Maxxed out graphics

[IceFire 0]

Ok, a long time ago someone posted pics on this forum showing off the games graphics at the BEST POSSIBLE QUALITY. Everything was maxed out.

They looked freakin' amazing. I've never seen anything like that in OPF since. Not since getting my computer upgraded, nor in other peoples posts here.

Can someone please post pics of these. Remember, these are not just damn good graphics, the guy said that the graphics were pretty much the best the game can possibly offer. So please only post if they are the absolute best possible.

It looked like a whole different game.

And if you are capable of this and post them, please post your system specifications. I may even try to get that system or equivelant and play OPF like that.

Thanks.

[blackdog~ 0]

he said it lagged to death though, can't remember his name. he made that fancy apache retexture. i'm sure major fubar would know

[Tex -USMC- 0]

That would be Satchel, and yeah, those pics did look awesome. He also mentioned something about framerates below ten.

[IceFire 0]

Wow, does anyone have pics?

How much would the TOTAL cost for me to buy a computer with everything needed that could play the game on MAXXED out settings and play perfectly smoothly in singleplayer and online?

[SFG 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 02 2003,04:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, does anyone have pics?

How much would the TOTAL cost for me to buy a computer with everything needed that could play the game on MAXXED out settings and play perfectly smoothly in singleplayer and online?<span id='postcolor'>

Well.. you can ask nasa.. but theres no comp on the market that can yet .. i dont think

[Mister Frag 0]

Yes, Suma indicated that the computer that can run with maximum terrain detail at acceptable framerates doesn't exist yet.

However, if you choose the best visual quality and lowest desired framerate in the Video Options dialog, and combine that with a tweaking of the video card (Digital Vibrance in the case of NVIDIA cards, a negative MipMap bias, anisotropic filtering and antialiasing), you'll get very nice graphics.

[IceFire 0]

Hehe,

Ofcourse that last paragraph you said makes no sense to me. That is normal.

I think I'll just wait a year or 2 and then buy the best possible computer on the market and THEN start playing Resistence on IT.

[dayglow 2]

Well with a 1.8 amd cpu running on a 142 fbs with 1024mb ram and GF4, I find that I can run with high and very high terrain with 1.5km view distance at a good rate. Usually run with high because very high is too bumpy and doesn't look right.

COLINMAN

[blackdog~ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ April 01 2003,23:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well with a 1.8 amd cpu running on a 142 fbs with 1024mb ram and GF4, I find that I can run with high and very high terrain with 1.5km view distance at a good rate. Usually run with high because very high is too bumpy and doesn't look right.

COLINMAN<span id='postcolor'>

... how can I do something like this?

(Send me a PM)

[dayglow 2]

well I ran fraps to see what exactly my fps are, and they are lower than I thought, but hey, gameplay is smooth enough so I'm keeping it. OFP really runs well at lower fps vs other games. Other games if I'm running at 20-30 it feels slow, but OFP still seems smooth.

This first shot is from battlefields, so pretty much maxed out and you can see from the fps

pic1

Second is from BAS addon mission (damn I wish there were more missions that used these addons)

pic2

COLINMAN

[blackdog~ 0]

Your damned canadian webhost is slow!

Do you overclock?

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ April 02 2003,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your damned canadian webhost is slow!

Do you overclock?<span id='postcolor'>

yep. I have a amd xp1800+ running at 1775 on a 142 fsb. (also my GF4 is a TI4400 running at a little over 4600 speed)

These thourobred cores o/c very nicely. so for around $100cdn I have a very fast cpu. I'd love to get it on a 166fsb, but my damn mb doesn't have the 1/5 pci divider so 142 is as high as it will go (so I guess I have a 9mhz oc on my ram/pci/agp bus) It will run all the way up to 148, but then the computer hangs on any reboot, so I'm staying safe at 142 and everything is nice and stable.

COLINMAN

[blackdog~ 0]

I barely understood one word you said there... hehe.

Here is a picture of mine (unedited)

http://www.tacticalblunder.com/blackdog/images/whatic-1.bmp

http://www.tacticalblunder.com/blackdog/images/whatic-2.bmp

[OxPecker 0]

Pardon my technical ignorance, but which of the following have the biggest/least drain on CPU/RAM -

View Distance

Terrain Detail

Resolution

Visual Quality

Frames Per Second

[Supah 0]

Jeez guys dont use *.bmp files!!!! The format has crappy compression, makes them unnecesarilly large Get to know *.jpg ..... jpg is your friend! Do it with photoshop (does mspaint even know how to do jpg?) it has very good compression rates

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ April 02 2003,12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(does mspaint even know how to do jpg?)<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. You can create JPGs and save BMPs as JPGs.

[stgn 39]

you can do it but dont mspaint    sucks at making .jpg they gat realy bad youse another pogram if you can just dont youse mspaint  

STGN

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

oh no. I was supposed to reply to another thread

Edit: Yea you can save in jpg in mspain, that only works in WinXp i think.

[2stoned2kil- 0]

I have a GF-4 ti 4200 , p3 871mhz and 512mb ram and I play this game at 1600x1200 with no problem

terrain detail on normal and view distance 900m

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ April 02 2003,15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yea you can save in jpg in mspain, that only works in WinXp i think.<span id='postcolor'>

Works in Win95, too.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,15:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ April 02 2003,15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yea you can save in jpg in mspain, that only works in WinXp i think.<span id='postcolor'>

Works in Win95, too. <span id='postcolor'>

yes if you force open a .jpg file

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ April 02 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, if you choose the best visual quality and lowest desired framerate in the Video Options dialog, and combine that with a tweaking of the video card (Digital Vibranceâ„¢ in the case of NVIDIA cards, a negative MipMap bias, anisotropic filtering and antialiasing), you'll get very nice graphics.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have recommended settings for these and other Detonator values for a PIV 2GB notebook with a 64MB Nvidia Go 440 chipset?

Just installed the same Detonators you have.

[Mister Frag 0]

The only setting I initially applied through the Detonator control panel applet was the "Best Quality" option.

All other tweaks I have made were done using RivaTuner, which you can get from Guru3D.

I use it to overclock my GeForce4 Ti4600 slightly, enable Fastwrites and Sideband addressing, apply a Mipmap Bias of -1.0, enable and optimize anisotropic filtering (level 2 or higher has to be used for FSAA), Quincunx FSAA, a moderate level of Digital Vibrance, enable vertical retrace lock, setting a pre-render limit of 1, and maxing out the vertical refresh rate across all resolutions and color depths.

In OFP, I max out Visual Quality and minimize the Desired Framerate setting. This still allows me to play with a view distance of 2000 meters at 1600x1200 with good frame rates. I do use the lowest level of terrain detail however, but this is largely because high levels of terrain detail make the ground look like a guy on crack went nuts with a bulldozer.

[Milkman 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ April 02 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only setting I initially applied through the Detonator control panel applet was the "Best Quality" option.

All other tweaks I have made were done using RivaTuner, which you can get from Guru3D.

I use it to overclock my GeForce4 Ti4600 slightly, enable Fastwrites and Sideband addressing, apply a Mipmap Bias of -1.0, enable and optimize anisotropic filtering (level 2 or higher has to be used for FSAA), Quincunx FSAA, a moderate level of Digital Vibrance, enable vertical retrace lock, setting a pre-render limit of 1, and maxing out the vertical refresh rate across all resolutions and color depths.

In OFP, I max out Visual Quality and minimize the Desired Framerate setting. This still allows me to play with a view distance of 2000 meters at 1600x1200 with good frame rates. I do use the lowest level of terrain detail however, but this is largely because high levels of terrain detail make the ground look like a guy on crack went nuts with a bulldozer.<span id='postcolor'>

uhhhhh, what did you say?

Mr. Frag, what do u do for a living? I guessing computer engineer. Your knowledge is far beyond that of anyone around here.

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pardon my technical ignorance, but which of the following have the biggest/least drain on CPU/RAM -

View Distance

Terrain Detail

Resolution

Visual Quality

Frames Per Second<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say the biggest draw on your cpu is visual distance. Your cpu has to set up all the polygons for your vid card to do.

If you have a good vid card then resolution probably is the least. There are just as many polygons in a scene, no matter the rez, so it comes down to fill rate, how fast your card can throw those polygons into the screen.

Terrain quality seems to rely heavily on the ram. Must be to store the extra verticies needed to draw the more complex scenes. I used to run at 2.0km with low terrain with 512mb of ram, but when I went to 1024, I found that I could raise the terrain mesh higher with less of a penatly. So 1.5km with high was a nice compramise. With the extra rolling terrain it's easier to find cover.

BTW I know how to compress to jpgs, but I was showing visual quality so I left it uncompressed. That's a raw screen cap with no compression or resizing to alter the image.

COLINMAN