Project Reality Forums

Just have the Players know their computer dictates what they will play comfortably. Like players who can run high view distance will be good at tanking, sniping, and helo piloting, and players with low view distance should stick to infantry squads and close combat exercises.

Players with low end systems should stick to low settings.

If your computer cant handle it, lower your settings. If you cant lower them anymore, press "quit". Go outside, go to a pc shop and cough up the cash. BF2 is nearly two years old now.

2 year old high end cards now only cost $125, which isn't a lot seeing you have an internet connection, can afford BF2, a keyboard, a mouse, a LCD monitor, speakers, a mother board, the old graphics card, and so on...

Upgrading doesn't mean you have to go for the best (ei, 8800 GTX SLI) you go for the best you can get for the cheapest. Best example of this is probably the 7600GT or something.

*LuNa*Coyote wrote:So how exactely are you a low end user, when you are playing on medium settings right now ...

I just checked my video settings. All of them are either set to low or off, with the except of effects, which is set to medium and texture filtering, which is set to high. Despite all of this, I still encounter lag in-game on occasion.

I am on the low end users side here, and I always will be. It is at this point where you can judge a user by his or hers hardware that I draw the line. I know users here that don't have the best systems, and there are quite a few who haven't gotten BF2 past the medium mark.

Putting a little notice saying that PR is more graphics intensive does not mean its okay to do anything this serious to the graphics. Its almost like segregation which is something that should have ended long ago. I don't care if you disagree with me, because it is wrong to deny players of viewing this game with the settings they should have kept from vBF2. If you want to get serious with me, I suggest some of you start working on a systems requirement list. Its not fair, don't argue that it is.

'[R-MOD wrote:Dylan']I am on the low end users side here, and I always will be. It is at this point where you can judge a user by his or hers hardware that I draw the line. I know users here that don't have the best systems, and there are quite a few who haven't gotten BF2 past the medium mark.

Putting a little notice saying that PR is more graphics intensive does not mean its okay to do anything this serious to the graphics. Its almost like segregation which is something that should have ended long ago. I don't care if you disagree with me, because it is wrong to deny players of viewing this game with the settings they should have kept from vBF2. If you want to get serious with me, I suggest some of you start working on a systems requirement list. Its not fair, don't argue that it is.

req specs

P4 3.2GHz or higher
3GB DDR2 533MHz
256MB 7900GT
soundblaster xfi

It's 2007. I don't understand what the problem is here. If you think you'll be able to get away with a 2004 graphics card and 1gig of RAM, you're just wrong. Games aren't being developed for those platforms and we shouldn't continue to listen to the gripes of those who refuse to upgrade. There's no nice way to put that or a middle ground we can all agree to. Your hardware is extremely outdated, so either you upgrade to catch up to the level games are being developed at, or you find other games that don't require high specs.

I'm not saying you HAVE to upgrade, it is pretty expensive and everyone knows this. Bu it's a choice people are going to have to make; is this hobby worth the cost of the components to you? If not, then step aside and let the others who are willing to pay for the technology enjoy the benefits.

You don't see me shitting all over remote controlled helicopter or kart racing forums b/c the barriers of entry are so expensive. Those are seriously expensive hobbbies, and I can't afford them so I don't try. So stop this BS (sorry for being terse here) that we should cater to your watered down, outdated, poorly maintained machine. YOU"RE wrong, not anyone else.

If your aiming that BS at me, your wrong sir. I have probably the best rig here. I just don't support this action.

**** paying hundreds of dollars to upgrade

Then dont but dont hold use back because you want to live 3 years ago.

Hail_831 wrote:req specs

P4 3.2GHz or higher
3GB DDR2 533MHz
256MB 7900GT
soundblaster xfi

haha are you serious? Crysis req specs aren't that high.

Dr. Litch wrote:haha are you serious? Crysis req specs aren't that high.

EA is going to make those requirements as LOW as possible so people think "Hey I can run this game"

I personally have to turn my settings down to play al basrah as it is, I have been wanting to upgrade so I can see it on high completely.. can't wait to see games with huge areas and lots of buildings..

'[R-MOD wrote:Dylan']I am on the low end users side here, and I always will be. It is at this point where you can judge a user by his or hers hardware that I draw the line. I know users here that don't have the best systems, and there are quite a few who haven't gotten BF2 past the medium mark.

Putting a little notice saying that PR is more graphics intensive does not mean its okay to do anything this serious to the graphics. Its almost like segregation which is something that should have ended long ago. I don't care if you disagree with me, because it is wrong to deny players of viewing this game with the settings they should have kept from vBF2. If you want to get serious with me, I suggest some of you start working on a systems requirement list. Its not fair, don't argue that it is.

If the viewing distance is increased, situations where people lack line-of-sight with objects outside their viewing distance would be no different with the greater viewing distance or with the lesser viewing distance, as by definition, in those situations (e.g. city environments), all of the objects are within the current viewing distances. In wide open areas or when piloting, the larger viewing distance will make a difference and could cause problems, but if it does, people can lower their video settings.

What map should I set to 1000-1500 next?

Desertfox wrote:What map should I set to 1000-1500 next?

I suggest either Muttrah City or Mao Valley. Seeing Mao Valley from a mountain top or Muttrah from the carrier (or vica versa) would be cool.

Desertfox wrote:EA is going to make those requirements as LOW as possible so people think "Hey I can run this game"

Just like they did with Bf2 right? (You know, when everyone was complaining about how high they were)

Dr. Litch wrote:Just like they did with Bf2 right? (You know, when everyone was complaining about how high they were)

So because people think its high they are high? Technology has changed since BF2 has been released....

Desertfox wrote:So because people think its high they are high? Technology has changed since BF2 has been released....

exactly, so if you want a game with 2000m view distances go play ArmA. bf2 wasnt meant to be played with a view distance that high. it looks like shit. 800m is one thing, 5000m just looks bad.

causticbeat wrote:exactly, so if you want a game with 2000m view distances go play ArmA. bf2 wasnt meant to be played with a view distance that high. it looks like shit. 800m is one thing, 5000m just looks bad.

I never implied set it to 5000..... I just said the screenshot was taken at 5000 and it would be nice to have some higher view distances in PR.

Lets not get hostile towards each other now.