undercovergeek Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Ive searched, believe me ive searched the forums, and im sorry if its already been addressed - for the 'up-and-coming CM:N' is there a very rough guide to minimum specs - im going laptop shopping soon and it is essentially to play WitP AE on and CM:N Any help gratefully received 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well, if you are buying a new laptop then it should be able to run CM:N with some ease in any case. More "oomph" is always better, but you shouldn't worry about minimum specs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercovergeek Posted December 15, 2009 Author Share Posted December 15, 2009 no ram or graphics card essentials? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 While minimum specs aren't known yet, given the CMSF requirements and BFC's history of developing games with lesser machines in mind, you'd be hard pressed to even intentionally buy a machine that is below minimum spec. I really wouldn't worry about it too much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I don't think graphics are the problem, the game is no Crysis. I'm no expert but I would say processor power would be most important, followed by RAM. RAM is cheap though btw, is there any official word on whether CM:N will be optimized for dual core processors? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 No "official word" on dual/multi-core optimization. To my knowledge I don't believe that any extensive parallizing optimizations have been made. I don't know if the effort to get CMx2 working on a new compiler was successful or not in the past and that may be one crucial element in multi-core use for future CMx2 titles. However the other half of getting dual/multi-core processor use/optimization is at the code level. This may require a large amount of time to make CMx2 code usefully parallized to the point that multi-cores will be useful. I don't think that this has been tackled yet and it would be a HUGE project. This may be something more along the lines of recoding the engine for CMx3, though I don't know what the true future plans are. But is it an extensive amount of work that may not happen until CMx3. Some small steps may be made in that direction (compiler optimizations, etc.) with future CMx2 titles and maybe even patches, but true parallel code will be a lot of work for Charles and I doubt it is "on the plate/list" for CMx2. As for laptop options, the faster the CPU the better. I don't think that there will be a difference for CMx2 games when it comes to 64-bit or 32-bit OSes (though you can obviously get more memory for the OS and other programs with 64-bit). CMx2 will most likely remain a 32-bit program for quite some time. If you can get a fast hard drive (7200RPM) in your laptop that would make it a bit speedier (for game loads), though you don't see too many options for such drives lately. Graphics is actually important, a lot of the built-in/integrated video is probably NOT a good bet. While some of the higher-end Intel integrated video may work, it may not give the best video performance. Integrated video will often have a video/system memory sharing scheme, which tends to slow things down. A dedicated/discrete video chip with its own dedicated memory would be best. You're pretty much looking at video options of ATI and Nvidia, though not all of them will be "dedicated/discrete". 256MB of video memory should probably be sufficient to run CMSF/CM:N at a healthy resolution. More would always be nice (better textures, mods, etc.). Most of the these hardware suggestions point to a laptop that is more of a desktop replacement than one that is more "mobile" oriented, which tends to focus on power-saving battery-life and higher intergration (lighter laptops...). If you can run CMSF 1.21 at a reasonable rate on the machine, then CM:N should do nearly as well. I believe the poly counts and texture sizes are going to be fairly similar between the two games and the differences will probably be a slightly heavier graphics load for CM:N with less "generic" building facade textures and more foilage (being Northwest Europe and all...). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 No "official word" on dual/multi-core optimization. To my knowledge I don't believe that any extensive parallizing optimizations have been made. I don't know if the effort to get CMx2 working on a new compiler was successful or not in the past and that may be one crucial element in multi-core use for future CMx2 titles. However the other half of getting dual/multi-core processor use/optimization is at the code level. This may require a large amount of time to make CMx2 code usefully parallized to the point that multi-cores will be useful. I don't think that this has been tackled yet and it would be a HUGE project. This may be something more along the lines of recoding the engine for CMx3, though I don't know what the true future plans are. But is it an extensive amount of work that may not happen until CMx3. Some small steps may be made in that direction (compiler optimizations, etc.) with future CMx2 titles and maybe even patches, but true parallel code will be a lot of work for Charles and I doubt it is "on the plate/list" for CMx2... This is a Catch 22 situation for BF and CM fans. As Steve has said, many of the "wish list" functions would need more advanced systems than those available today. Yet, as a layperson, it is difficult for me to understand how optimising for multi-core cpu's wouldn't have an affect on what can and can't be reasonably simulated. And then there is development time... Who would be willing to wait a few more years of no new offerings for multi-core support, and who would reasonably ask BF to not continue making CMx2 games, and the resulting money that keeps them in business, in order to add multi-core improvements? I would like nothing better than to have CMSF running physics on one core, AI on another, spotting on a third, and everything else on a fourth core. Unfortunately I don't have the cash to bankroll the development of this type of thing. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, I will go to war with the CM I have... (and I'm happy to have it!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 A good system for CM:N is any system that is at or above CM:SF specs. Schrully has it right: This may require a large amount of time to make CMx2 code usefully parallized to the point that multi-cores will be useful. I don't think that this has been tackled yet and it would be a HUGE project. IIRC the last time Charles looked into this he was estimating months to get the code to use more than one processor concurrently. That would basically mean a complete halt to everything else we're doing, which would never be good timing. sfhand, This is a Catch 22 situation for BF and CM fans. As Steve has said, many of the "wish list" functions would need more advanced systems than those available today. I think the number of things that would really benefit from the extra processing power is fairly small. And those features themselves would take a lot of time to code, test, and tweak. Oh, let's say going down to 4x4m Action Spots for example. I'd estimate 6 months of recoding and even more time for artwork to get the scale smaller. That would be on top of having access to more than one core. Massively detailed AI is another thing we could spend a year coding irrespective of the horsepower available. So some of the wishlist features might require more processing power, but they also require us pushing all other priorities off the table for a considerable length of time. Certainly there are things that probably could immediately benefit from more cores being used without too much coding difficulty. Something like more frequent LOS checks, for example, might be such a thing. Large maps than we're planning for the near future might also be fairly easy to get, though I imagine it would require a massive increase in RAM for a feature like that (perhaps double or triple). Currently Charles feels the major bottlenecks are more on the coding side than the processing side. In that the sorts of things you guys think are being held back by processors are actually being held back due to a lack of time to code the features themselves. We do not have any timeframe for going to multi-core support. It definitely won't be any time soon. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercovergeek Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 thanks for all replies - a dedicated graphics card it is andx as much ram as poss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 The notebooks to look for are the ones with the core i7 chip. Though, for CM its probably a bit more than necessary... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Or core I5, they have the option step 1 core into turbo mode if the other 3 aren't used. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Remotely related: The biggest mistake I made when buying my last laptop was to take a display with a native gaming resolution of 1280x900(?). It proved to be the limiting factor for any serious work. Next laptop will have a 1920x1200 display, if possible 17". If this harms gaming performance, so be it. The rest will be built around it and then fingers will be crossed for CMx2. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Remotely related: The biggest mistake I made when buying my last laptop was to take a display with a native gaming resolution of 1280x900(?). It proved to be the limiting factor for any serious work. Next laptop will have a 1920x1200 display, if possible 17". If this harms gaming performance, so be it. Best regards, Thomm Yeah, I've thought about this, and my solution will be to get a 27' monitor for the new laptop . Then I don't have to care too much about the screen it comes with. There is still some uncertainty about this: I have to make sure the graphics card on my new lappie is up to running a large monitor like that. Actually I already plug in a full keyboard, so... why don't I just buy a desktop :confused:... most of my mobile needs are met by a netbook. But then again I would miss the portability of a laptop, wouldn't I? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drescher Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Actually I already plug in a full keyboard, so... why don't I just buy a desktop :confused:... most of my mobile needs are met by a netbook. But then again I would miss the portability of a laptop, wouldn't I? Now there was quite a twist in your story I went with the desktop, bought an additional remote mouse and keyboard and play while sitting on the couch. Works really great. :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Yeah, I've thought about this, and my solution will be to get a 27' monitor for the new laptop . Sounds like fun! Some colleagues here at the office just got 26' monitors and I am tempted to say that those are *gasp* too large for normal desktop use! You actually have to turn your head trying to see everything on these monsters! Again, if you plan to do anything serious, you may want those extra 120 vertical pixel a 1920 x 1200 resolution would give you! If you concentrate on being entertained, then you are already on a good track! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Again, if you plan to do anything serious, you may want those extra 120 vertical pixel a 1920 x 1200 resolution would give you! If you concentrate on being entertained, then you are already on a good track! Best regards, Thomm I was going to get a 30" just because of the better resolution, but when you consider that the specs are just not at the same level as the 27" and the price is almost double it makes better sense to go with the slightly smaller screen. You really pay for those extra 3" (and no rude comments at this point please). Thomm, I saw another review that chimes with your 'really serious' comment. The review gives as a con "16:9 aspect ratio is not great for web browsing, productivity software", and having no experience with using larger sized monitors, I am a bit puzzled. What's so bad about browsing and productivity on a 27" screen? As long as I have enough screen real estate to have word in one half and excel in the other I would be happy, and I'm sure this would be possible. So, I'd be interested to know; what extra productivity do you get out of your extra 120 vertical pixels? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 First off, do not let the discussion spoil your fun at any rate! So, I'd be interested to know; what extra productivity do you get out of your extra 120 vertical pixels? Good question. Basically, I would say it is the extra overview that you get from additional lines of text. I just made an unscientific comparison between my current office monitor (1680x1050) and my colleagues 26" monitors (1920x1200). On my monitor, the editor "WinEdt" displays 39 lines of text. On the larger monitors, the same editor shows 45 lines of text. That is six extra lines (+15%) for you on the 1200 display, which, of course, gives you better overview over your documents, be it text or program code. It is just more fun to work like that. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Here is another example: Visual Studio 2005 (standard settings) displays 27 lines of code at 1050 vertical pixels, and 34 lines of code at 1200 pixels. That is an increase of 25(!!) percent!! Basically, the smaller the original editor window gets because of menu bars, tool bars, etc. the more you benefit from the higher resolution, because all those extra pixels go into the editor area! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popllt Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Oh, let's say going down to 4x4m Action Spots for example. I'd estimate 6 months of recoding and even more time for artwork to get the scale smaller. That would be on top of having access to more than one core. Massively detailed AI is another thing we could spend a year coding irrespective of the horsepower available. So some of the wishlist features might require more processing power, but they also require us pushing all other priorities off the table for a considerable length of time. Steve Does it mean that the CM:N will base on 4x4m Action Spots? And, will the CMSF series go down to 4x4m Action Spots in further patchs? Thanks:-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I'd prefer 10m action spots with the ability for a team to naturally spread over more of them. Lose some map granularity for extra tactical fidelity. I think things are kinda set in stone now though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Does it mean that the CM:N will base on 4x4m Action Spots? And, will the CMSF series go down to 4x4m Action Spots in further patchs? Thanks:-) If you read Steve's post closely, I think it's pretty clear he's talking about hypothetical changes that *could* be made *if* BFC put 6 months' effort into recoding the engine to take advantage of multi-core processing. Since Steve said that any such extensive investment of time into multi-core coding is not going to happen anytime soon, I'm pretty confident the answer to both your queries is no. And the answer to the second query regarding is definitely no; that would require extensive recoding and is far beyond what we can expect from a patch to any existing game. But 2 or 3 major game releases down the road, who knows? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Does it mean that the CM:N will base on 4x4m Action Spots? And, will the CMSF series go down to 4x4m Action Spots in further patches? No, 4x4m action spots will not happen for either CM:N or CMSF. I believe this will be something that will come along much later, a few games from now. It is feature that will cost more memory and processing power (more LOS checks to more spots). Generally once the NATO module is out and possibly patched (if necessary), there will probably be no more patches for CMSF. There might be some extreme cases where a patch might be warranted, but generally speaking CMSF is almost done and there will probably be no new features floating down from newer games like CM:N and later CMx2 titles, since the new features would quite possibly break almost all scenarios and would require quite a bit of time attempting to incorporate it into the current CMSF code. All the changes made to CMSF however go forward with future CMx2 games, it's just the 'backwards' part that becomes very hard and time consuming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 24" 1920x1200 is pretty neat for work, I use my laptop's native screen next to it for displaying my e-mail. I have read that too much 'screen size' is counter productive. There is some truth in that as I have noticed, on a 27" dragging & resizing windows occurs too frequent. However even working with a 24" inch is not really made easy with Windows Vista, for example. Full screen is unnessary for most applications but you'll have to resize it yourself. Windows 7 is better in this. Apple's are too but they have a different (very large) fallacy: 'maximising' is not possible. At home I have also setup an 24" 1920x1200 screen, Samsung does 'm at a very reasonable price. Perfect for gaming although bigger would probably even be better. Ontopic: My dell e6500 with Nvidia Quadro NVS 160 (256 MB) does CMSF nicely on such a 24". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 24" 1920x1200 is pretty neat for work I agree. This is what I was working with at the university and I always felt it was perfect. Right now I am sitting at a 1680x1050 22" display and have no particular problem with it, either, especially since I found a perfect program for having nine (or more) virtual desktops at once under Windows XP (Google sDesk, Semik's desktop). No more "Windows(9)" tabs on the task bar for me! I am thinking of which kind of monitor I should ask for my workplace and when sitting in front of my colleagues' 26" monitors I just feel that they are too large. Perhaps even for FPS, where you have to look for enemies across the whole screen the whole time. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Now there was quite a twist in your story lol Well, you have to consider all the angles, right? 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.