Pzman Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Not great with ATI, too bad. Don't have too much to get angry at though since the machine I'm looking at getting over Christmas break,(Macbook Pro 2.16 or 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo) has a X1600 Mobility (128 or 256MB VRAM) looks like a little short of whats best, but thats ok with me. Just looking forward to the game. I'll be putting Windows on it to play the old CM games anyway, so it doesn't matter too much as for OS requirements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Wicky said: "Aaaaagh! That's the worse news I've heard - I just got a few months ago a 2 Ghz G5 with a ATI X800, lost OS9 boot capability for CM so had to build a G4 to keep playing . Now my main machine most likely won't be compatible for anything *weeps*" And you lost at the cricket really badly this week, too? Bummer of a week, Wicky. I'm in the same boat as you with the Macs (ie, gameless) but at least we Aussies have something to smile about. Maybe they'll take so long to release the Mac version that it'll be time to re-upgrade again... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 **Marvin voice** "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed" Plan B £1000 mac pro data transfer / reinstall apps Buy M$ XP Buy PC CM-BB/AK We win two of the remaining Tests CM-SF goes gold I feel better already... Originally posted by REVS: Wicky said: "Aaaaagh! That's the worse news I've heard - I just got a few months ago a 2 Ghz G5 with a ATI X800, lost OS9 boot capability for CM so had to build a G4 to keep playing . Now my main machine most likely won't be compatible for anything *weeps*" And you lost at the cricket really badly this week, too? Bummer of a week, Wicky. I'm in the same boat as you with the Macs (ie, gameless) but at least we Aussies have something to smile about. Maybe they'll take so long to release the Mac version that it'll be time to re-upgrade again... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystro Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Don't get me wrong guys, the ATI cards work and the better ones work very well. Steve Someone posted an interesting proposal on an xbox360 forum, will there be a BF xb360 game in the future,the platform is dieing for one. Personally I'm a total noob to the console but it has all the heavy video shading requirements many future games will require but I see almost nothing but FPS's or RP genre gamingwise and NO wargames for the new XB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 The reason why is because of the cost to the developer/publisher. Microsoft is only interested in games that will sell hundreds of thousands of copies in a very short period of time. Anything less than that doesn't interest them. So the price of entry into the Xbox market is extremely high. Faaaaaaaaar too high for us to even contemplate. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 What about the Wii? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Ooh. Maybe within 6 months, eh? Sounds like my comp is hovering right around Steve's specs, too, so I've got that going for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 J Ruddy, The same marketing strategy is used by Sony and Nintendo. As far as I know they all stole it from Atari. The concept is to control the flow of games and by doing so get a substantial cut of the revenue. Microsoft, for example, loses money on every single XBox and XBox 360 it sells. They supposedly make it back on the games. That's not really working out for them yet, but that's the way they are doing it. It costs only a few tens of thousands of Dollars to get the kit to make an Xbox title (not sure about the other ones). The kicker is that you have to pay many, many times that much to get it approved. Then you have to pay into a marketing fund, and on top of that Microsoft gets a huge cut of each sale. IIRC the developer has to pay for the materials too, but I might be mistaken on that one. So we're talking about having to cough up hundreds of thousands of Dollars and then hope that Microsoft sells it well enough for us to make our money back. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 That is an intersting bit of Inside Baseball. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColumbusOHGamer Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: J Ruddy, The same marketing strategy is used by Sony and Nintendo. As far as I know they all stole it from Atari. The concept is to control the flow of games and by doing so get a substantial cut of the revenue. Microsoft, for example, loses money on every single XBox and XBox 360 it sells. They supposedly make it back on the games. That's not really working out for them yet, but that's the way they are doing it. It costs only a few tens of thousands of Dollars to get the kit to make an Xbox title (not sure about the other ones). The kicker is that you have to pay many, many times that much to get it approved. Then you have to pay into a marketing fund, and on top of that Microsoft gets a huge cut of each sale. IIRC the developer has to pay for the materials too, but I might be mistaken on that one. So we're talking about having to cough up hundreds of thousands of Dollars and then hope that Microsoft sells it well enough for us to make our money back. Steve PS2 dev kit used to sell for ~US$700. Don't know what PS3 kit goes for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Yeah, I misspoke about the cost of the MS dev kit. We looked into it a while ago. I don't think the kit itself is that expensive, but there are all sorts of footnotes and riders along with it. These guys don't want to make it tough for people to port their games, they just want to control which ones get released and how they are sold. So to the lay person it looks like it is cheap to get on board, but it really isn't. It would be like getting on a cruise ship for a month at only $500. Then you find out that EVERYTHING onboard is extra. Since you're on the boat, there isn't much you can do about it. It's all in the fineprint. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Originally posted by J Ruddy: Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell me it aint so?! I luvs my ATI! I turned in my ATI loyalties with CMBO and have never looked back. I was an ATI guy for a couple generations but Nvidia seems to be the way to go. I got a new comp last January and I upgraded the vid card from an ATI to an Nvidia before it left the store just in case...and I am glad I did now. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystro Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 It's all in the fineprint. Steve [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Rock of Easy Company Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Please, please tell me ATI cards can render your fog now. I played all the CMx1's without fog, so on a map with it, I was like "heh, i guess my guys just cant see as far". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Well lets see for us Mac owners if we're going to buy CMSF we're going to also need a intel Mac w/a Nvidia card installed for the best possible experience. That means a Mac Pro with that expensive Nvidia card (512mb) to get all the bell and whistles once the game is ported to the Mac. If that's where it's heading why bother? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Because Macs are so pretty and don't fall over as much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: For the Mac, it's looking like Intel based Macs only. Not entirely sure about that, but... Oh crap, do try to avoid that. I write this with G3, I also have a G4 ibook. That's not to mean I'm expecting these to run CM2, just to say we tend to stick with these things a bit longer. I'm guessing intel graphics won't cut it, that already cuts the target in half. But then there's that bunch of G5 towers (which drift in homes secondhand) and G5iMacs. Might be a moot point, if you guys are, as I suspect, going to keep your summer vacation sometime next winter... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 IIRC Steve is using an old ATI video card I gave him several years ago so don't base much on what he says about hardware! I run CMSF with a Radeon x850 (AGP) card and it runs great and looks even better. While ATI and nVidia over the years have both released substandard drivers, these days, things have deffinetly improved for the better. Now then, if you want the best video card money can buy right now, you would be hard pressed to find a better or faster video card than a brand spanking new nVidia 8800 GTX. Not only is it faster than snot (which is notoriously fast!) but its also one of the first DX 10 cards yet released. And before you ask, no, CMSF at this time, does not take advantage of any of the new DX 10 API stuff. Lets see how stable Vista and DX 10 are first and then maybe we will see what goodies Charles can add down the road... Now, I need to jump off of hear and yell at Steve for commenting AT ALL about hardware stuff! You guys do realize he is still on dial-up internet right??? Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Originally posted by Madmatt: You guys do realize he is still on dial-up internet right???my... god 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Originally posted by mystro: I was certain BF has it's eyes on things and maybe eventually porting to the consoles will happen with this game genre if for no other reason but to follow migration to the living room. At this stage of my limited console exp,I'm finding the consoles are very primitive handling net activity with virtually no email even with the gold xbox360-live account still rumors have the future with fuller accces via Vista eventually. When that happens, we'll talk PBEM! [/QB]As long as someone is on your Friends list with Xbox live, you can not only send them text messages (email), but also send voice messages, do live video chat (if you have the add-on cam), or even send game invites, as well as see what games they have installed and which game they are currently playing when they are online. Madmatt p.s. In fact, I abuse Rune not only in email here, but also on Xbox Live! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I don't get the chance to say this often, but Matt doesn't know what he is talking about There are major hardware design limitations inherent in ATI cards. Even the newer ones. Driver issues can often times be worked around until the company fixes the software, but hardware design limitations are generally not something that can be worked around adequately. Other games have run into this same problem that we have. The central issue is a shortcut that ATI made to yield faster framerates with shadows. This shortcut is visibly noticable and inferior to nVidia's implementation. Here is what Charles had to say about a specific example of Strykers looking like blobs when at medium distance from the camera: The slats on the Stryker are somewhat problematic for any shadow algorithm running in 16 bits (ATI) because the slats are all so close together. Limited 16-bit precision has trouble picking up on these small distances. I might play with having the slats not cast shadows when far away, but that might be hard to work in so we'll see.Charles will do his best to work around them, and the end product will look good, but if you have a choice between an ATI card and an nVidia card... I stand by my advice to go nVidia. Having said that, it's not like the whole of CM:SF looks like crap on an ATI card. That certainly isn't true. There are just some things that ATI doesn't do as well as nVidia and some of those things will be quite apparent in CM:SF. And no matter which card you have, CM:SF will look VASTLY superior to CMx1 games Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Delta Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 So, are we less than 6 months away from playing? TIA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedak Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Madmatt, Does it mean that you are using Direct X and not OpenGL for CMSF? I'm asking as a Mac user. I don't see into this topic much, but from what I know I assume that it takes noticable bigger amount of time to convert game written using DX than the OpenGL one. You know. I'm going to buy a new Intel iMac this spring and do not want to wait several months since PC release, desperately trying to hold back Windows or some virtualization tool away from my computer. I really do not buy another SW to be able to run CMSF. Hope you guys find solution to please us the (almost) same time as PC users with some "native" solution. I'm pretty sure we please you by return 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 We are using OpenGL, not DX. As for making a Mac only product... it certainly won't be coming out along side the Windows version's initial release. Best case is we might do one later. Personally, I'm not sure it makes sense for us to do one at all. I'm getting an Intel based Mac very soon and will be playing CM:SF on that. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Comments like that make my glad that I am going to setup an XP partition on my Macbook Pro for gaming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.