Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously, can you imagine the whinging that would happen if there was 256 players?

"OMFG BF3 is dumbed-down run-and-gun, an insult to the true BF games!"
 
SoFGR said:
wrong, bf games were always mostly cpu bound, on the other hand dice has confirmed that you will need the fastest card you can get, but until the actual game comes out no one should upgrade, look what at happened with bc2, many ppl bought those 58xx / gtx 460s while still sporting a puny dual core without knowing that their game could run much better on a 5770 + a mildy oced i5.
Oh and i wouldn't ever want to mess with a multi-gpu setup, you're practically forced to use vsync(ew) in order to minimise micro stuttering, experiment with drivers + profiles + rendering methods and monitor your gpu usage all the time so you can ensure that your second frigging gpu works as it should . Multigpu setups are optimal for benchmarking, not for pub stomping.

BF / MOH games were never about splatter, i kinda miss the sof series too, atleast we have l4d now :)
Click to expand...


meh i run vsync on everything. i can't stand playing games without vsync.


Plague_Injected said:
Seriously, can you imagine the whinging that would happen if there was 256 players?

"OMFG BF3 is dumbed-down run-and-gun, an insult to the true BF games!"
Click to expand...


no it would be " OMG THIS IS SO FUCKING BAD ASS" for all of 3 weeks then it will be impossible to find a full server because theres so many damn choices. then after 3-4 months when there are a ton of dedicated servers. hosting companies will start overselling their connections and boom you have a shit ton of 256 player laggy ass servers.

thats seriously how it works and is what would end up happening if BF3 was to use 256 player servers. now do i wish they had 256 player servers? hell yes!!! but the way they should go about doing that is by hosting the 256 player servers themselves with custom 256 player maps. then limit all the custom dedicated servers to 64 players. in the end it causes less bitching and if for some reason the 256 player servers aren't popular then EA can just get rid of them and never have to worry about it again. and before you say thats a dumb idea to only limit EA to hosting the 256 player servers obviously you haven't bought a dedicated server since the price of the server is based on how many player slots there are. so say you have a 256 player server at a buck to a buck 50 per player slot you are talking a minimum of 256 dollars before any extra fee's are added.

Porter_ said:
come back with recorded video, or don't come back at all :p
Click to expand...

odds are its the same exact demo/video shown at the GDC.
 
Last edited:
Holy fuck the demo at pax was shown on pc and was amazing. My phone is about to die but I will tell more later tonight. Also, one interesting thing to note is that building that fell over and the buckling ground was caused by an earthquake, not combat.
 
AMD_Gamer said:
Holy fuck the demo at pax was shown on pc and was amazing. My phone is about to die but I will tell more later tonight. Also, one interesting thing to note is that building that fell over and the buckling ground was caused by an earthquake, not combat.
Click to expand...

How dare you tease us with so little information.
 
AMD_Gamer said:
Holy fuck the demo at pax was shown on pc and was amazing. My phone is about to die but I will tell more later tonight. Also, one interesting thing to note is that building that fell over and the buckling ground was caused by an earthquake, not combat.
Click to expand...

Was it the same demo? Must... find... AMD_Gamer...
 
SoFGR said:
Oh and i wouldn't ever want to mess with a multi-gpu setup, you're practically forced to use vsync(ew) in order to minimise micro stuttering, experiment with drivers + profiles + rendering methods and monitor your gpu usage all the time so you can ensure that your second frigging gpu works as it should . Multigpu setups are optimal for benchmarking, not for pub stomping.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, there was only 1 issue with my 5970 and BC2 which was flickering alpha textures in the beta that was fixed around launch, there is no micro stuttering and I certainly don't need Vsync on, nor do I need to mess with profiles

You switch the game on and play like with any other video card.

That said BFBC2 is very demanding on the CPU and a lot of gamers are CPU limited when playing, so the GPU shouldn't necessarily be the focus of any upgrade for a game like BC2 and presumably BF3.

Best to wait until closer to the time and see what works best, I'll be jumping on the new SandyBridge 8/16 core CPUs later this year as my primary upgrade for BF3 :)
 
I don't really get why the PC version is DX11-only...I mean, surely the console versions will be DX9, so a DX9-version of the game would have to be kicking around somewhere.

I'm not against the decision since it should take more advantage of DX11 than the DX9-with-DX11-tacked-on games currently available...I'm just lamenting my own finances and low chances of being able to upgrade in time :(.
 
AMD_Gamer said:
Also, one interesting thing to note is that building that fell over and the buckling ground was caused by an earthquake, not combat.
Click to expand...

Yes, I and, im sure many others knew that, as they talk about how the are only a few clicks away from a major fault.. Plus, the ground wouldn't just magically break open from combat :rolleyes:

lol MORE INFO! NOW!
 
Plague_Injected said:
I don't really get why the PC version is DX11-only...I mean, surely the console versions will be DX9, so a DX9-version of the game would have to be kicking around somewhere.

I'm not against the decision since it should take more advantage of DX11 than the DX9-with-DX11-tacked-on games currently available...I'm just lamenting my own finances and low chances of being able to upgrade in time :(.
Click to expand...

Extra code paths to test, I imagine. You double your test matrix when putting DX9 in. Easier to just say "this is the target" - I mean...with DX11 you limit yourself to 2 generations of rendering hardware anyway, so you ALSO limit your hardware test matrix.
 
It's surprising that they are going dx11 only on PC as that cuts out a bit of player base on the pc, that could spell trouble for us on pc. Though being that the 5000 series from amd is dx11 capable it could boost low end graphics sales. IMO it's a bold move and I am glad a dev team has the nuts to do that nowadays. So many companies play it too conservatively in order to maximize profits. It's all well and good but that stifles innovation and advancement I think.
 
Those slides posted earlier, iirc said something about being able to be much more CPU and GPU efficient with a DX10/11 only engine (BF3 is DX10 and DX11, not just DX11, I'm pretty sure), which means more advanced graphics per CPU/GPU level. I think the "must support DX9" mentality in game devs has been stifling innovation for a while now, Gamers have about a 70% adoption of DX10/11 capable OSes (Vista and 7, source: steam hardware survey). Now that doesn't mean all those gamers on Vista and 7 all have DX10/11 GPUs, but I imagine anything prior to the nvidia 8xxx series which is the first nvidia DX10 GPU would be way too slow anyway.

Gamers with old GPUs and XP have PLENTY of games to play, but we have a dearth of really advanced engines that do DX10/11 _correctly_ (instead of it just being hacked on as in most games that support DX10/11). I think BF3 will drive adoption of advanced OSes and hardware amongst gamers (so does DICE, as they said in those slides posted earlier), which will cause other games to use advanced DX10/11 engines, and maybe soon after most games will. All in all, this is a good turn of events, and one that is somewhat overdue, imo.

For all we know, BF3 may look _way_ better on PC thanks to this decision than on consoles, but we don't know yet, so that may be why they are not doing DX9 on BF3 (the improved visuals may affect gameplay on the PC, as we don't know how similar the console version will be to the PC version.)
 
Oh come on, everyone who has an outdated video card has more than enough time to save up 200 dollars to buy a better dx11 supported card.
 
Actually the Steam survey says out of their 30 million users only 5.6% are on DX11.
 
I'm ok with DX11 exclusive support if it means they will optimize the hell out of it to make everything smooth and nice.
 
odex said:
Actually the Steam survey says out of their 30 million users only 5.6% are on DX11.
Click to expand...

Look at the date on that chart, it's almost a year old, there are no updated figures for DX11 vs. DX10 vs. DX9, there is only recent numbers for the percentage on Vista and 7 (DX10/11 capable OSes), as I said, ~70%, and even more if you discount Mac OS X which doesn't pertain to this discussion.

[edit]
If you click on that DX graph, you get Feb. 2011 numbers for the different DX10/11 GPUs but they are not neatly added up already, so I added up all the DX11 GPUs (ATI 5xxx series, Nvidia 460+, Nvidia 5xx), and it comes out to about ~33% for DX11 GPUs out of only DX10/11 GPUs on Vista and Win 7. Should be much higher by BF3's release.
 
Last edited:
PrincessFrosty said:
Rubbish, there was only 1 issue with my 5970 and BC2 which was flickering alpha textures in the beta that was fixed around launch, there is no micro stuttering and I certainly don't need Vsync on, nor do I need to mess with profiles

You switch the game on and play like with any other video card.

That said BFBC2 is very demanding on the CPU and a lot of gamers are CPU limited when playing, so the GPU shouldn't necessarily be the focus of any upgrade for a game like BC2 and presumably BF3.

Best to wait until closer to the time and see what works best, I'll be jumping on the new SandyBridge 8/16 core CPUs later this year as my primary upgrade for BF3 :)
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm sitting on HD 5870 2GB in crossfire and get zero problems with microstutter and I'm also using Eyefinity. I play BC2 at 4320x900, Max Settings, HBAO On, 4xAA/16xAF and get 70-80 FPS and no microstuter.

I don't understand any of these problems people claim they're getting because I've had none. Some people warned me against getting HD 5870 2GB's in crossfire w/ eyefinity and I'm glad that I ignored them (and listened to others) because getting both cards for $380 is one of the best computer purchases I've made. I max out Crysis, Crysis Warhead and Metro 2033 and have never been happier.

I think my Core i7 2600k @ 4.4GHz and 5870 2GB CFX system should be able to max out BF3 at 4320x900 (similar to 2560x1600) with 50-60 FPS hopefully.

Anyone know if maybe BF3 will take advantage of hyper-threading?
 
exlink said:
Anyone know if maybe BF3 will take advantage of hyper-threading?
Click to expand...

The developers don't really have access to that kind of particular performance aspect. An application that takes advantage of a CPU with hyper threading is indistinguishable from an application that takes advantage of a multi-core CPU in that all it does is spawn lots of threads with heavy workloads.

So if the question is, will BC2 be heavily multi-threaded: I'd say not really, first person shooters never lend themselves particularly well to parallelism.
 
Games have been multithreaded for quite sometime now. Try running BC2 on a single core and watch the performance tank.
 
saedrin said:
Whoa whoa whoa whoa.. DX11 ONLY? So my 295 is worthless?!
Click to expand...

DX11 has feature levels: DX9.0c, DX10, DX10.1, DX11 compatibility. BF3 will use the latter 3 levels, so your GTX 295 will play the game fine. Just don't expect to enable tessellation or multithreaded rendering; you'll need a new card for that.
 
Rooble91 said:
Unfortunately I cant find any video of BF3 from PAX but here is a nice little article about the demo
http://www.gamehounds.net/2011/03/11/pax-east-2011-battlefield-3-live-demo/
Click to expand...

Some highlights:

"But the most impressive new touch was the blurring effect that happened when bullets hit nearby. The screen went blurry with a fish-eye lens, as if the player was suffering from tunnel vision. It’s a scary effect that made me think he’d been hit, but without the telltale blood on the screen it was obvious he was fine. Instead of just using sound to signal that a sniper’s shot is dangerously close, this effects makes you feel how close the bullet is.

"This part of the demo ends with the player shooting a rocket at the sniper’s building, and here it’s worth mentioning that Battlefield 3 uses the new Frostbite 2 engine. Instead of just taking out a wall like in Bad Company 2, this rocket takes out the entire side of the building. As the smoke clears I can see into multiple floors, and it’s obvious the sniper is gone.

"The final part of the demo is a big battle, but the most noteworthy part came at the very end: The player jumped onto the back of a truck with a 50-calibur gun and started to unload on a street full of bad guys. Then someone shouted “earthquake,” and the ground cracked open. The truck was thrown into the air and the player fell off, again looking like a scene out of Mirror’s Edge, and when he stood back up the audience was rewarded with the destruction of a skyscraper that crumpled in on itself before falling towards the player. While this seems like scripted event, it successfully shows off the power of the Frostbite 2 engine and DICE’s attention to detail, and gives me great hope that I’ll be able take down things just as big in multiplayer."
Click to expand...
 
Eagle156 said:
I don't get it. Is Battlefield no longer a multiplayer-only game?
Click to expand...

They have to make some concession for the console crowd. There's nothing stopping the player from jumping straight into multiplayer and never touching the SP mode...I bet a few people here did that exact thing with Bad Company 2.
 
Who knows, maybe they will suprise us with some awesome singleplayer ontop of some awesome multiplayer.
 
I just started BC2 SP, its actually quite fun so far. Not sure why it got so heavily panned by users.
 
Plague_Injected said:
They have to make some concession for the console crowd. There's nothing stopping the player from jumping straight into multiplayer and never touching the SP mode...I bet a few people here did that exact thing with Bad Company 2.
Click to expand...

Never even occured to me to try single player lol...battlefield games are meant to be played online imo, sp should be treated as a tacked on bonus.
 
Oh man, are you serious. There is gonna be SP also for this? I like that, I enjoyed the SP campaign with CoD Black Ops.

I'm totally interested now.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Some highlights:
Quote:
"But the most impressive new touch was the blurring effect that happened when bullets hit nearby. The screen went blurry with a fish-eye lens, as if the player was suffering from tunnel vision. It’s a scary effect that made me think he’d been hit, but without the telltale blood on the screen it was obvious he was fine. Instead of just using sound to signal that a sniper’s shot is dangerously close, this effects makes you feel how close the bullet is."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Red Orchestra does this, released 2006. Only game I know to implement such an event. Great their adding it, though some of these 'journalists' need to hit the history books. :rolleyes:
 
SUPERGT said:
Red Orchestra does this, released 2006. Only game I know to implement such an event. Great their adding it, though some of these 'journalists' need to hit the history books. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The same article also says that BF3 will be the first Battlefield where you will be able to fly "modern jets" :p.

Having never been shot at by a sniper myself, is the effect (or the principle/idea of the effect) realistic at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top