Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 22, 2007 Since I'm in the OpF's official forum, I presume there are more chances in havin' an official answer, if not some more reliable info from the programmers. What kind of PC is needed to run OpF Resistence 1.96 SMOOTHLY with the setviewdistance on it's max, terrain detail on it's max, maximum number of friendlies & enemies in the screen (with the editor), with an acceptable (for me) resolution of 1024x768x32? If possible, can someone please type exactly the specifics required -videocard (GeForce is highly recommmended than ATI for what I know, as it's more compatible), processor, etc.! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metal Heart 0 Posted March 22, 2007 People will walk on Mars before that is possible on a home computer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 22, 2007 People will walk on Mars before that is possible on a home computer. Oooookay, how about 1024x768x16 instead? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted March 22, 2007 Putting everything on the highest available setting (including AA & AF), even with 16 bit colors is just impossible without a huge drop in FPS... I've never heard of anyone that has managed to do it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 23, 2007 The reason I ask this is that last year I had for a coupla weeks a laptop that's faster than our PC, but not extremely powerfull, like a 3Ghz (although 1.8Ghz), 1Gb RAM used up by the memory's videocard too (ATI Radeon-something that gave problems at the end of the two weeks); yet when I've played the official single mission Battlefields there were no FPS drops at all. I presume that with a dualcore processor and a high performing videocard -not EXTREMELY high- there shouldn't be much of a hassle with home-made missions using loads of platoons, or with unofficial mods (SLX, anyone?). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 23, 2007 Putting everything on the highest available setting (including AA & AF), even with 16 bit colors is just impossible without a huge drop in FPS...I've never heard of anyone that has managed to do it... Uhm, but if there are PCs that can run ArmA with it's vast environment to explore, don't tell me there isn't a computer that can run OpF Resistence questioned as above?? P.S.: AA & AF? Whazzat? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ZG-BUZZARD 0 Posted March 23, 2007 The problem with OFP is that it uses the CPU and RAM intensely to render EVERYTHING on the map most of the time and it really bogs the system down, is unable to take advantage of multiprocessing... Let's say that maybe if you had like a single-core 10GHz CPU with huge amounts of RAM and everything running at an extreme FSB, you might be able to run OFP with everything maxed out, but as it stands, it's one of those programs destined to occasionally stutter even on current top-of-the-line systems. AA: Anti-aliasing. (Related to sharpness). AF: Anisotropic Filtering. (Related to viewdistance rendering, I think...). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metal Heart 0 Posted March 23, 2007 Anti-aliasing smooths the jagged edges of polygons. Anisotropic filtering sharpens textures that are in an angle. Has a great effect in OFP. Here's some shots: No anisotropic filtering 4x anisotropic filtering 16x anisotropic filtering Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 24, 2007 Thanks [ZG]BUZZARD and Metal Heart for the infos. Ok, I guess I wasn't fully clear with the first post, sorry 'bout that. What I really meant was, what PC is required to have altogether: 1) a large number of AIs in the screen; 2) the maximum value of setviewdistance without having any FPS drops; 3) the terrain's detail set on VERY HIGH, and with VERY HIGH I am actually meaning a rough terrain, not flat like an iced lake that I've been playing on since OpF was born. I'm not concerned at all with the AA and AF values since I don't care about graphic's beauty as much as great and immersive gameplay. I hope I've made myself understood this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 26, 2007 So much for hoping in having answers in OpF's OFFICIAL forum. Mah... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kirby 2 Posted March 26, 2007 Be patient, duck head Rex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 27, 2007 Be patient, duck head Rex Quack! What puzzles me is the difficulty in having an answer; if ArmA can be played at great graphic levels with many AIs fighting each other, I guess Resistence 1.96 can run wonderfully at it's limits -or very close to. So... why is it so hard to have an official reply from the programmers? I'm wishing too much perhaps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deusrexmachina 0 Posted March 27, 2007 BUZZARD @ Mar. 23 2007,12:57)]The problem with OFP is that it uses the CPU and RAM intensely to render EVERYTHING on the map most of the time and it really bogs the system down, is unable to take advantage of multiprocessing... Let's say that maybe if you had like a single-core 10GHz CPU with huge amounts of RAM and everything running at an extreme FSB, you might be able to run OFP with everything maxed out, but as it stands, it's one of those programs destined to occasionally stutter even on current top-of-the-line systems.AA: Anti-aliasing. (Related to sharpness). AF: Anisotropic Filtering. (Related to viewdistance rendering, I think...). With my impatiance I didn't read properly your reply. And I guess my nOOb-ishness has arised! Silly question: does ArmA render less than Resistence 1.96? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
