for the playing and simulation experience. Usually, graphics only need to be good enough.

A great example is what Microsoft has done to the BattleTech franchise. BattleTech has a following that would put CM and even ASL to shame. The very deep and detailed board game has been converted to both simulation and tactical computer games. The original tactical game was called MechCommander and was very well recieved, although there were many glaring inconsistencies with the BattleTech universe. The graphics were all sprite-based because of the varied sophistication of the user community, but they were good enough to keep the majority of BattleTech fans interested. Now comes MechCommander and the engine has been updated to a new 3D engine. Only a 1GHz CPU with 256Mb Ram and 64Mb video card can run it. If you read the bulliten boards, Microsoft has alienated the majority of true BattleTech fans who can't afford that type of machine in dollars or hours. MechCommander 1 sales are actually up significantly because people are going back to what they were able to run. Most BattleTech users will tell you that they would have been just as happy to have MC1 updated to fix the inconsistences. Instead, MC2 developers got caught up in the old syndrome of having to be better in the graphics department than anyone else. MS could have made just as many sales and saved a lot of development cost by just updating MC1. This is a lesson I hope more developers, including BTS, learn from.

Now my point, finally, is that BTS has taken the approach that its core audience are generally not on the bleeding edge of technology. Developing at the bleeding edge is not good business. The risks of not working with the various setups and configurations goes up exponentially as one develops closer to the leading edge of technology. I imagine that BTS can't afford to do that.

I for one would be more than happy if CM:BB was developed with basically the same graphics as CM:BO. I have a couple of small children and travel extensively for my job. I don't want to be constantly updating drivers and swapping out cards just to spend 1 relaxing hour playing CM. If someone wants great graphics in a tactical-level game, they should be looking at one of the RTS games and let BTS focus on making a good WW2 tactical-level simulation.

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet:

I currently have a celeron 366 (although, I run it at 550), a TNT 16MB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't OCing a bitch?

Try to get an Cel600 or 533/66, these baybies are real OC friendly. I know, I had a Cel 600@926. And you can get them for almost free now!

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thewood:

technology. Developing at the bleeding edge is not good business. The risks of not working with the various setups and configurations goes up exponentially as one develops closer to the leading edge of technology. I imagine that BTS can't afford to do that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Developing only for bleeding edge has never been proposed by anybody in this thread anyway.

[tiborhead]

As far as mods go, I only use terrain and tree mods. The stock terrain seemed ok at first, but after using the Normandy pack, the stocks hurt my eyes. IMO, the original unit textures work just fine in most cases. It seems the vehicular mods really tax my computer (before I got my RAM upgrade), but the terrain ones don't. The graphics could stay the same, as long as the gameplay is the same or better. Although I would like to see dynamic lighting for CM2.

[AndrewTF]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Agree to the point that whatever system requirements CMII would have, I'd upgrade to meet it. Hell, I got myself an $65/month ADSL just for CM.

But on the other hand. Just yesterday I spotted a demo for WarbirdsIII. And the minimum requirements.

300Mhz G3, check

16MB OpenGL card, check

256MB RAM, oops a bit short

So I wont try it out.

Even if its the best game ever, I'll never know.

Upping RAM is not a viable option, my mac is old enough to not use dimms and the memory that'd fit it doesn't come cheap anymore.

If CM1 had come out this year with those requirements I wouldn't be playing it now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jarmo

What kind of Mac do you have? I just picked up some 128 MB memory modules for my old hot-rodded 8600 for about $40 a piece. It's not as cheap as the memory for blue-and-white and newer Macs, but it's pretty affordable. Now I can keep Photoshop and CM running at the same time for easier mod making and testing

[GenSplatton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now my point, finally, is that BTS has taken the approach that its core audience are generally not on the bleeding edge of technology. Developing at the bleeding edge is not good business. The risks of not working with the various setups and configurations goes up exponentially as one develops closer to the leading edge of technology. I imagine that BTS can't afford to do that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know Panzer has already touched on this but, no one here is talking about bleeding edge. We have mostly been alluding to mid range at most. Bleeding edge would defintiely be in the Ghz, if not in the mid and upper GHz range. And graphically, we would be talking 64MB GF2 and above. I think the thread here has leaned more towards the 500 to 800MHz range as a mid level computer by todays standard. Hardly bleeding edge.

And Panzer, I think the phrase you were looking for was "Ready, Fire, Aim!"

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton:

And Panzer, I think the phrase you were looking for was "Ready, Fire, Aim!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What kind of Mac do you have? I just picked up some 128 MB memory modules for my old hot-rodded 8600 for about $40 a piece. It's not as cheap as the memory for blue-and-white and newer Macs, but it's pretty affordable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it happens I have a 8600.

I guess I'll ask around then, a pair of those would serve me well..

[Gen-x87H]

The original IMac crunches the same data as a 500mhz Pentium flavor, but its drawback is limited VRAM. (Don't let the MHZ marketing ploy suck you in -- a 900 mhz Itanium core from the upcoming Intel release crunches twice the data of a 1.7 mhz PIV. The G4 likewise crunches twice the data of its Pentium IV cousin per MHZ."

Oh give it up. Dont be a shill and believe everything Apple spoon feeds you. You find benchmarks on anything other than a few select photoshop filters that has a G4 crunching at more than twice the speed of a P4 or Athlon. The iMac is a horrible example of what a G3 could do. Outside of that BYTEMARK benchmark using an old obsolete compiler for the x86 chip I didnt see the G3 smoking much of anything. In fact when ZDnet decided to recompile the code in a newer compiler like oh say MSVC++ 5(LOL!) the P2 blew by the G3.

Apple is full of great BS artists so be warned.

"Of course that does not mean an 800 mhz G4 beats the new 2ghz Pentium IV, it does not, but it give a 1.7 a run for its money."

Sure in Apples marketing blitze it may. The P4 is a pathetice thing in terms of IPC but I would find it hard to believe it has an IPC at 40% of the G4.

Gen

[AndrewTF]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

As it happens I have a 8600.

I guess I'll ask around then, a pair of those would serve me well..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my machine exactly , with a G3 400 and a Radeon card. Try a site called DealMac (dealmac.com)--they track, as is expected--the best prices on Mac stuff and often have specials with online Mac parts vendors (such as Other World Computing, which is where I got the memory).