Jump to content

Captain318

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain318

  • Birthday 03/18/1983

Other Info

  • Favourite GTA
    GTA IV
  • Gamertag
    Captain318
  • PSN ID
    Captain_318
  • Flag
    No Flag

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan

Captain318's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. For anyone having problems getting the game to start at all make sure you have .NET Framework 3.5 installed. That was why it wouldn't start for me on XP Pro. Check this Video out on my performance in game. All settings max @ 1440x900 except for draw distance is at default. http://www.xfire.com/video/4bd97/ Just about all bugs I was having or experiencing are gone after the .NET 3.5 install and a good defrag on XP.
  2. K as Requested here is a screeny I took off my PC today http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww274/dallasmilton318/1.jpg This is everything maxed at 1440x900 except for draw distance is at default. The built in benchmark reported a average FPS of 47.2
  3. From what I have read, it would seem that you are better off going for a high-clock dual core than a low end quad. I have just bought myself an AMD X2 6000+ 3.1GHz processor for £70. That appears to be pretty good value. I'd also recommend getting another GB of RAM, as this isn't very expensive and can make a big difference. I would also like to know, from people who actually own the game, how well do you expect my system to play the game with the following hardware: AMD X2 6000+ 3.1GHz 3GB DDR2 RAM NVIDIA 7900GT Thanks. I would say you would be playing on Low to Low Medium with that setup.
  4. Ok guys I got it to run finaly on my Vista and holy crap. This game will kick the crap out of your PC. Here are my specs.... Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83GHz Memory: 4GB PC2 6400 800Mhz DDR2 (G.Skill) Hard Drive: (HDD1) 1TB WD (HDD2) 320GB SG Video Card: BFG NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 OC 896mb Monitor: Proview 19" LCD Widescreen 1440x900 Sound Card: Supreme FX2 SoundMAX HD Audio Motherboard: ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA (PSU) Thermaltake Toughpower 850W and I CANT max it holy crap . Its a bit jerky even where it defaults the settings too @ my native res of 1440x900. So there ya go. Yup this is my new Crysis Equivelent. BTW the game can use up to like 1.5gb of Video mem I take it and it also has a resource monitor thing in the graphics settings that tells you if you are within your systems limits wich is kinda cool. Prolly ill ditch my GTX260 soon for 2x ATI Radeon 4870x2's in Crossfire X since my board supports X-fire any way. Maybe that would help I dunno. I was able to get rid of the jerkyness by not changing the graphics around while the game is active. What I did was adjust my settings to where I wanted them and then restarted the game and all is well now. Everything is maxed but drawdistance. I think thats going to be Multiple GPU territory. Still it looks fantastic on default draw settings. Way better than console.
  5. Well I got this game delivered thismorning and well, good luck to all you guys I cant even get this game to start on XP or VISTA. I think its the Securom crap they use. Ill let you know what to expect if I ever can get it started.
  6. That's a hell of a machine you have there Thanks, its good enough for now I guess. GTA IV will apparently let me know for sure though lol.
  7. These requirements are indeed quite shocking. I will expect a major visual upgrade over the console version on the Recommended specs. Looks like my rig will max it out @ 1440x900. Maybe even DX10 if supported. Any one know if it will support DX10 mode? Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83GHz Memory: 4GB PC2 6400 800Mhz DDR2 (G.Skill) Hard Drive: (HDD1) 1TB WD (HDD2) 320GB SG Video Card: BFG NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 OC Monitor: Proview 19" LCD Widescreen 1440x900 Sound Card: Supreme FX2 SoundMAX HD Audio Operating System: XP Pro SP3 x86 & VISTA Ultimate SP1 x64 (Dual Boot) Motherboard: ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA Computer Case: (CASE) Thermaltake Soprano (PSU) Thermaltake Toughpower 850W
  8. Far Cry 2 Open World The extensive artistic research combined with the next-gen engine will allow you to explore over 50Km2 of seamlessly rendered African landscape. No game has ever provided such freedom of movement! Check this out here I realize that we are talkin about two entirely different games and two different engines but I think this is a worthy comparison if there is one lol.
  9. Well I have to disagree with that. Look at Far Cry 2. Brand new game and runs fine on my brothers Old P4 and a 8600gt 1 Gig of ram with all the eye Candy and good FPS @ 1024x768. I realize that isnt the highest res today but its still a 17'' monitor standard. And Far Cry 2 is absolutely beautiful. Im sure GTA IV will run on a wide variety of of pc's just fine. Maybe not all the eye candy but still playable to say the least. Well, 8600GT is a DX10 card, isn't it? It should play the new generation's games at low graphics level. But like I said before, graphics are what makes today's games beautiful. Storylines and shooting are the same as in any other game. Except GTA, of course. For example, I can play very well Assassin's Creed with my actual PC by setting the graphic levels at minimum, but it was like playing a PS1 game. I hope GTA works with low requirements, but as you know, the vast open world space in GTA, those large dynamic cities, make GTA a very hard game to be handled by the PC. That's why GTA SA had such ugly graphics. But GTA IV is not SA. It has very good graphics, high resolution textures. And GTA IV isn't Far Cry 2 neither. Far Cry 2 has less objects to draw in the jungle scenes, and it's territory is not as big as GTAIV's territory. GTA IV has to draw dozens of pedestrians, cars, trees and buildings and other details simultaneously, in a much larger space than the scenes of Far Cry 2. There's a reason why GTA IV requires 18 GB of hard disk space. It's textures must be very large because of the high resolution. Large textures can't be easily played by a simple graphic card, and those shadows and reflexions can't be played without shader model 3.0 or better. Yuor card has a SM3.0, i guess? The 8600gt being DX10 has jack to do with it. That is a buget card now and runs the game fine. How do you figure Far Cry 2 has less objects to draw in the jungle? Have you actually played that game. It has tons of stuff to draw and all the moving and hi-res foliage is what normaly kills you FPS. Sorry to tell ya but the graphics are better on Far Cry 2 than the console version at least of GTAIV. And if you ever notice GTAIV has really crappy draw distance too. Both 360 and PS3. O and as for the territory not being as big.....LOL R U KIDDING ME. My point is there is new state of the art games that run fine on older and buget PC's. If a P4,1gig of ram, and a budget 8600gt, can pull off highest settings on new games like Far Cry 2 and Pure im sure GTAIV will be atleast playabe for those people on medium to lower settings. When it comes to eye candy on GTAIV I will guess it to be like all other games...., the higher the res the less FPS. But that dont mean you cant have all the eye candy on at a more moderate res. Rockstar know what there doin and they have been through this before. They know how to program very well. Look how hard it was to tell the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions wich are two totally different platforms to develop for. And PS3 supposedly being such a pain in the A$$ to develop for. I think everyone is WAY WAY OVERESTIMATING what that game will actually require. I run a Quad Core Q9550, 4Gigs of ram, And a GTX 260 and people on other forums have had the nerve to say maybe you will get medium to medium high settings with that setup lol. SERIOUSLY.
  10. Well I have to disagree with that. Look at Far Cry 2. Brand new game and runs fine on my brothers Old P4 and a 8600gt 1 Gig of ram with all the eye Candy and good FPS @ 1024x768. I realize that isnt the highest res today but its still a 17'' monitor standard. And Far Cry 2 is absolutely beautiful. Im sure GTA IV will run on a wide variety of of pc's just fine. Maybe not all the eye candy but still playable to say the least.
  11. Not really, in certain parts GTA IV lags. Like in places with too much light and reflections, like Middle Park, Chinatown, ect.. Well I dont own a PS3 but I do own a Xbox360 and I heard the game runs at a higher res on the 360 but it lags on 360 "atleast mine" pretty bad in some situations. I heard the PS3 version had a better frame rate because it runs at a lower res and installs to the HDD. In some test though the 360 with a tripple core Proc spanks PS3 with seven cores but I dont know. More is not always better I guess just more expensive. I still want to buy a PS3 one day. All around this game is rough on the consoles but should run like butter on a good PC if its coded and optimized well. PC is lightyears ahead of the current consoles now.
  12. Hey peeps. I Pre-ordered GTAIV for pc at GameStop and these are the requirements they have posted though probably not official. Recommended System Requirements Disk Drive : DVD-ROM dual-layer drive Hard Drive Space : 18GB free hard disk space Operating System : Windows XP or Vista Processor : Dual core processor (Intel Pentium D or better) RAM : 2GB RAM or 1.5GB RAM for Vista Video Card : 512MB Direct3D 10 compatible video card, or Direct3D 9 card compatible with Shader Model 3.0 or higher I just found it interesting that GameStop had these req. posted. Also bad news according to them. GTAIV - PC has been delayed from November 18 until December 2. They notified me about the release delay VIA email concerning my Pre-order. lol haven't we seen these req somewhere before? Cough "M$"
  13. Well both companys have their troubles. I like both and just because I use Nvidia I would never hate on ATI. And BTW the 3870 is a great card too. Its just matter of preference I say. Performance wise I think its stupid people always argue bout a few FPS difference between ATI and Nvidia. I may buy a ATI in the future when finances permit. But anyrate I dont want you to hate me now or nothin and there is no sense in beating a dead horse just I had to make it clear to other readers on the forums that Nvidia doesnt suck. Like them or not they make great products. And physix on U3 engine was just an example there is more to come you will see that soon enough. And personally I dont see why anyone wouldnt like that engine as its absolutely beautiful and U3 is a fun game. But buy what you like just dont tell other people that one or the other sucks is what I always say. That always looks like Biased comments to people and starts flame wars lol. Like what you like.
  14. Well I dont think all of the nforce chipsets are junk but some did have some issuses like the 680i I think it was. But im talkin bout their cards in general. And the ATI 4870x2 is a bad ass card and it would be cool if I could afford two of them to try crossfire on my "(crappy) Intel X38 chipset" lol. But my Nvidia is workin like a charm for the moment.
  15. AS for nVidia sucking, they absolutely do, horrible drivers and a high defectiveness rate. Also not very many things support PhysX, it's a fail technology IMO. Well I guess we will agree to disagree then but im afraid you are horribly wrong on this issue being i have been using Nvidia cards for many years now. (Cough and Ati's Drivers are great) lol Nope fraid not. If you were right and they are crap then try to tell that to bout 60% of probably all PC gamers and they will laugh at you. Its just preference I think and like I said I got nothing against ATI at all but to say Nvidia is crap with bad drivers and worst of all Reliability issuses I have to stick up for them from my own experince not to mention I am a PC Technition of many years and most of my clients, (Many Gamers) all use and want Nvidia and come back to Nvidia when upgrading. Sorry I just dont see where your getting the idea that they are not reliable. Also Physix are just taking off and more and more games are taking advantage of it like U3 for example and its here to say im afraid to tell ya. And as for Intel chipsets say what you want but ive been using them for years as well with great performance. Dont confuse Integrated Intel Graphics for a Intel chipset on a high end board. Of course onboard sucks as im sure we both can agree on.
×
×
  • Create New...