• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
haunter said:
probably bloom, MLAA, picking AA/AF and stuff, is usually limited to few choices
Click to expand...

Don't forget limited geometry detail and texture resolution(helps keep the download size down). Basically all the "fluff", as they're not really looking for feedback into graphics but gameplay.
 
Laffles said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINiLwC2Fcg#t=2m40s I mean seriously Nvidia marketing much? Dual 580's to max this out?, the smerks and the way the vid is cut lol, they are trying to squeeze all they can out of pc gamers imo.

are they talking about maxing this out with eyefinity? you can't max it out on a single 580!? REALLY?!
Click to expand...

Many people on other forums are eating that up, talking about getting new cards and CPUs for one game.
They want to run MP maxed. Go right ahead and blow money on a mode that doesn't need to be maxed.
I've had the hp to max MP games and choose not to because of unexpected frame drops.

So long as the textures are high and the AA is sufficient, game on. 4xMSAA vs 16QxAA doesn't make a noticeable difference in MP.
With MLAA and FXAA, performance is maintained without penalty.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Many people on other forums are eating that up, talking about getting new cards and CPUs for one game.
They want to run MP maxed. Go right ahead and blow money on a mode that doesn't need to be maxed.
I've had the hp to max MP games and choose not to because of unexpected frame drops.

So long as the textures are high and the AA is sufficient, game on. 4xMSAA vs 16QxAA doesn't make a noticeable difference in MP.
With MLAA and FXAA, performance is maintained without penalty.
Click to expand...

I partially agree. For a game like BF3 though the realistic graphics and animations are part of the immersion factor. The better they look the more immersive the game is (to me) so I certainly would want to max it out. That said, I've very rarely ever felt the need to go above 4xAA so I typically stick with that even if I can afford to go up a notch.
 
To be honest if I'm playing a an intensive shooter like the BF series I crank my options down so even though I get an acceptable frame rate (60+) even in heavy battles. I prefer the non-distracting smoke effects or weather effects that can make it harder to spot and kill enemies.

Now in the single player I'll crank up the options to get the full impact and I don't mind a few deeps now and again.

In this day and age unless you have a multi-monitor setup , wanna play in 3D at 60 fps and options cranked .. then there really isn't a reason to dump $800+ into a high end SLI/Crossfire setup.

We don't really live in the Crysis day's anymore.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Many people on other forums are eating that up, talking about getting new cards and CPUs for one game.
They want to run MP maxed. Go right ahead and blow money on a mode that doesn't need to be maxed.
I've had the hp to max MP games and choose not to because of unexpected frame drops.

So long as the textures are high and the AA is sufficient, game on. 4xMSAA vs 16QxAA doesn't make a noticeable difference in MP.
With MLAA and FXAA, performance is maintained without penalty.
Click to expand...

Upgrading is fine, it's just pointless with a new generation of cards coming out soon.
 
Godmachine said:
To be honest if I'm playing a an intensive shooter like the BF series I crank my options down so even though I get an acceptable frame rate (60+) even in heavy battles. I prefer the non-distracting smoke effects or weather effects that can make it harder to spot and kill enemies
Click to expand...

Part of me wants there to be standard effect settings that the player cannot change. How is it fair if you can see through smoke but I can't?

Having the same smoke, lightning, foliage, etc settings across the board would make for a more level playing field.
 
I'm not going to reply to the blatent trolling which at this stage is what is derailing the thread with constant bitching and complaining, if you have a problem with me then shoot me a PM and keep it off the forum.

Back on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINiLwC2Fcg#t=2m40s I mean seriously Nvidia marketing much? Dual 580's to max this out?, the smerks and the way the vid is cut lol, they are trying to squeeze all they can out of pc gamers imo.

are they talking about maxing this out with eyefinity? you can't max it out on a single 580!? REALLY?!
Click to expand...

You certainly didn't need that kind of power for the alpha, I had mine in 2560x1600 with max settings and I think 16xAF and 2xAA and that was running with a high FPS, in fact it was running better than BC2 did, although I'm fairly sure that's down to CPU usage and not graphics.

It was 32 player though and the final game will have up to 64, so that might make a difference, although likely on the CPU than anything else.
 
Dallows said:
Part of me wants there to be standard effect settings that the player cannot change. How is it fair if you can see through smoke but I can't?

Having the same smoke, lightning, foliage, etc settings across the board would make for a more level playing field.
Click to expand...

Life isn't fair. You can turn down your settings if you want to be on an even playing field.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I'm not going to reply to the blatent trolling which at this stage is what is derailing the thread with constant bitching and complaining, if you have a problem with me then shoot me a PM and keep it off the forum.
Click to expand...

You are the one causing it. I know you like to deny it, but when every single person is replying to you, telling you to take your off topic BS to a different thread, YOU are the one that is causing the issue.

Your tone to everyone here is that you know everything, and when you are proven wrong(by even a developer for origin), you take one little snippet of a sentence, of a complete post, and make smart ass replies about how that proves you are right.

Enough is enough. You have thread crapped in the thread long enough. Move to a different thread and continue it elsewhere.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
You certainly didn't need that kind of power for the alpha, I had mine in 2560x1600 with max settings and I think 16xAF and 2xAA and that was running with a high FPS, in fact it was running better than BC2 did, although I'm fairly sure that's down to CPU usage and not graphics.
Click to expand...

The alpha was running barebones for graphics though, you had, low, medium, high, and auto but changing these really made no difference visually, the alpha also supposodly had destruction toned down and no tesellation. Full game has an ultra spec which is whats gonna incur a beatdown on framerate.

According to a tweet from dice the beta will include "most" of the pc graphics options, be interesting to see the change from the Alpha visuals.
 
Last edited:
Druneau said:
I know what ping is.

But BC2 tries to give everyone a 100ms ping for some reason or another. The server in the list says 15, join the game you have 99-115ms ping. Any server. All the time.
Click to expand...

yet you still dont know that in game puing in BC2 is doubled?
 
Chris_B said:
The alpha was running barebones for graphics though, you had, low, medium, high, and auto but changing these really made no difference visually, the alpha also supposodly had destruction toned down and no tesellation. Full game has an ultra spec which is whats supposodly gonna incur a beatdown on framerate.

According to a tweet from dice the beta will include "most" of the pc graphics options, be interesting to see the change from the Alpha visuals.
Click to expand...

Ah right, I didn't know that, I suspect while the frame rate hit will hurt a fair bit especially tessellation, the frame rate was so high to begin with in the alpha, that it will still be playable for many. This was at 2560x1600 as well which is a hard resolution to push games at, a lot of it will come down to what resolution you're running. I doubt you'll need more than 1 580 unless you're above 1920x1200.
 
some of you need to relax a bit.....use the ignore feature if needed, but if this name calling and fighting continues, it probably wont end well..:D


(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.
 
Has there been any word on the possibility of a [H] performance review when the open beta goes live?
 
Laffles said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINiLwC2Fcg#t=2m40s I mean seriously Nvidia marketing much? Dual 580's to max this out?, the smerks and the way the vid is cut lol, they are trying to squeeze all they can out of pc gamers imo.

are they talking about maxing this out with eyefinity? you can't max it out on a single 580!? REALLY?!
Click to expand...

Why is the fat guy sweating like a stuck pig? Oh yea cause he's fat...
 
I am somewhat bummed out about the new requirements, I know they are future proof and that is good for PC's. However, hard to believe I will barely be able to run at medium with a year old system:

AMD 1055T (6 core)
1gb eVGA GTX 460
8gb of G. Skill DD3 1600

Oh, and I am hurting myself somewhat because of my 24in Dell LCD. 1900x1200 res is hard to push with a single card with a game like this I bet.

I am considering overlocking some things because it is all stock speeds currently. Or selling my 460 and buying something better. My mobo doesn't have SLI :(
 
FluxCap said:
I am somewhat bummed out about the new requirements, I know they are future proof and that is good for PC's. However, hard to believe I will barely be able to run at medium with a year old system:

AMD 1055T (6 core)
1gb eVGA GTX 460
8gb of G. Skill DD3 1600

Oh, and I am hurting myself somewhat because of my 24in Dell LCD. 1900x1200 res is hard to push with a single card with a game like this I bet.

I am considering overlocking some things because it is all stock speeds currently. Or selling my 460 and buying something better. My mobo doesn't have SLI :(
Click to expand...

I feel like that GTX 460 is older than just a year. Besides everyone knew this game would push the graphics boundary. There's no surprise here.
 
Yeah, you are probably right. I just never thought low-medium is what I would have to run at launch with my system. I do have a PS3 I may use for this, depending on how beta goes next week.
 
I'm sure even low settings will look about the same as the game would on either PS3/360, plus you get 64 players on the PC, while you only get 24 on the consoles. Not a trade-off I would be willing to make, personally. I'd much prefer intense combat on a massive scale over fancy graphics.
 
FluxCap said:
I am somewhat bummed out about the new requirements, I know they are future proof and that is good for PC's. However, hard to believe I will barely be able to run at medium with a year old system:

AMD 1055T (6 core)
1gb eVGA GTX 460
8gb of G. Skill DD3 1600

Oh, and I am hurting myself somewhat because of my 24in Dell LCD. 1900x1200 res is hard to push with a single card with a game like this I bet.

I am considering overlocking some things because it is all stock speeds currently. Or selling my 460 and buying something better. My mobo doesn't have SLI :(
Click to expand...

You processor is going to limit you badly in this game.
 
Games like BC2 and I'm assuming BF3 require massive CPU power in order to get good fps. I see 30% gain on the min fps from going from stock to 4.275ghz on my Q9650.
 
I don't know about the rest of you guys but I don't play PC games to turn down all of the graphic settings. I have spent alot of money on my rig to make sure that I can play the games that I want with all of the eye candy maxed out. If that means I get shot by someone who saw me first because their setting are on medium and does not have the smoke effect blocking their view then so be it. I enjoy the realistic immersive experience. If I die more in BF3 then so be it but at least I am enjoying the visual, realistic experience of the game with all of my settings maxed out. If I wanted dumbed downed shitty graphics I would buy a console.
 
MrGoodKat44 said:
I don't know about the rest of you guys but I don't play PC games to turn down all of the graphic settings. I have spent alot of money on my rig to make sure that I can play the games that I want with all of the eye candy maxed out. If that means I get shot by someone who saw me first because their setting are on medium and does not have the smoke effect blocking their view then so be it. I enjoy the realistic immersive experience. If I die more in BF3 then so be it but at least I am enjoying the visual, realistic experience of the game with all of my settings maxed out. If I wanted dumbed downed shitty graphics I would buy a console.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as you. I've dumped as much money into my rig purely for this reason alone (random impulse purchases aside). My post was squarely aimed at the poster above who stated he would opt for the console version if he wasn't able to play the game at medium settings, and I was simply stating that if I were in that situation, I would opt for the PC version anyway, since the player cap is so much higher.
 
MrGoodKat44 said:
I don't know about the rest of you guys but I don't play PC games to turn down all of the graphic settings. I have spent alot of money on my rig to make sure that I can play the games that I want with all of the eye candy maxed out. If that means I get shot by someone who saw me first because their setting are on medium and does not have the smoke effect blocking their view then so be it. I enjoy the realistic immersive experience. If I die more in BF3 then so be it but at least I am enjoying the visual, realistic experience of the game with all of my settings maxed out. If I wanted dumbed downed shitty graphics I would buy a console.
Click to expand...

TheOneKnownAsMe said:
I'm in the same boat as you. I've dumped as much money into my rig purely for this reason alone (random impulse purchases aside). My post was squarely aimed at the poster above who stated he would opt for the console version if he wasn't able to play the game at medium settings, and I was simply stating that if I were in that situation, I would opt for the PC version anyway, since the player cap is so much higher.
Click to expand...

same here. it's worth it to me to die a few more times and enjoy the visuals in the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top