A PC Gaming Rant....

what exactly do you want? the current technology is only so fast. if a programmer could get far cry to run on a voodoo 3 at 60fps, they'd be worth their weight in gold. if it looks really nice, chances are pretty good that it's going to require a very high-end card. that's just the way it is.

i suppose they could just cap the settings so you can't push the machine too hard, but that would be like the built-in 800x600 max resolutions of a few years ago.

doom 3's highest settings require a graphics card with 512mb of texture memory. obviously they don't expect people to turn it up that high unless they've got a card that will work with it (which won't exist for a year at least).

i think it's good that the current engines can run on anything from an ati 8500 to a gf 6800. you can't expect it'll look the same, of course, but it avoids the chicken and egg problem of which comes first -- the games or the cards that can make them hum.

 

Maybe you didnt see that I was on a top of the line system, with one of the best cards on the market, that came out near the same time FarCry did. (ATI 9800XT Platinum)

It's ridiculous to expect consumer-level gamers to buy a new $500 card just to play a $50 game once a year. And with the new x800 XT Platinum (PCIe 16x) and GeForce equivalent NOT EVEN OUT YET (there are waiting lists miles long), I cant even play HL2 at full tilt. With what STILL remains as one of the better high-end cards in full production.

And trust me, I have owned every high end card as it comes out. The Ti4600 when it first hit, and then the 9800XT. Both of which are exemplary cards.

I dont want to turn this into a nVidia vs. ATI discussion, so please dont even go there.

My point is, when I buy a $50 game that is supposed to be stellar, and I also own one of the top cards available to the market, I dont want to be pissed off because I cannot play the game without some sort of lag, jumpiness or clipping.

I love the idea of pushing technology, but at the same time, we have to remain realistic.

 

exactly what qualifies as "full tilt"? the settings are adjustable for a reason.

what makes you think that's where i was going?

i really don't understand what the problem is. it sounds like you don't like having the option to turn on advanced features. you can't play HL2 "full tilt". okay, so are you suggesting they disable the ability for others (with better graphics cards) to play it "full tilt"? how pissed would you be if far cry didn't look half as good as it does because they wanted to make sure that geforce 4's didn't bog down with all the fancy lighting effects?

as the technology improves, developers will always add more stuff into the mix. the level of detail is only limited by the graphics card, so having the ability to tune the level of detail to the graphics card in your system makes total sense. i personally like the idea of having the ability to tune to my particular tastes.

is 16x aniso filtering worh the slow-down? what about anti-aliasing? and what frame rate is still playable? it's very subjective.

 

full tilt = maxed out = highest resolution + 32-bit + AA + Ansio Filterting etc etc

I bought the highest end video card on the market.

Why can I not play the game at these settings?

That's all I'm saying. And I didnt mean that you were heading towards the nVidia vs ATI thing...I just know it could have taken a left turn and gone that way (from anyone).

I understand they want to be on the bleeding edge, but when I buy the top of the line card and throw it into a PC that doesnt get much better, I should not be fucking limited and have to "tune down" the fucking settings.

That's all I'm trying to say.

And believe me, Im on 3 waiting lists for a x800 XT Platinum PCIe 16x as well as a 6800 Ultra. I will be testing both. And if I cannot play ALL current games at light speeds above and beyond the 9800XT, Im going to send the fuckers back.

 

Is the XT 128 Meg or 256 Meg?

 

And you simply dont understand a bit about DX8 vs DX9.

There are numerous articles on the web about the life expectancy of the GF4 for this reason. It's the extra eye candy that taxes the card. The GF4 is only doing half the rendering workload of the higher end DX9 cards, so it can still put up respectable framerates.

I was getting 40-60 fps even in gunfights, with what eye candy i could run & a gig of PC3200. My raw framerate with my GF 6800 only went up 10-15%, but i had all that extra eyecandy rendered too.

 

I answered this, but you chose not to read it. Your fault.

 

You said you're using a Ti4400 though, right?

I had a Ti4600, top of the line, at its time, before I ever had the 9800XT.

 

256.

 

Was using a Ti4400, yes. I got really good framerates on Doom3 too, which surprised me. Didnt look as pretty though.

Wasnt much difference between a Ti4400 & a 4600, in today's terms.