#3752801 - 03/18/13 10:15 AM
Re: Hardware survey
[Re: messyhead]
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 48
gr1mR36p3r
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 48
italy, napoli
|
Phenom II , 4 core @ 3,6ghz 8 gb ram @ 1ghz Ati 5870 @2ghz monitor fullhd (27", 1920*1080) and thanx
Last edited by gr1mR36p3r; 03/18/13 10:16 AM.
|
|
#3752927 - 03/18/13 03:25 PM
Re: Hardware survey
[Re: arneh]
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
messyhead
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
I think the idea is to have a default which is safe and mostly likely to work for everyone, and then let people increase with resolutions and features as their system allows. I suppose, but 640*480 is pretty low. I'd imagine 1024*768 would be a minimum these days. Most websites use that as a minimum width now when designing them. And for the texture color and some other such options to be enabled you have to have the textures installed, which isn't necessarily the case for everyone. But I guess a system could be made to check for those textures and only enable if they are. I didn't think of that. What would happen if it was enabled and the textures weren't installed?
Last edited by messyhead; 03/18/13 03:25 PM.
|
|
#3753063 - 03/18/13 07:48 PM
Re: Hardware survey
[Re: messyhead]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
Pentium 4 HT
2.8 Ghz
2 GB Ram
128MB video card
playing in 1280x960
That's pretty good considering in 2000 I used to play this on a
Pentium 3 450 Mhz
64 MB Ram
8 MB video card
playing in 800x600
What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
|
|
#3754354 - 03/20/13 08:31 PM
Re: Hardware survey
[Re: LazerPotatoe]
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
messyhead
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
I agree with keeping things to 640x480 to allow the most people access.
Changing the resolution via Options menu is not difficult.
What benefit do you see with increasing the minimum res?
But I think setting to to 1024*768 will still allow the most people access. If you take a look at the minimum screen resolution that is collected from websites, the most popular resolution is now 1366*768. I know that's not indicative of game stats, but it at least shows that 640*480 is practically obsolete. The benefit I see is not having to make people set the resolution from something really low, and also modernising the game a bit.
|
|
#3782066 - 05/14/13 02:36 PM
Re: Hardware survey
[Re: messyhead]
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 284
Haukka81
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 284
Kemij�rvi,Finland
|
Hi, i would love to get better flight models. But more eyecandy is ok too. So my rig is: 3570K OC to 4.0ghz 8G DDR 1600mhz Radeon 6870 1G 180G SSD Drive logitehc G940 HOTASTrack IR 4 -haukka81
I5 8400 , 16gb , GTX 1070 oc , Win10 64bit . Virpil T-50 27" monitor with 2560x1440 rez ... DCS + Oculus CV1 + Samsung Odyssey . (odyssey is better for flight sims)
|
|
#3782374 - 05/14/13 11:23 PM
Re: Hardware survey
[Re: messyhead]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
I have a new computer with lot of RAM and a good video card and fast processor but it's always tied up for work.
So I am playing on my old computer and it plays fine:
Pentium 4 HT 2.8 GHZ
2 GB RAM
Windows XP Professional SP 3
ATI Radeon 128 MB Video Card
playing in 1280x1024 on a 20 inch flat screen
Still better than the computer I had when I bought EECH in 2000:
Pentium 3 450 MHZ 64 MB RAM Windows 98 SE 4 MB ATI Video Card (can't remember the model, may have been an early ATI Rage) playing in 800x600 on a 14.5 inch CRT monitor
What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
|
|
|
|