dude, you are running Sapphire 6990+ Sapphite 6970. I sure hope youre getting 60fps. Nice rig!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Oldie
- Start date
dude, you are running Sapphire 6990+ Sapphite 6970. I sure hope youre getting 60fps. Nice rig!
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
The pictures I keep seeing of people using HT, though, seem to only be loading up the CPU like 50% overall. Not sure it's actually fully utilizing HT.
I'd be interested in seeing some HT on vs. off benchmarks.
Nope, here using eve more then 50%
I think that will be less of an issue later on. Right now another big problem is that you can't start your own server to practice. I just spent 1.5 hours trying to re-map the controls for the plane/helo to my joystick. I probably looked like a dick cause I kept waiting at spawn for a plane or helo, jumped in and crashed shortly after as I realize something is inverted or incorrectly mapped.
I'm having the same problem with my Saitek X45. The throttle doesn't work as an axis it will only allow buttons which sucks when flying the helo and you're trying to land and repair. It also sucks that the actual trigger doesn't work but some other obscure hard to reach button does.
Reverse has worked for me and my Saitek X45 sort of works. Lots of button/axis issues. They better fix it at some point...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This game better be awesome cause I just ordered some new hardware to hopefully kick up the frame rates. I don't mind turning things to low but I'd like to run native res for my monitors instead of the minimum they will do.
Ordered a Intel i5 2500k, 8gb DDR3, ATI 6950 2gb (that hopefully I can unlock to the 6970).
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Looks like the current build being played by journalists is also buggy:
http://kotaku.com/5847726/battlefield-3s-pc-multiplayer-is-funwhen-it-works
http://kotaku.com/5847726/battlefield-3s-pc-multiplayer-is-funwhen-it-works
I've been PC gaming since the mid 90's. I'll never forget the first time I played Q1 DM, or loaded up Quake 2 for hours upon hours upon hours. Then Half Life, which to me is still the greatest PC game ever developed. Those early Counterstrike Beta days were 100000x better than 99% of the crap that's out today.. Amazing firefights. Weapons that took a long time to adjust too. I've been out of PC gaming for a long time and came back to it with page upon page of how consoles are taking over. And they are. The economics behind why game developers would prefer to cater to a console crowd diffuses any argument we can possibly make. The bottom line is unequivacly the most important factor and not catering to the console crowd would be corporate suicide.
Ater finally starting to figure out the gameplay dynamics of BF3, the weapon system and how the game plays, I feel like I am playing a PC masterpiece.. Weapons are very difficult to adjust to and will take a significant amount of time to master.
Finally, after a week of wandering around, getting smacked around and playing like a total noob, something clicked in my head and I started focusing on what I and my team were doing. I ambushed and killed roughly 10 people (not at once) when I picked a good spot. I was amazed by what had just happened. I can't imagine how much fun this game will be once you figure out all the choke points, maps and weapons.This is exactly what PC gaming is about. Isn't that all we are looking for? A game that requires skill? Despite all the gloom and doom about the state of PC gaming, I think we are all in for a treat that can alleviate that concern as we'll be too busy playing online to worry about it. Maybe that is the best message we can send the developers.
Ater finally starting to figure out the gameplay dynamics of BF3, the weapon system and how the game plays, I feel like I am playing a PC masterpiece.. Weapons are very difficult to adjust to and will take a significant amount of time to master.
Finally, after a week of wandering around, getting smacked around and playing like a total noob, something clicked in my head and I started focusing on what I and my team were doing. I ambushed and killed roughly 10 people (not at once) when I picked a good spot. I was amazed by what had just happened. I can't imagine how much fun this game will be once you figure out all the choke points, maps and weapons.This is exactly what PC gaming is about. Isn't that all we are looking for? A game that requires skill? Despite all the gloom and doom about the state of PC gaming, I think we are all in for a treat that can alleviate that concern as we'll be too busy playing online to worry about it. Maybe that is the best message we can send the developers.
Last edited:
Agree with you!
My issue with big maps is that the minimap only shows a very small portion of the map, even if I press "N." I would like to be able to see the whole map so I would know which bases are ours and which are the enemies'
BC2 can show the entire map by pressing "M"
BC2 can show the entire map by pressing "M"
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Ha. Welcome to DICE.
Luckly DICE knows PC gamers will stick it out until they fix it, but console gamers are eager to play MW3 instead.
Console gamers already know they're getting the short end of the stick, any bugs at launch will be an huge issue.
Great photo. The retail version is looking even better:
Last edited:
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
I accually thought showing the full map was annoying.
If you follow the markers on the screen, you should be able to find the CQ points.
Blue_Scholar
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 752
Well put and I concur.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
Yes sir, bought it specifically for BF3!
I want full settings at 60fps for this title, It deserves it.
With 3 cards, you need more horse power then 4Ghz, you have really low vcore anyway, go for 4.2/4.3!
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
I'm mad at myself, I didn't want to wait to build a new rig and figured my sig rig would be a pretty sure bet to run BF3 Ultra @ 2560x1600. After the lagfest that was Caspian Border, I'm very disappointed. 
Hopefully there is still significant gains still to be wrung out via drivers, otherwise I'll be dumping still more $$$ for next gen GPUs.
Hopefully there is still significant gains still to be wrung out via drivers, otherwise I'll be dumping still more $$$ for next gen GPUs.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
Waiting for Bulldozer review before I upgrade.
But if you read [H]ardocp review, Tri-fire doesnt need anymore horsepower. Only the 580 gtx's did.
I wanted to see the whole map so I would know where to spawn next. If so, I could just click on an allied base and then spawn there. Unfortunately BF3 does not allow us to view the map when dead. It only shows the names of the capture points (eg antenna, hill top etc.) And atm I don't know the map quite well yet
chinesepiratefood
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,629
Windows handles the load balancing of threads across available cores, which is why each thread is being utilized in those screenshots with i7s, but not to its fullest. Also, in terms of development there is no concept of "using hyper threading". If the game needed to perform intensive calculations on more than 4 threads then windows will balance the load accordingly by offloading work onto one of the other threads.
Blue_Scholar
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 752
Say, was it confirmed that there will be night versions for all maps? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
Probably an unlock....so much shit to unlock who knows.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
Dang, with all AA turned up? I'm still dipping below 60! With 2x AA everything ultra!
Yea 4xAA on Ultra. Only issue I get is screen tearing, but that will be fixed by DICE.
Also remember not all the Graphic options are available in the Beta. So we arent getting the full real deal right now when you set it to Ultra
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
I'm averaging 80FPS on Caspian all ultra 4xAA 1900x1200. Max 120, Min 59, average 80 according to FRAPS.
Blue_Scholar
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 752
I get 45-60, all Ultra, 4xaa, Max post aa. HBAO on my rig in my sig.
Yea, but they didnt test it with BF3 trust me you need higher clocks, this game is insane....but nvm its not such a big deal if you get good fps anyway
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
Yea, but they didnt test it with BF3 trust me you need higher clocks, this game is insane....but nvm its not such a big deal if you get good fps anyway
Exactly
2560x1440 hurts my performance.. if only I had stuck with a 24" IPS instead of a 27"
GTX 580 SLI not enough for 2560x1440? Wow this game is really heavy...
In all fairness, a consistent 60fps at 2560x1440 with ultra settings and 4x AA is a fairly high bar to set for a game that's supposed to be built for modern hardware.
And I'm friggen jealous of all you guys able to get even a consistent 60fps at 1920x1200 on high settings with 2x AA. It makes me want to attempt to OC my q9450 for like the 4th time even after how badly it went last time.
And I'm friggen jealous of all you guys able to get even a consistent 60fps at 1920x1200 on high settings with 2x AA. It makes me want to attempt to OC my q9450 for like the 4th time even after how badly it went last time.
6970 x 2
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
In all fairness, a consistent 60fps at 2560x1440 with ultra settings and 4x AA is a fairly high bar to set for a game that's supposed to be built for modern hardware.
And I'm friggen jealous of all you guys able to get even a consistent 60fps at 1920x1200 on high settings with 2x AA. It makes me want to attempt to OC my q9450 for like the 4th time even after how badly it went last time.
I think you need more GPU power then CPU power. although getting a 2500k system would DEF. help.
But yea get more GPU horsepower
In all fairness, a consistent 60fps at 2560x1440 with ultra settings and 4x AA is a fairly high bar to set for a game that's supposed to be built for modern hardware.
And I'm friggen jealous of all you guys able to get even a consistent 60fps at 1920x1200 on high settings with 2x AA. It makes me want to attempt to OC my q9450 for like the 4th time even after how badly it went last time.
It's not your CPU. It's the GPU. I've tested this myself with a q9550/5870 and 2500K/6950. Both resulted equal performance. Here are some CPU benchmarks I found online:
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/gaming-software/13498-bf3-beta-performance-benchmarks?start=2
http://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/page7.html
Last edited:
They tested on Metro. Caspian is a totally different animal. Huge outdoor level with twice as many players and vehicles. It hammers the CPU HARD. Lower frame rates are concurrent with increased CPU use and my GPU rarely hits 90%+ utilization while on Metro it's pegged at 99% always.
Superhuman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,037
After playing about 5-6 rounds of Caspian Border, it's really just a pretty average map IMO. Kinda disappointed with the maps so far.
Agreed.
I'm probably the only person in the world who actually prefers the focused infantry combat of Metro too lol (mostly because I've always loved the heli but it's absolutely worthless on Caspian especially without countermeasures unlocked), but that map is certainly nothing special either.
I'm also constantly getting disconnected from every Caspian Border server I join.
This game went from something I was pretty interested in before the Beta but wasn't going to buy until it hit Steam to something I'm fine with skipping entirely.
Superhuman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,037
I don't like that they're making these gigantic maps, but placing all the flags close to each other, leaving the large map space for air vehicles only. What the fuck, DICE? What happened to classic style conquest map design?
I really don't see how this game is any better than BF2 honestly. I've never been that big a Battlefield fan so maybe I'm missing something, but aside from cosmetic things like graphics and sound, and even the destruction which honestly barely affects the gameplay, what's better? The combat is slightly more satisfying sure, and boy golly there's a ton of attachments and whatnot, but the core gameplay feels exactly the same to me.
And in many ways, it's worse. Flying a helicopter feels just like BF2 except in this you don't get countermeasures or TV missiles from the start, you have to unlock them. Which is quite possibly the worst idea ever because every other guy on the ground has a stinger, there's plenty of AA placements, and jets can tear you to pieces in about three seconds.
Hell, the noob jet is basically a flying M16 because all it has is a machine gun. No bombs, no missiles, no countermeasures, it basically makes no impact on the game. A new player gets up in the air in that thing and he has veteran jets firing heat-seeking missiles at him, anti-air coming from every which way, and stinger missiles flying in from all corners of the map and what does he have to defend with? A machine gun. Awesome.
I look up in the air and to me it seems like the people up there are just playing a different game, having the tiniest of impacts on the proceedings below. The heli can do some damage to tanks and other vehicles sure, but without countermeasures it gets taken down within seconds. I've tried flying it numerous times and have never once been in the air more than a minute. I was a pretty decent pilot in BF2, but without countermeasures to defend against the many, many missiles that track me in the air, what am I supposed to do? As if that weren't enough, the Jets are basically sharks to my guppy, they eat me without a second thought and I'm powerless to stop them.
I have absolutely no fun in the tank and the jeeps are just boring. For me the game basically devolves into a whack-a-mole, where the points are the moles and I'm the hammer but instead of just being able to smack the moles I have to get into a vehicle and drive for a minute or two to the moles to whack them, before dying and then having to repeat the process.
I guess the series just isn't for me, but I was really hoping this game would mix things up a bit and give me a reason to like it. I dig the idea of the game but playing it just isn't all that enjoyable really. Oh well, maybe next time.
And in many ways, it's worse. Flying a helicopter feels just like BF2 except in this you don't get countermeasures or TV missiles from the start, you have to unlock them. Which is quite possibly the worst idea ever because every other guy on the ground has a stinger, there's plenty of AA placements, and jets can tear you to pieces in about three seconds.
Hell, the noob jet is basically a flying M16 because all it has is a machine gun. No bombs, no missiles, no countermeasures, it basically makes no impact on the game. A new player gets up in the air in that thing and he has veteran jets firing heat-seeking missiles at him, anti-air coming from every which way, and stinger missiles flying in from all corners of the map and what does he have to defend with? A machine gun. Awesome.
I look up in the air and to me it seems like the people up there are just playing a different game, having the tiniest of impacts on the proceedings below. The heli can do some damage to tanks and other vehicles sure, but without countermeasures it gets taken down within seconds. I've tried flying it numerous times and have never once been in the air more than a minute. I was a pretty decent pilot in BF2, but without countermeasures to defend against the many, many missiles that track me in the air, what am I supposed to do? As if that weren't enough, the Jets are basically sharks to my guppy, they eat me without a second thought and I'm powerless to stop them.
I have absolutely no fun in the tank and the jeeps are just boring. For me the game basically devolves into a whack-a-mole, where the points are the moles and I'm the hammer but instead of just being able to smack the moles I have to get into a vehicle and drive for a minute or two to the moles to whack them, before dying and then having to repeat the process.
I guess the series just isn't for me, but I was really hoping this game would mix things up a bit and give me a reason to like it. I dig the idea of the game but playing it just isn't all that enjoyable really. Oh well, maybe next time.
I hope they don't ruin metro by putting more than 1-2 vehicles. First battlefield experience of mine that actually had game-play involving teamwork and strategy.
Staying far away from pre-ordering since I have a bad feeling it's going to be impossible to find a server playing non-hardcore good Rush maps.
Why you people like that terrible conquest mode I'll never understand. I have the same sentiment as the post above me. Hopefully they have a rush map with 1 apache per side and NO jets on release day, and servers actually play it.
Staying far away from pre-ordering since I have a bad feeling it's going to be impossible to find a server playing non-hardcore good Rush maps.
Why you people like that terrible conquest mode I'll never understand. I have the same sentiment as the post above me. Hopefully they have a rush map with 1 apache per side and NO jets on release day, and servers actually play it.