51 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 51. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 8, 2011, 06:19 |
everyone |
|
|
mag wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 22:11:
What universe do you come from? That's absolutely all 'recommended' has ever meant. "You'll get a pretty decent experience with this hardware." Cool story, bro.
It still doesn't make any sense to "recommend" we run it on medium, but not every post needs a point, eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 22:11 |
mag |
|
|
everyone wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 08:51:
CeeJay wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 02:49:
Rage will most likely come out on 2 or 3 DVD's If it follows current trends, it will be a small piece of paper with a Steam key on, rattling around in an otherwise empty box.
peteham wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 05:08:
Recommended: Will run and play just fine on ~medium, or possibly high if you go down in resolution; but forget running well on high. So they recommend people run the game with most of their carefully crafted details turned off? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...
What universe do you come from? That's absolutely all 'recommended' has ever meant. "You'll get a pretty decent experience with this hardware." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 15:28 |
Agent.X7 |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 04:35:
I don't think there was ever any kind of standard for system requirements. I always assumed that minimum meant running at minimum detail settings and resolution at 30 FPS, while recommended meant running at maximum settings and a high resolution at 30 FPS. I highly doubt the recommended specs here will give you 1920x1080, 8xAA, 16xAF, max details, all at a constant 60 FPS.
Everyone always assumed that, but it really hasn't been the case since sometime in the mid-90s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: Valve Single Player Clarification |
Sep 7, 2011, 13:36 |
^Drag0n^ |
|
|
Optimaximal wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 05:08:
Cornholio wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 00:37:
EDIT: unless by some strangeness the pc version doesn't run ogl. If that's the case this would be a first for id software. I think this engine is OpenGL, but Carmack has publicly stated that DirectX is starting to pull away and unless OpenGL gets sorted, his next engine may very well be DirectX based!
And by his being on the OGL standards commmittee, his saying that says alot about the state of the OGL API. :/
^D^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Never start a fight, but always finish it." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 13:34 |
^Drag0n^ |
|
|
InBlack wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 04:53:
LoL 25 Gigs! Best kind of DRM so far! 
"This game is protected by Ridiculously Massive Content(TM) DRM."
^D^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Never start a fight, but always finish it." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 12:45 |
Verno |
|
|
| No problems playing older games here and I go way back. If it doesn't run natively there is generally a way to do so on Windows 7, whether its with a wrapper or etc. There's GOG for the rest, problem solved and if I have to suffer the extremely odd outlier then oh well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Path of Exile, Animal Crossing, Tales of Graces F
Watching: Survivorman, Justified, Silent Running |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 12:14 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Windows 7 is objectively a better operating system than Windows XP at this point though, there is no real reason to continue running Windows XP aside from cost (and even that is worked around easily enough).
I'm pretty sure XP still has better compatibility with older games. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 11:27 |
EddieTheHack |
|
|
| Quit whining about consoleitis before playing the game. I played it QuakeCon this year and the FOV felt fine. I also never ran into any 'press x to continue' crap either. Its being made by id. Have some faith. Carmack has said a few times now that they are going to polish the PC version until it has to go live on steam - so that gives them an extra month of work time on PC version. PC gamers get idstudio at launch as well- just pull down the console and type it in. In no time you will be raging out about how everything is so complicated. Just by id releasing their tools package with the launch copy of the game should be enough indication that we are about to play a proper pc game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 10:53 |
SirKnight |
|
|
| Good thing I pre-ordered the DVD version. No way am I going to download that much on my connection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 10:45 |
Shineyguy |
|
|
peteham wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 05:08:
My understanding of recommended vs. minimum specs has always been:
Minimum: It will be playable, but it is going to look like crap.
Recommended: Will run and play just fine on ~medium, or possibly high if you go down in resolution; but forget running well on high. Certainly seems to be in line with the Rage specs, based on what I expect from the game..
Though, is there any performance difference at all between an 8800 and a 9800 series nvidia card? IIRC, the 9800 was basically an 8800 made on a newer process, with slightly less memory, and the tiniest bit of extra oomph to compensate.
9800gt = 8800gt
9800gtx = 8800gts 512mb
The 98xx series cards were G92s like the 88xx refresh G92s were... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 09:26 |
Verno |
|
|
AndyMutz wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 09:13:
are you confusing XP with 2000?? because XP is still supported and gets patches until april 2014 and it's still working fine, even without that much security software.
Windows 7 is objectively a better operating system than Windows XP at this point though, there is no real reason to continue running Windows XP aside from cost (and even that is worked around easily enough). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Path of Exile, Animal Crossing, Tales of Graces F
Watching: Survivorman, Justified, Silent Running |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 09:22 |
SpectralMeat |
|
|
descender wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 09:13:
Steam doesn't cap downloads. Same here, Steam downloads are the fastest I have ever seen on the net. I usually get around 4-5 MB/sec with the 40Mbit line |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 09:13 |
descender |
|
|
Steam doesn't cap downloads. I get a full 6.4MB/sec (50Mbit) from them.
... and what on earth is "anti-crash" software? lol...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 09:13 |
AndyMutz |
|
|
Rockn-Roll wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 07:59:
Nobody should be running XP now...Microsoft support has ended so there won't be any more patches, and XP is notorious for a lot of bugs which can be exploited and it's very unstable. Anyone still using XP should upgrade to Vista or Win 7. The only way to keep XP from crashing is to load it down with anti-spyware, anti-virus, and anti-crash software...which means it will be almost unusably slow and still not 100% safe.
are you confusing XP with 2000?? because XP is still supported and gets patches until april 2014 and it's still working fine, even without that much security software. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 08:51 |
everyone |
|
|
CeeJay wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 02:49:
Rage will most likely come out on 2 or 3 DVD's If it follows current trends, it will be a small piece of paper with a Steam key on, rattling around in an otherwise empty box.
peteham wrote on Sep 7, 2011, 05:08:
Recommended: Will run and play just fine on ~medium, or possibly high if you go down in resolution; but forget running well on high. So they recommend people run the game with most of their carefully crafted details turned off? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 08:39 |
Verno |
|
|
| All the requirements seem reasonable to me and the space is mostly textures so *shrug* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Path of Exile, Animal Crossing, Tales of Graces F
Watching: Survivorman, Justified, Silent Running |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 07:59 |
Rockn-Roll |
|
|
The download will be compressed and most likely be around 3/4 of the 25GB which means still 18 or 19 GB to download...even with my 20mb (verified) download speed Steam will cap it at around 2.0mbs...pulling out calculator...18,000,000,000 Bytes/(20,000,000 bits per second/8 bits per byte)=7200 seconds=1200 minutes=20 hours. So, it looks like an entire day and night even at max download speed...which it won't maintain. I think a lot of people will be buying the retail box...the bonus is that we will all have something to display on our game shelf.
I'm very suprised at the low Recommended specs too. I know that the code was optimized for low-end systems, but a Core 2 Quad with a 9800GTX? I had to replace my 9800 over 2 years ago because it couldn't handle the games back then. Of course I like running full screen at my desktop res of 5040x1050 so I would expect to need to upgrade my graphics before most gamers do. But, it sounds like I'll be able to max everything out and still get a smooth experience...nice...I'm running Deus Ex: Human Revolution maxed and it's jittery as a june bug and I've had to lower the features a bit to keep from getting sick.
Nobody should be running XP now...Microsoft support has ended so there won't be any more patches, and XP is notorious for a lot of bugs which can be exploited and it's very unstable. Anyone still using XP should upgrade to Vista or Win 7. The only way to keep XP from crashing is to load it down with anti-spyware, anti-virus, and anti-crash software...which means it will be almost unusably slow and still not 100% safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 07:03 |
Sho |
|
|
Regarding the relatively low GPU requirements, even for recommended, it's related to the nature of the technology involved. id Tech 5, at least in the way it's been used in Rage, isn't a very ALU-intensive engine (meaning, it does relatively little in the way of shader-based number crunching compared to some other games) - keep in mind that it's also designed to run at 60 fps on a relatively slow system in terms of the available ALU compute power (the Xbox 360).
Rather, what id Tech 5 focusses on is mainly its unique texturing system, which is conceptually similar to the virtual memory systems you find in operating systems, in terms of having a multi-tiered caching architecture and paging stuff in on demand, etc. So what id Tech 5 does put a lot of pressure on is texture throughput and the video memory bus, but apparently even older PC cards manage to satisfy its demands there.
Edit: As for API, id Tech 5 is an OpenGL engine on the PC. On the consoles it doesn't really make sense to talk about "Direct3D", you go lower-level there, e.g. instead of making texture uploads through a hardware abstraction API like OpenGL or Direct3D you just get a pointer from the API and a pitch and a swizzle format and do the write directly.
Also, keep in mind that when you're a programmer on the level of Carmack, you don't really play this API fanboy game that gamers do. The API is something that's between you and the hardware; Carmack understands the problems he solves on the level of their fundamental computer science nature and the hardware used in solving them. What he really wants (especially lately, going by his comments) is less API and more direct hardware access, like on the consoles. The problem on the PC side with direct hardware access is that it requires the hardware makers to standardize more across their different products - really, the point to OpenGL and Direct3D is to abstract how different GPUs work internally.
So when he says that lately he's been liking Direct3D, he's in a way talking about how much the respective APIs get in his way, or how convenient they are for what he's trying to do, and it's probably usually related to basic operations like texturing and the render pipeline. What he doesn't really care about OTOH are the tentpole features that get marketed to consumers, like "DX has tesselation now" (he tends to make amused to disparaging comments about stuff like that), since he's more a broad-strokes engine systems guy ("I'm going to make all lighting dynamic", "I'm going to virtualize texturing") than focussed on bullet points like that.
This comment was edited on Sep 7, 2011, 07:15. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 06:51 |
Overon |
|
|
| Prove me wrong about the potential consolitis id. I want to be wrong. But if i see "press start to begin" or "press x to access inventory" and a low fov and no 16:10 proper widescreen support, I will rage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: RAGE Specs |
Sep 7, 2011, 05:08 |
peteham |
|
|
My understanding of recommended vs. minimum specs has always been:
Minimum: It will be playable, but it is going to look like crap.
Recommended: Will run and play just fine on ~medium, or possibly high if you go down in resolution; but forget running well on high. Certainly seems to be in line with the Rage specs, based on what I expect from the game..
Though, is there any performance difference at all between an 8800 and a 9800 series nvidia card? IIRC, the 9800 was basically an 8800 made on a newer process, with slightly less memory, and the tiniest bit of extra oomph to compensate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
51 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
