First impressions
- Thread starter munkZ
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
"When this game is two years old there will probably be graphics cards out there than can play the game with everything cranked up and a ton of action on the screen at 1280x1024x32bit at 95fps. But there aren't any machines like that right now just like there weren't any machines that could do that for UT when it shipped. That doesn't make the game any less than fun or ground-breaking than it is. "
-Mark Rein
Is it just me reading this wrong or is he saying be happy with 640x480 until they invent something which can play the game we've made?
http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2330570#post2330570
-Mark Rein
Is it just me reading this wrong or is he saying be happy with 640x480 until they invent something which can play the game we've made?
http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2330570#post2330570
when i had UT first of all i was on a pii 400 with a voodoo banshee
playing in 640-480 16 bit lol
so yeah i kinda know where he is comeing from
playing in 640-480 16 bit lol
so yeah i kinda know where he is comeing from
snake, its the same as the original UT, i had to run it at 800x600 on my TNT2 to get it playable 
lol
I had a tnt2 Athlon 700 and 128 mb ram at first.
i ran UT in 1024*768 , 16 bit colours and medium/high details from the day i got it.
used to run perfectly without any probs and on all maps. After 6 months or so it would die, but id just format and all would be well again.
The only time i had performance probs from that pc whilst playin ut was while i was at uni sharing cable.
You dont need a contstant 100 fps anyways, ut2003 will run fine on a decent pc, at a decent resolution and at a decent detail level!
imo anyway
I had a tnt2 Athlon 700 and 128 mb ram at first.
i ran UT in 1024*768 , 16 bit colours and medium/high details from the day i got it.
used to run perfectly without any probs and on all maps. After 6 months or so it would die, but id just format and all would be well again.
The only time i had performance probs from that pc whilst playin ut was while i was at uni sharing cable.
You dont need a contstant 100 fps anyways, ut2003 will run fine on a decent pc, at a decent resolution and at a decent detail level!
imo anyway
Of course you can't expect to play UT2k3 at the same resolution like UT and still get 95 fps...
And 2k3 @ 800x600 still looks ALOT better than UT @ 1600x1200.
Monk: Maybe he's just saying that it doesnt take 95 fps to enjoy a game
And 2k3 @ 800x600 still looks ALOT better than UT @ 1600x1200.
Monk: Maybe he's just saying that it doesnt take 95 fps to enjoy a game
@ GRZ 
I hope i get a decent fps when i get the game im happy if i have 60 fps so if anyone knows what fps i will get with
Amd athlon 1,3 ghz with 256 mb sd ram and a Leadtek Winfast GeForce 4 Ti4400 128MB DDR pls tell me
im happy if i have 60 fps so if anyone knows what fps i will get with Amd athlon 1,3 ghz with 256 mb sd ram and a Leadtek Winfast GeForce 4 Ti4400 128MB DDR pls tell me
"why does everyone want an utlra high fps? afaik u can't see anything faster than 60 fps
not sure about that but i seem to recall reading it somewhere..."
They want a ultra high average fps cos its an average, if it was an average of 60 then youre gonna get framerates lower than that, which means it wont be as smooth. If you have an average of 100 then its more like the fps will never drop below 60
and about the human eye seein 60fps, not completely true, ive seen articles saying that its more like 70 or 80, if i can be bothered ill find a link later - just stick your monitor on 60Hz refresh then on 85 or 100, i can notice the difference, dunno bout you
not sure about that but i seem to recall reading it somewhere..."
They want a ultra high average fps cos its an average, if it was an average of 60 then youre gonna get framerates lower than that, which means it wont be as smooth. If you have an average of 100 then its more like the fps will never drop below 60
and about the human eye seein 60fps, not completely true, ive seen articles saying that its more like 70 or 80, if i can be bothered ill find a link later - just stick your monitor on 60Hz refresh then on 85 or 100, i can notice the difference, dunno bout you
Originally posted by Uzi-Suicide
snake, its the same as the original UT, i had to run it at 800x600 on my TNT2 to get it playable
haha ya k m8
but i prefer that they make a game what u can run smooth with this generation computers
and i got also a TNT2 on my old pc, i pld there with 1024x786
but erm ok,.... on siege when u look down from top of tower i got fps 3
then dont look from top of siege ya twat
Btw, if they always make games thatll run smooth on this generation of PCs, then there would never be any innovation in engines, which means hardware ppl wouldnt have to make next generation graphics cards etc. So if they listened to you we'd still be playin Doom on 486s fs
Btw, if they always make games thatll run smooth on this generation of PCs, then there would never be any innovation in engines, which means hardware ppl wouldnt have to make next generation graphics cards etc. So if they listened to you we'd still be playin Doom on 486s fs
id like to see this link about the human eye perceiving that many fps ross tbh
and imo any fps 40 and above is perfectly playable, providing it never goes below 40 that is
and imo any fps 40 and above is perfectly playable, providing it never goes below 40 that is
well tbh, as long as you got a constant 40+ its fine, but id definitely prefer a constant 70 or 80
ill go look for the link now
ill go look for the link now