Herr Kruger Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I know this is really early, but just wondering what's been said about system requirements so far and what can now be said by BFC...? I haven't been following CMx2 as closely as many people here, but I am still excited about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 It will require a Gameboy DS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Or GameCube II. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 If you have a system bought within the last year, and it was a decent system, I'd guess that you'd meet the minimum specs. But because we are doing some pretty fancy stuff... newer and beffer the better We'll have more detailed specs probably in late 2005. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 It's always the more and newer the better!! I've got a P4 2.8gHz with a Radeon 9200SE 128mb Graphics card and 512mb memory, running Win98SE - so a machine that is dated a little, with an operating system that was the last stable one made by MS.......will it run on that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Grey Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 I´m actually asking myslef HOW you manage to run Win98SE on this machine - mine gave up with an Athlon XP 1800+, GeForce4 Ti4200 and 512MB RAM... Anyway, I think my old machine will not be good enough. But an new one is on the horizon... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Mike: It's always the more and newer the better!! I've got a P4 2.8gHz with a Radeon 9200SE 128mb Graphics card and 512mb memory, running Win98SE - so a machine that is dated a little, with an operating system that was the last stable one made by MS.......will it run on that? Win98 was the last stable one made by MS???? Are you on drugs? Did you skip 2000 Professional? Get XP Pro SP2. Way better than 98. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 We probably will not support any OS that is more than one rev old. The nightmares associated with doing that, especially on the PC side, make me shudder to even think about! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folbec Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: We probably will not support any OS that is more than one rev old. The nightmares associated with doing that, especially on the PC side, make me shudder to even think about! Steve Better be coding fast, then, before Microsoft gets its latest offering out (end of this year ?). Or maybe you are looking forward to recode for 64bits? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Well Steve, if you need a CMx2 test bunny for graphic stability; I've got the following: AMD Athlon FX-55 Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI Mobo 2 x Asus 6800 Ultras running in SLi mode 22" IBM Monitor running in 1600x1200x32 (4xAA + 8xAF) 2 x Raptor Western Digital HDD's in RAID 1 WinXP Pro Happy to run/test Cmx2 for you, but alas, my system will be old and no more cutting edge when CMx2 is released! Sincerely, Charl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Pither Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: If you have a system bought within the last year, and it was a decent system, I'd guess that you'd meet the minimum specs. Steve That sounds pretty tough! So a good system now will only meet the minimum specs for the game when it is released?!? :eek: Or is your reply just poorly worded...? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by WineCape: Well Steve, if you need a CMx2 test bunny for graphic stability; I've got the following: AMD Athlon FX-55 Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI Mobo 2 x Asus 6800 Ultras running in SLi mode 22" IBM Monitor running in 1600x1200x32 (4xAA + 8xAF) 2 x Raptor Western Digital HDD's in RAID 1 WinXP Pro Happy to run/test Cmx2 for you, but alas, my system will be old and no more cutting edge when CMx2 is released! Sincerely, Charl NICE!!!!! Beauty rig, dude! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 I'm kind of disappointed... I got a new computer just before the SLi ones started coming out, and that'd be a fun thing to have. Does it work well for you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Rewording If you bought a decent system within the last year you'll likely hit the "Medium" setup. A top rig or a good rig next year will likely be "High" mark. The difference being the ability to run with all the bells and whistles on or not. Hopefully the core performance will be roughly the same. Lower end systems purchased within the last year, or higher end purchases earlier than last year, will either need some upgrading (like a better card, more RAM, OS update, etc.) to hit "Minimum" specs. All of this is just a guess at this point. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHBERY76 Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Bloody hell! you can play HL2 on high settings with a med rig, but not CMx2.I expect photo realism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Half-Life 2, while incredible, is still an FPS. It takes a lot of computing power to do all the calculations to play a CM-style game. Think about all the things that have to be done: all the AI things (which, esp. tactical, will be deeper), the LOS, the armor penetration stuff; there's a lot to be done. I think the 1:1 adds a lot to that; now the engine has to calculate the positions and actions and stuff for all the little dudes in the squad. I think the operation of the engine will tax one's computer more than the graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Originally posted by Soddball: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike: It's always the more and newer the better!! I've got a P4 2.8gHz with a Radeon 9200SE 128mb Graphics card and 512mb memory, running Win98SE - so a machine that is dated a little, with an operating system that was the last stable one made by MS.......will it run on that? Win98 was the last stable one made by MS???? Are you on drugs? Did you skip 2000 Professional? Get XP Pro SP2. Way better than 98. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I'm hoping my current rig will be sufficient to run CMx2 with all of its bells and whistles. I can only upgrade the RAM and video card. The mother board already has the fastest processor it can handle. My rig: AMD XP 3200+ processor 2.2ghz (Can't get any better than this without scraping the motherboard and going with 64bit AMD's or P4's 1GB Kingston Hyper-X RAM (I have an open slot for another stick) ABit motherboard 400FSB (It is what it is) Nvidia GeForce Ti4600 128mb 4XAGP (I'm already setting aside cash to get a GeForce 6800 Ultra 256mb 8XAGP Creative labs Soundblaster Gamer 5.1 (Probably irrelevant) What is CMx2 being tested on? If I've stepped on Battlefront's toes with this question, I'm apologizing in advance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I volunteer my Mac for mid-to-low-end Mac testing!* Dual G4 1.25 1GB RAM 64MB ATI Radeon 9000 (or somefink ) Go on, give me an excuse for a better video card. *Sorry Madmatt, really. Please don't hurt me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Love Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Originally posted by WineCape: Well Steve, if you need a CMx2 test bunny for graphic stability; I've got the following: AMD Athlon FX-55 Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI Mobo 2 x Asus 6800 Ultras running in SLi mode 22" IBM Monitor running in 1600x1200x32 (4xAA + 8xAF) 2 x Raptor Western Digital HDD's in RAID 1 WinXP Pro Happy to run/test Cmx2 for you, but alas, my system will be old and no more cutting edge when CMx2 is released! Sincerely, Charl Mmmmmm, sexy rig you have there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: I volunteer my Mac for mid-to-low-end Mac testing!* Dual G4 1.25 1GB RAM 64MB ATI Radeon 9000 (or somefink ) Go on, give me an excuse for a better video card. *Sorry Madmatt, really. Please don't hurt me. Sadly, I don't think our poor little G4s will make the cut. I hope so, but I'm guessing that the 64MB VRAM cards (8500 and 9000) wont do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medlinke Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 The biggest thing is that people should FREAK OUT when it is released because those of you that remember CMBO...geez...and then CMBB...woah...there were all kinds of headaches. New gaming engines do that. Heck even Gabe Newell and his team over at Valve had some MAJOR problems with source that are still existing. I expect the initial system specs will scale well from moderately high end stuff today to average stuff 4 or 5 years down the line. That seemed to be the way they scoped out CMx1. But seriously look at how different the game was between the initial screens in 1998 and what came out in Late 99... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 I'm just speculating but re. possible Mac specs because of the impending chip changes and the revisions in the OS code to do it. It would seem that if CMx2 is in the same league as a power hungry, pixel counting game like Doom 3 then there isn't much hope for even Mac User's with a G5 2.7 machine using a top end x800 card. That being the case why would CMx2 run on a Mac at all? All best patrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Because Charles is actually good at coding, unlike the bloat monkies at ID? By all appearances ID codes nearly as badly as I do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Originally posted by juan_gigante: Half-Life 2, while incredible, is still an FPS. It takes a lot of computing power to do all the calculations to play a CM-style game. Think about all the things that have to be done: all the AI things (which, esp. tactical, will be deeper), the LOS, the armor penetration stuff; there's a lot to be done.But these aren't done real time like in FPS's but after you hit the GO button (or however you execute your orders in the new game), so they don't compete with the graphics for computing power. It's harder in RTS's and such, because there everything happens at the same time. 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.