User information for HardCore

Real Name
HardCore
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
Signed On
August 4, 2005
Supporter
-
Total Posts
329 (Amateur)
User ID
23585
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
329 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 7.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older
17.
 
Re: Dual boot Xp/Vista?
Oct 9, 2007, 15:43
17.
Re: Dual boot Xp/Vista? Oct 9, 2007, 15:43
Oct 9, 2007, 15:43
 
"I recommend installing Vista second and letting Vista take care of the dual boot process for you. It will make Vista the primary OS, but you can change it after in Vista. "

That is the preferred way and the way microsoft says to do it.
XP first then Vista. It's simple really, Vista recognizes an existing XP install and deals with it appropriately with the new bootloader. On the otherhand XP doesn't properly recognize Vista installed or it's new boot loader.

5.
 
Re: DX10
Oct 7, 2007, 04:12
5.
Re: DX10 Oct 7, 2007, 04:12
Oct 7, 2007, 04:12
 
Just imagine, it takes 2 or 3 months if not more just to get the renderer working, just to add a feature like depth of field.

It's 3 months the dx9 renderer could have been getting some proper love.

1.
 
No subject
Oct 6, 2007, 14:50
1.
No subject Oct 6, 2007, 14:50
Oct 6, 2007, 14:50
 
oooohhh DX10 makes blurry awesome!

Makes me fondly remember the days of 16 bit color, bilinear filtering and quincux AA.

4.
 
Re: Console Crysis
Oct 5, 2007, 19:20
4.
Re: Console Crysis Oct 5, 2007, 19:20
Oct 5, 2007, 19:20
 
And consolitus can spread to Crysis, that's more scarry.

The gaming pandemic!

36.
 
No subject
Oct 5, 2007, 18:24
36.
No subject Oct 5, 2007, 18:24
Oct 5, 2007, 18:24
 
Hooray for bungie. Maybe MS platforms will now also include PC as well, one can hope since your free from the X chains that have bound you.

38.
 
Re: ... 8600 gs
Oct 3, 2007, 18:35
38.
Re: ... 8600 gs Oct 3, 2007, 18:35
Oct 3, 2007, 18:35
 
I don't know what there is to applaud in these specs.
First off they aren't real at all. At best recommended specs will deliver 20-30 fps at 1024x768 w/ lowest in game settings (no way with an x1300). But how many want to play at those settings and rez. Faster CPU, better GPU for 19" LCD's will be needed as well as for medium to high settings.

The 7800 GTX is anywhere from twice to three times as fast as a x1300 and even more so as resolution climbs above 1024, so that just screams ridiculous.

For those thinking a game running on 2 year old HW as recommended specs is something to be applauded, that is easy, see EA and their yearly sports iterations. If that is what you want then go for it. Anyone can make a game leverage older HW, much easier when it is a console based game engine.

As it is, the specs are obviously wack, no self respecting Epic game really should be "recommending" two year old GPU's or some x1300, so something isn't on the up and up.

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 18:39.
1.
 
No subject
Oct 1, 2007, 21:40
1.
No subject Oct 1, 2007, 21:40
Oct 1, 2007, 21:40
 
Good for Bungie, I hope it's true.

M$ needs to find some other developer to pigeon hole into their platform mentality. Leave the great developers to do what they do best like make great games for everyone they want to, not just to promote one stupid platform.

1.
 
Crysis beta
Oct 1, 2007, 21:35
1.
Crysis beta Oct 1, 2007, 21:35
Oct 1, 2007, 21:35
 
Someone might be interested in the Crysis beta.
http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/crysis/beta/

Still closed beta under NDA but freely open to whosoever.

5.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 27, 2007, 01:54
5.
Re: No subject Sep 27, 2007, 01:54
Sep 27, 2007, 01:54
 
Ohhh good one...
Now you really sound like your in fourth grade.

Keep it up, you make me laugh

3.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 27, 2007, 01:39
3.
Re: No subject Sep 27, 2007, 01:39
Sep 27, 2007, 01:39
 
LOL somebody has penis envy...
Sorry yours is tiny, and that you are so insecure that you have to try and be a tough guy.

Pretty sad.

1.
 
WTH?
Sep 26, 2007, 22:06
1.
WTH? Sep 26, 2007, 22:06
Sep 26, 2007, 22:06
 
66MB for a demo seriously...

Minimum specs:
Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista
1.2 GHz Pentium 4 (or other equivalent)
128MB RAM
GeForce 2 (or other equivalent)
150MB of hard drive space

mmm I'll pass, days of playing with sprites is over for me, not interested in playing games geared for a 7 year old PC, I've upgraded since then.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 22:07.
1.
 
No subject
Sep 25, 2007, 12:55
1.
No subject Sep 25, 2007, 12:55
Sep 25, 2007, 12:55
 
"Vista Ultimate buyers fume over missing Extras."

People that pay for promises of products deserve exactly what they get. Idiots.

8.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 22, 2007, 01:11
8.
Re: No subject Sep 22, 2007, 01:11
Sep 22, 2007, 01:11
 
Two months early for a demo was pretty aggressive anyway.

A one month early beta makes better sense, and may likely be the gold code.

Dissapointing but understandable.

7.
 
Re:
Sep 16, 2007, 06:30
7.
Re: Sep 16, 2007, 06:30
Sep 16, 2007, 06:30
 
MS spam bots FTW

$25 off that combo, isn't all that, better than nothing though I guess.

82.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 13:20
82.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 13:20
Sep 14, 2007, 13:20
 

You and Crytek are the ones trying to explain the lack of functionality away without detailing why those limitations are necessary.


If I were to explain the plausible scenarios in even greater detail, it would make no difference as far as your concerned, apparently. I decided to think of it as a developer and why they would do this, not just as some MS marketing scheme. Then certain things started to jive for me. You still don't want to grasp the relationship of DX10, a graphics API, with physics, CPU bound functions, and why Crytek indicates DX10 API makes a difference for physics. even after it was explained.

Could they have incorporated some of the missing physics in DX9? Yes, not with as many particles as DX10 could do or utilizing geometry shaders, or Shader 4.0 which is utilized.

DX10 isn't necessary at all really, neither is DX9 for that matter.

Maybe if the DX10 enhancements didn't exist then you wouldn't know what was missing in DX9 and you would be better off.

Crytek probably goofed by making this public now, in the limited fashion they did.

76.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:12
76.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:12
Sep 14, 2007, 12:12
 
Well, duh! I don't understand why Crysis won't have the same physics in multiplayer mode running under DirectX 9 as it does under DirectX 10.

Yet, so many people don't stop there and try an learn, but instead try and explain it away, with their admitted lack of understanding and limited scope on the subject.

I'm sure plenty of people had great arguments on why the earth was flat, because afterall, it was all they could see.

I'm just saying more may meet the eye, and we should possibly consider that maybe Crytek is leveraging things in the DX10 API for once that can't be done in DX9, therefore they are not compatible. This compatibility would be the issue for any developer that leveraged DX10 in changing the game world, beyond the cursory junk they have called DX10 thus far.

75.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:04
75.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:04
Sep 14, 2007, 12:04
 
You keep equating DirectX versions with physics.


I keep equating it because the developers have equated it by making DirectX 10 the determining factor of whether advanced physics will be enabled. If you read my posts it should be obvious that I don't believe that DirectX 10 should have any effect on such physics since games which predate DirectX 10 obviously didn't need it for their advanced physics.


Since you persist to not read my posts and address my valid points on reasons why DX10 may make sense, let me ask you 2 simple questions?

What if they use the DX10 API for the massive amounts of objects while exploding, which DX9 cannot, and leverage the geometry shaders for this functionality as well, would that help you understand?

Would it be so horrible if a developer actually tapped the real benefits of DX10 for once, by leveraging the new API to handle the effects?

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 12:05.
72.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
72.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
 
Well that makes no real sense then because the main difference between multiplayer and single-player performance is bandwidth and DirectX 10 isn't going to provide players or servers with any more bandwidth than DirectX 9. DirectX 10 is also irrelevant for servers because they aren't rendering the game anyway.

Well then maybe there is something you don't understand???

70.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:39
70.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:39
Sep 14, 2007, 11:39
 
Do you seriously believe there will be "No" physics.


This is not an argument over semantics. Of course all FPS games have at least a basic physics system for character and ohject movement. What I mean is more advanced and interactive physics as major FPS games have had for the past several years such as those provided by Havok or another physics library. From those official comments, it appears that Crysis will not have that on DirectX 9.

Come on, I have no doubt they are talking the big physics explosions


Read the official comment again. It states "you won’t be able to shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects than vehicles on the map." That means that its physics won't do what Havok-powered games like Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R. do.

Do you think driving the jeep won't have physics attached, etc.?


I don't consider vehicle physics to be anything special since games with vehicles in them have had advanced physics for them long before even DirectX 9 was released.


Yeah, I get the obvious, just wondering if you get what i am saying.

You keep equating DirectX versions with physics. The DX API doesn't effect the amount physics you can have, physics is a function of the CPU, DX10 will be able to render more objects as they fly apart, that is the only effect of DX API and it's reduced overhead on CPU.

66.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:06
66.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:06
Sep 14, 2007, 11:06
 
@ >u
I wouldn't call the following official description from the news post above "great" physics. It sounds like pretty damn gimped or non-existent physics to me.

As for the DX9 version we won’t have physics and day and night cycle in-game. That means you won’t be able to shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects than vehicles on the map...Rather than providing the community partially working features we limit this for the DX10 version only


I explained the scenario, but yes the wording is bad as in "won't have physics". Do you seriously believe there will be "No" physics. I mean they can't even do what Far cry did and every other game for the last several years??? Come on, I have no doubt they are talking the big physics explosions, things like Ageia always tries to show off to make itself look special. In this case, falling trees, branches, blowing up huts, leaves moving as you walk through, etc.
Do you think driving the jeep won't have physics attached, etc.?

329 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 7.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older