Do you all have 50Mhz 486 PC or something?

[Panzer76]

I guess you are right Mattias.

Let's just hope that the sucsess of BTS will continue so they can employ even more competant people which can lift this great game to new hights.

Panzer

[Jarmo]

I preordered based on the Beta demo. At that point I had my 180Mhz, 48MB, 2MB card system. The game looked good enough and if it hadn't ran on my system I wouldn't have ordered it.

But I agree the final graphics are a welcomed sugar coating, that have certainly lured more gamers in.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[Cpl Carrot]

Well, um, yes I do have a 486-50. Its sitting on the floor next to me. With only 4Mb RAM and 250Mb HD, WIN 95 and CM run just great.

Actually I only pull it out when I get a X-Com urge. "Ha! I see you Mr Lobsterman with your Sonic Cannon. Well guess what, I have hydro jet rifles, so there... " Um where was I

My other machine is a K6-2 400, 128Mb RAM, 16Mb Voodoo 2, which does the business. Still plenty of life left in the old girl yet - have not even thought of replaceing her. (Besides I don't want to hurt her feelings) Perhaps this is not the place

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cpl Carrot:

Actually I only pull it out when I get a X-Com urge.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good game BTW!

Panzer

[Tripps]

umm, PIII800, 256, and works fine on the budget 810e chipset but then again, everyting looks great on a 17" LCD monitor

But i agree with Panzer76, IF BTS makes the game not as good as they could (yes yes, within reason) and sacrifice looks etc for lower end pc's....well....

but then this from Cpl Carrot:

Well, um, yes I do have a 486-50. Its sitting on the floor next to me. With only 4Mb RAM and 250Mb HD, WIN 95 and CM run just great.

wheres the need to sacrifice then??

unless he's just pullin our legs...grrrr

i suspect he is, but regardless, i bet everyone bitched with the change from DOS to Windows too, and the requirements that went along with it, but, who would go back to a pure DOS system?

and before someone gets me wrong, i dont NOT like the current game, even with the high res mods, but i would expect/like in CM BB and CM3 some advancements in graphics, not like Mongol Invasion i got the other day, where even the 2d is still the same....

blah

[Porajkl]

Hey, you all young FPS graphics maniacs out there... Graphics is not everything what makes game great - especially in wargames. For some of you who can remember game Harpoon, you will know that gameplay is most important. That game lacked any decent graphics even for that time, but I could play it day after day, month after month. I could also play CM2:BB for months if it has the same graphics (lo-res textures) and I bet I could enjoy it, because I believe that BTS will make it same playable as it is CM. I agree that graphics are important, but not most important... Just got a thought: do you remember GunnyBuny with his demands on better graphics (dinamic T&L)... I haven't seen him for quite a long time. And Panzer76, why are you so proud that you're not new to a forum? Any resemblance?

Oh, and I have celeron433, 128mb Ram, voodoo3 2000 w/16mb and I don't plan to upgrade for at least a year. And by the way - most CM players aren't involved in forum, so your statistic may not be valuable...

[Panzer76]

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

Hey, you all young FPS graphics maniacs out there... Graphics is not everything what makes game great - especially in wargames.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%. For too long (in general) developers have had too much focus on eye candy and no focus on playability. BUT sometimes it seems that some people think that with better gfx the game gets worse...

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

seen him for quite a long time. And Panzer76, why are you so proud that you're not new to a forum? Any resemblance?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not, but some of the others began with a "you are a newbie, so be obidient" kinda line, which I don't care for much. Maybe it shows that some of the BBS members think a bit too highly about them self. Almost high school all over again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

upgrade for at least a year. And by the way - most CM players aren't involved in forum, so your statistic may not be valuable...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never said or pretended they were anywhere close to being valid statistics. Just curious.

Panzer

[Slapdragon]

Here is an issue, why should BTS develop for your PC at all when it is easier for BTS to develop for Jarmo's Mac? Development times are lower (per BTS) for the Mac, they have an order of magnitude less conflicts (and thus BTS spends less money supporting them) and they make up a quarter of their sales. No matter how powerful, your computer is still stuck with Direct-X and all the bugs that go with that, wondering if any graphics card will work on a it, wondering if there will be a conflct with some obscure setting in your computer. BTS should just shuck it all, develop on the new Mac / UNIX platform, and be done with all that hassle. Plus, they would get a superior product if they developed with the newer Quartz screen engines rather than the older PC drawing system.

The answer of course is that the set the bar to meet, at the time of the game's production, the average machine of the average person both for profit, and because they believe in what they do. They could, comments aside, design for a much higher end Macintosh OS-X dual processor 800 (equivilant in power to a 3.2ghz Pentium IV) with 64mb of VRAM, and then just ask you to buy the computer you specify to run the game.

[Panzer76]

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

They could, comments aside, design for a much higher end Macintosh OS-X dual processor 800 (equivilant in power to a 3.2ghz Pentium IV) with 64mb of VRAM, and <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right....

The old Mac vs PC thingy, let's not go there.

And if you want to earn any mony selling games, it's a remarkable bad idea to only make a Mac version, when in fact it would have been better to only make a PC version, from an economically perspective if you had to only choose one plattform.

Panzer

[Murph]

Interesting thread. I have a 600MHz Athlon with 128mb of RAM, and the game works great.

Panzer 76, my hat's off to you for your thick skin and pleasant demeanor in the face of some, in my opinion, over-agressive replies.

I think your point is quite valid (regardless of whether I agree with it or not), and you have graciously sidestepped a potential flamefest that would have obscured the issue completely after like, 5 posts.

Welcome to the board...oh wait...never mind!

Murph

[Panzer76]

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

Panzer 76, my hat's off to you for your thick skin and pleasant demeanor in the face of some, in my opinion, over-agressive replies.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my, a kind word! :eek:

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

I think your point is quite valid (regardless of whether I agree with it or not), and you have graciously sidestepped a potential flamefest that would have obscured the issue completely after like, 5 posts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I hope one can ask a question without getting the whole "established" BBS down your neck!

And not ALL questions need to be "what the velocity of the X gun is" or "how many grumpy one legged hamsters with headaches that can fit in a jeep with red paint"...

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

Welcome to the board...oh wait...never mind!

Murph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzer

[Kingfish]

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

And if you want to earn any mony selling games, it's a remarkable bad idea to only make a Mac version, when in fact it would have been better to only make a PC version, from an economically perspective if you had to only choose one plattform.

Panzer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting quote from a guy who a few posts back suggested BTS should drop the lower end system users for better graphics.

Let see what it sounds like when we change it a little:

And if you want to earn any mony selling games, it's a remarkable bad idea to only make a game for high end systems, when in fact it would have been better to design it to run on mid-range systems, from an economically perspective if you had to only choose one range.

[Panzer76]

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

Let see what it sounds like when we change it a little:

And if you want to earn any mony selling games, it's a remarkable bad idea to only make a game for high end systems, when in fact it would have been better to design it to run on mid-range systems, from an economically perspective if you had to only choose one range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it's remarkable how difficult it is to get my point over to some people!

I said they should scrap the LOW end machines, IF (are u getting this Kingfish, IF) this seriously hampers development of the new 3d engine.

Now, as been stated by Priest before, even BTS doesn't know the specification for the new 3d engine, so it's a bit early to discuss it. And where did I state they should only make games for high end system? Nowhere! All the time I've been saying mid-high range. Please, try to read my posts before before commenting it.

Then we have the disussion of what a low/mid/high range system is... This is going to get ugly!

Panzer

[lcm1947]

I certainly don't have a lot of money but try to keep my machine up to date as best as I can because I really enjoy being able to use mods and they do tax your machine pretty much so I'm willing to spend more then I should on this computer but I certainly see why some can't or won't. Also I agree with Mruph, I didn't take this topic as a slam against those that don't have or want a state of the art computer but rather panzer76's personal opinion and interest in seeing what others had. It was interesting to see the answers and I hope the day doens't come that anyone is afraid to pose a question that's interesting to him because of what happened here. Some people just get out of bed on the wrong side - alot!

[David Aitken]

What is this, CM Graphics VII: The Hardware Bigots Strike Back?

For those of you wishing an answer, it would be somewhere along the lines of "BTS will improve the graphics of CM incrementally, but will remain somewhat behind the leading edge so as not to cut out the bulk of their user base who do not buy a top-of-the-range new machine every six months".

And here are a couple of links to previous incarnations of this argument. I would be very surprised if anyone manages to say anything here which has not already been said ten times before.

CM Graphics - Room For Improvement

BTS - Is it time for a separate CM II forum?

[boy_Recon]

Personally I think BTS should review prospecive purchasers'

hardware for social acceptability before they even send the cd's out. I mean, you could get all sorts of riff-raff playing the damn thing.

[PeterNZer]

Panzer,

I think you overlook the fact that this game wasn't developed with "the gamers" in mind. It's first and foremost a product for wargamers. Older machines to find with this crowd, as there is no point in upgrading when you don't play graphics intensive games. (My ms-office runs really smooth at 150Mhz, thank you.)

I got your point and we can argue a lot about this (I for one would really love to see smoother infantry graphics) but bottom line is that BTS wants to keep lower-end users in, and I respect their decision. Many people here are all for a historical correct database and accurate modelling of all kinds of weapons and stuff and don't care at all if there are 364 polygons used to create a grim look on a Panzer commander's face.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Lindan ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Ha! Check out my machine...

Celeron 566 mHZ

stock 2MB video card

stock piece-o-crap sound card

(redeeming feature) 191 MB RAM

[Thomm]

No high-end system will

o) develop graphic algorithms

o) create polygon models

o) paint textures.

So the bottleneck must be elsewhere

Regards, Thomm

[GenSplatton]

First off, Panzer, congrats on your thick skin. You are obviously a better man than me when it comes to self control. You have taken, and withstood, allot of unwarranted forum abuse. Of course, newbies need to expect that kind of thing.

Secondly, you are stating your point very clearly. Why it is provoking so many defensive posts is beyond me. I guess people with lesser systems feel that thinking BTS could do better is a personal afront to them, which I think is clearly not your intent. But, you are making it very clear what you are trying to say. People seem to want to manipulate your argument for the sole point of arguing against it.

Thirdly, the stats you seek are available. Many, if not all, gaming magazines run monthly surveys to see what the average desk top system is. All I can say, after reading this thread, is that apparently war gamers tend to lag severly behind the average PC owning community, or at least the PC gaming community, by a large margin. I would bet, without writing to say Computer Gaming World and actually getting an answer, that the average machine is at least in the 800 Mhz range. Hmm, I'm at work and bored. Maybe I'll drop them a note and try to get everyone a difinitive answer.

Finally, I can only say, I applaud BTS for making such a fine game that manages to run on such below average systems. It is truly a testament to the skill of those folks. However, if people want to try to continue to run 400 MHz systems and below, I think it won't be to long before you find there is nothing out there to run except the old stuff. I understand not wanting to upgrade, or not having the economic means to do so, but you have to face facts. Computers improve and get faster almost daily. Software companies are going to produce games that take advantage of existing technology. That's just the nature of the beast. True, graphics aren't everything, expecially to wargamers. But they are something, and they are something that helps to sell the software. And that's the bottom line. BTS may lose some folks if they raise system requirements to high, but then again, they may gain some new customers with the better graphic engine. From a purely economic standpoint, I think I would tend to cater to the newer system crowd because, face it, logic dictates they are the ones with the money. I could be wrong of course, and I think it's widely accepted that war gamers tend to be in the older demographic groups, so that is probably a factor to consider also. But, all in all, I just don't think building CM2 with say an 800MHz requirement could be considered "abandoning" the older PC crowd. At some point, you just will HAVE to upgrade if you want to play what's coming out on the market.

Oh yea, to answer the original thread, I have a 1.1Ghz Athlon and a 64 meg Radeon VIVO DDR card. I don't spend tons of cash to upgrade, and I really don't buy that many games. But, buy building it myself, I am able to replace a component here and there without breaking the proverbial bank.

Hopefully I didn't offend anyone. Tough subject to broach without stepping on any toes.

[Panzer76]

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

Panzer,

I think you overlook the fact that this game wasn't developed with "the gamers" in mind. It's first and foremost a product for wargamers. Older machines to find with this crowd, as there is no point in upgrading when you don't play graphics intensive games. (My ms-office runs really smooth at 150Mhz, thank you.)

I got your point and we can argue a lot about this (I for one would really love to see smoother infantry graphics) but bottom line is that BTS wants to keep lower-end users in, and I respect their decision. Many people here are all for a historical correct database and accurate modelling of all kinds of weapons and stuff and don't care at all if there are 364 polygons used to create a grim look on a Panzer commander's face.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Lindan ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I know the whole "wargaming" community isn't as hardware focused as the rest of the gamers out there. But, the thing is, I'm not that sure that there are so many who have low end machines. It seems that "everybody" thinks that the majority of wargamers have **** machines, but is this true? Of the (very few..) who have posted their specification in this thread, nobody had less than a 400 Mhz machine (i think). So maybe this is just an old myth? But how can we know if everybody just says, "this is bull****, you are stupid"?. Not everyone, but you get my point.

And, thanks for the constructiv feedback, a nice change indead.

Panzer

[Ben Galanti]

Another previous thread on this subject in which BTS comments:

Improvement of the graphics ???

Ben

[Panzer76]

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

top system is. All I can say, after reading this thread, is that apparently war gamers tend to lag severly behind the average PC owning community, or at least the PC gaming community, by a large margin. I

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the thing, are they (we) lagging SO far behind the rest of the gamers? If we are not, than BTS can safely adjust their minimun requirements and get the most out of the new graphics engine.

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

Hopefully I didn't offend anyone. Tough subject to broach without stepping on any toes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's very though!

Panzer

[Gen-x87H]

50Mhz? I wish.

486 SX 25Mhz, 8 MBs of RAM, 1 GB HD, 4MB video card. If this baby does run CM3 im going to be pissed!

Gen

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

Another previous thread on this subject in which BTS comments:

Improvement of the graphics ???

Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Steve states:

"

1. People do have unreasonable expectations of what bleeding edge hardware can do (as well as average hardware )

2. People who have, or at least follow, the latest and greatest technologies vastly overestimate how many people have such stuff. And since we are catering to wargamers, they are even less likely to have it than the average (which is low enough).

3. We will improve CM's graphics over time, but we can't do more than the customer base has at their disposal. And that is generally last year's or two years' ago technology.

"

But what was wondering about is what BTS now reckons is the "average" computer system?

As it has been stated several times by now, BTS supposedly hasn't even started designing the new gfx engine, so we'll just have to wait and see what they figure is the average machine when they do start designing it, hopefully not in the too distant future!

But first, where is my bloody eastern front?!?

Panzer