Jump to content

System Req???


jtwar
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Hate to be that guy...

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=71612

...but hey, I won't be a complete arse. That post says, what... 3gb ram, 4gb space on hard drive, 2ghz processor, i believe?

Oh, and from what I believe, not x32 you need x64, and not xp because you need opengl2.1 or higher and some .net dependencies if I am not mistaken. Possibly will run on mac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to be that guy...

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=71612

...but hey, I won't be a complete arse. That post says, what... 3gb ram, 4gb space on hard drive, 2ghz processor, i believe?

Oh, and from what I believe, not x32 you need x64, and not xp because you need opengl2.1 or higher and some .net dependencies if I am not mistaken. Possibly will run on mac.

Im pretty sure UDK doesnt require x64. Im also pretty sure its based on DirectX instead of OpenGL.

http://www.unrealengine.com/udk/documentation/readme/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Eh IDK, if it really does run dx9 like they say, that changes the whole ball game. It probably runs okay for integrated graphics, and if you have any graphics card whatsoever then it probably runs mid graphics fluidly.

Which is lucky for me. I was expecting to have to run it low settings and still have choppy framerate.

I am a pessimist, I supposed I only assumed it would require x64 and newest libraries as most games these days do. That's good that it theoretically should run on XP x32 though, as well as mac, and technically if it runs on Mac then if built a different way then it should run on Ubuntu, maybe some savy tech guy can build a package for it even. You have no clue how much speed you would gain running it without the windows anchoring it down, windows runs so much power just in the background.

I can run but not physically play in-game Planetside2, but if I turn all my windows processes off like desktop and non-vital svc's, then I can run it fluently as long as there are less than 40 players rendered at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DX10 and DX11 mostly improve on lighting and shadow effects. Such things require more elbow grease to program for (lighting object locations and angles, shadow depth and intensity, and stuff like opacity and obstruction). So just switching up to DX10 without that extra programming isnt going to make the game look much better.

@BroTranquilty

Which games have you played that only work on x64? I cant say about Planetscape 2 since I never played it, but I dont think Ive played a single game recently that even had a 64 bit version, let alone not include a 32 bit version. Im mostly just curious, since most OEM computers shipping these days still ship with x86.

And Windows doesnt use much background power aside from an increase in RAM usage, but if you dont have 4Gb of RAM nowadays, Id say your computer was something like 5 years old. Graphics and CPU processing power is hardly touched by Windows after the initial boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Well, technically any one program that runs any one task over 2g of ram requires x64 because of x32tasks limited to 2g ram.

technically, that is also by passable, one can patch their os to run 2.8g which might matter.

so like I said, this game is very lax in that field. I think any intensive modern game usually requires that. And you would be surprised what windows uses. Usually one can free up a quarter a gig ram, and any processes use CPU as well, so the closer to just the game it runs the faster it runs.

maybe that is just because I run a lowly emachine with little more than a 9500gt 1g gpu added. It cheats to run what it does run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was intended, but your use of the word "lax" is sort of deceiving. The idea wasn't to create the best graphical game around. The developers were willing to sacrifice complete life-like graphics in order to allow a greater number of people to have a fluent gameplay in the game, and to get the best possible graphics after doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
I don't think it was intended, but your use of the word "lax" is sort of deceiving. The idea wasn't to create the best graphical game around. The developers were willing to sacrifice complete life-like graphics in order to allow a greater number of people to have a fluent gameplay in the game, and to get the best possible graphics after doing that.

No, what I specifically meant WAS that it was GOOD that it was less strict about what it could run on, because the more machines that can run it, the more players joining into the game who are able to launch the game and run and play it. It is nice it isn't too terribly overboard in how much computer power it takes, because that makes it more available.

I would rather not have to streamline my computer to run the game well enough anyway, at the cost of turning every other process in windows off to do so (planetside 2 again).

If integrated graphics can run it with only about 3g ram and a dual core, then any random person with a computer will probably find their computer can run it, which is good. You want the odds to be in favor that someone can play it even if they didn't pay attention to what computer they happen to have bought or own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system requirements for Windows Vista, 7 and 8 is at least a gig of RAM. It shouldnt be a surprise that it uses that much. Thats just an advancement with the times.

CPU usage is also usually less than what is being reported, because the system idle process is lying about how much its using.

And the usual strategy to get a game that needs more than 2 gigs of RAM is to run more than one process in 32 bit Windows and to split up the resource usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
The system requirements for Windows Vista, 7 and 8 is at least a gig of RAM. It shouldnt be a surprise that it uses that much. Thats just an advancement with the times.

CPU usage is also usually less than what is being reported, because the system idle process is lying about how much its using.

And the usual strategy to get a game that needs more than 2 gigs of RAM is to run more than one process in 32 bit Windows and to split up the resource usage.

There is a way to go into computer and properties and such, and changing a paging file, and then add a file to a folder in windows, and that increases total ram allowed on one process to 2.8g on one process.

However, all that is "acceptance of window's bulkiness", when it isn't something one requires to accept. You could instead use Linux, and my distro of Lubuntu 12.04 probably idles under 50k ram. It is most lightweight of Ubuntu distros. It is not the most lightweight Linux either, there are ones that still run agile on computers built in 1998. Probably faster than Win98 runs them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system requirements for Windows Vista, 7 and 8 is at least a gig of RAM. It shouldnt be a surprise that it uses that much. Thats just an advancement with the times.

CPU usage is also usually less than what is being reported, because the system idle process is lying about how much its using.

And the usual strategy to get a game that needs more than 2 gigs of RAM is to run more than one process in 32 bit Windows and to split up the resource usage.

There is a way to go into computer and properties and such, and changing a paging file, and then add a file to a folder in windows, and that increases total ram allowed on one process to 2.8g on one process.

However, all that is "acceptance of window's bulkiness", when it isn't something one requires to accept. You could instead use Linux, and my distro of Lubuntu 12.04 probably idles under 50k ram. It is most lightweight of Ubuntu distros. It is not the most lightweight Linux either, there are ones that still run agile on computers built in 1998. Probably faster than Win98 runs them now.

Ya know, I have this exact same debate with a guy at work every day. He swears up and down that Linux is so much better than Windows, but for some reason the resource requirements always gets brought up. I can understand putting Ubuntu or Fedora on old comps that cant even run XP (I have done so myself), but the argument rings a little insincere coming from him considering he has 16Gb of RAM that largely go unused. Maybe your setup is different, but as much as 3Gb is almost always more than enough for anything aside from VM emulation, photo/video editing, server functionality and RAM emulated SSD installs. Hell, even running a massive game like Skyrim doesnt hit the 2Gb mark unless you are using 4k HD resolution texture mods (then the game crashes every 20 minutes when it hits the 2Gb mark).

On the flip side, I have a mighty large list of reasons Windows is great; 3rd party support being, by far, the biggest. I dont think 1Gb of RAM, which usually doesnt go any higher than 768Mb of it actually being used, is too much to ask in return. Its not perfect by any means, but then what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
RenX ships 32 bit binaries and uses dx9 currently

Wait, DirectX only officially runs on Windows. How is it possible to package a mac version then? Unreal states it is a simple 3 step process, and they must be right, but I am confused as to how if it uses DirectX9.

______________________________________________________________

As far as why Windows is best or why Linux is best or what is one supposed to do without big corporate support for software and such...

Technically, and I dislike apple, but OS X is also a certified build branching from Unix, which is what Linux is branched off of (but is not certified and is open source so every distro is different). Unix is by core closer to letting programs run straight off of the hardware than windows is, which has more in between and costs each tasks more to run. That is the fundamental flaw with Windows.

However, Windows is the most used over the last 20 years. Mac OS sucked, and apple os's were crap until the recent OS X, which steve jobs made long ago while he had left apple (he rejoined after), and apple bought that OS and made it Raphsody before they made it OS X.

Basically, Mac is like a build of Linux, and looking or programming for either lets one see that Mac and Linux are more capatable together than either is to Windows. Technically, since Mac has Unix's limitless advantages to Windows, it is like a very well supported version of Linux. Don't get me wrong, Mac isn't based off Linux and both aren't based from the same source of Unix.

Also, there are companies that built a special version of Linux like SUSE and crap, that also offer software hardware and user support for them. I believe they are even cheaper than Windows.

Really, the only thing that makes Windows so great, is how it caters to the computer unintellegent users with easy to use things, and how almost every software supports Windows and many nothing else because Windows is so popular.

This is a lengthy read but its there: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 901AAajOVR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nit picks are not easily countered. Im aware of Windows' not-so-humble past, maybe not in such great detail of that dude on Yahoo Answers. TBH, though, such revelations are rather pointless in the context of newer systems. Sleazy business practices are the foundation of big corporations, just like Jobs taking credit for much of Wozniak's contributions.

Honestly, Im not really that interested in debating the extreme fine details of each OS because I dont want to write a book. As far as the big three OS's in their current forms; weve reach a point where the major OS's are as balanced as they are ever likely to get. Windows is not as inefficient as it use to be, Linux is not as big of a pain in the ass for a normal to intermediate tech person to pick up and use as it use to be, and Mac isnt as closed off as it use to be.

They all have advantages and disadvantages and I dont begrudge anybody who prefers one over another. My beef is with people who declare hands down that one is the absolute best, period. And claiming that 3rd party support is the only reason Windows is good is exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Nit picks are not easily countered. Im aware of Windows' not-so-humble past, maybe not in such great detail of that dude on Yahoo Answers. TBH, though, such revelations are rather pointless in the context of newer systems. Sleazy business practices are the foundation of big corporations, just like Jobs taking credit for much of Wozniak's contributions.

Honestly, Im not really that interested in debating the extreme fine details of each OS because I dont want to write a book. As far as the big three OS's in their current forms; weve reach a point where the major OS's are as balanced as they are ever likely to get. Windows is not as inefficient as it use to be, Linux is not as big of a pain in the ass for a normal to intermediate tech person to pick up and use as it use to be, and Mac isnt as closed off as it use to be.

They all have advantages and disadvantages and I dont begrudge anybody who prefers one over another. My beef is with people who declare hands down that one is the absolute best, period. And claiming that 3rd party support is the only reason Windows is good is exactly that.

Nah, I am insturmental. I see Windows as a user friendly omnidevice. But just like swiss knives, cutting down a tree with it is fucking hard. Really, any task is easier with a real tool instead of it, but it is capable of doing all those tools with increased effort and time.

You are right about every one of those points though. Linux users will spend a lot of time just installing something when Windows saves time and just simply runs it. Mac users will spend a lot of time finding things Mac can even run. Windows will sometimes take the speed out of the launched item. Each do have flaws, and each are more balanced as ever because neither have as fatal flaws as before. Albeit Windows still releases a trash build every other build and drains system resource, Mac still often intentionally segretages its programs to itself and others out of it, and Linux often still requires intermediate computer skill just to obtain programs.

At the end of the day, I would use anything other than windows on single processes that slow down when ran, because Linux would really run them with a noticable framerate advantage should it run it. Yet, I still run most things on Windows due to ease of access and that most things simply do not strain the computer that much besides high end games.

Back to my question up there. If DirectX is a Windows liscense and rendering type, then how does Mac run Unreal 3 when DirectX9 is used to run it? Does it backup-option render in opengl or d3d? Unreal says perfectly clear Unreal runs in Mac, I just wondering how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DirectX is a closed source SDK, but it can run on Linux; just like closed source graphics drivers were built for Linux. Im not sure of the exact details because Im not a programmer, but Im sure it was accomplished in a similar fashion to MS Office running on Mac. Even though Microsoft developed and licenses DirectX, they dont really have a need to keep it Windows exclusive; since Im sure they dont feel Mac is a threat. Making their rather popular graphics system cross platform just makes sense.

I believe I read somewhere that DirectX for Mac is a bit different than it is for Windows, which is why games like RenX arent just instantly portable between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asus Crosshair V Formula

AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.8ghz

Gigabyte 460 1 GB OC

Patriot 8GB ddr3 1333 mhz (not sure here)

My minimum stable framerate is ~30, maximum stable being 50~. Varies depending on the map.

That's weird, with a GTX 550ti, i5 2500 and 4gb ram I average 52 fps on fairly high(I think) settings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...