This topic contains 18 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Laptops Daddy 10 years, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #5101

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    I was reading user reviews on download.com and someone there said that the minimum specs (listed here) are misleadingly low.

    So before I raise them, I must ask opinions on this. Should the minimum requirements be raised? I’m most looking for opinions of those who’s comps fall in that minimum system requirement range (if there are any).

    Btw, nice unbiased review, Willis…

    @willis wrote:

    [5 out of 5 stars]
    Great game, always improving!
    05-Dec-2006 01:36:49 PM
    Reviewer: Will5639

    Pros: I don’t get why some people are saying their systems were broke from this game.. they probably have something else wrong.—

    If there are installation or gameplay problems, ask the Scorched community for help! —

    For a game that is free, it has great graphics and replay value. Take your game to multiplayer for a real challenge. —

    Many servers and mods to choose from that really mix up the gameplay.—

    Bottem line, if you liked the classic ‘Scorched Earth’ you will enjoy this game!

    Cons: Force 5 Winds!

    #37317

    cbx550f
    Participant

    They might be a bit low after some of the changes in the past version or two. I’ll try to remember to get my 500Mhz machine with a 16MB Voodoo Banshee out and test it – that’ll be a good measurement.

    Although, I’d be curious to find out how many of the people who think that the min reqs are too low are running XP with <512MB RAM, and a cheap integrated video chip. 😉

    #37318

    jdog
    Participant

    With some of the new features the game proabally needs some more power to run. It seems like the main factors are the video card and system ram then CPU speed.

    #37319

    Shotzo
    Participant

    Most of the new features can be turned off in the options..

    I figure we should figure out the min. system requirements required in order to play 800×600 at 16-bit depth; 60Hz refresh rate…..
    no water; no texture on the tanks; effects detail 0; tank detail 0; detail 0; no sound (or little to none); no boids, trees, ships, or things of that sort… and still manage 20.0fps when aiming..

    #37320

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    My line of thinking is that now with the “fast options” button, minimum system requirements should be provided with that in mind for consistency.

    As a matter of fact, I will probably add this to the descriptor soon on the System Requirements soon.

    #37321

    Panther30
    Participant

    I vote yes.

    I have tried scorched on various machines. Yes it is playable on a pii 450 with 512 megs of ram and a geforce 2 graphics card with 32mb of video ram… Linux was the os.

    yes… it is playable on a notebook with an SISM741 chipset(64mb video ram) and a 1.8 ghz sempron processor and 2 gb of ram, but only at 640×480 res (27 fps with medium settings) any higher and the frame rate drops to 9fps(even with everything turned down low or off) and the game only plays on this machine if you use the software mouse… windows xp is hte OS.

    A decent 3d card is a must for this game to have it run smoothly. I mean who wants to play if the game is going to run at 4 fps and take forever to load up(tried this on a p ii 450 with onboard graphics and 256 megs of ram)? (OS windows 98SE)

    yes, the minimum requirements need changing but more testing needs to be done….

    #37322

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Previous comments from the other topic:

    @shotzo wrote:

    Usually minimum requirements means..

    minimum.. requirements.. to get the game to be ‘playable’

    albeit without any water, any textures, or for that matter.. any tanks =)

    @panther30 wrote:

    I vote yes.

    I have tried scorched on various machines. Yes it is playable on a pii 450 with 512 megs of ram and a geforce 2 graphics card with 32mb of video ram…

    yes… it is playable on a notebook with an SISM741 chipset and a 1.8 ghz sempron processor, but only at 640×480 res (27 fps with medium settings) any higher and the frame rate drops to 9fps(even with everything turned down low or off) and the game only plays on this machine if you use the software mouse…

    A decent 3d card is a must for this game to have it run smoothly. I mean who wants to play if the game is going to run at 4 fps and take forever to load up(tried this on a p ii 450 with onboard graphics and 256 megs of ram)?

    yes, the minimum requirements need changing but more testing needs to be done….

    @thrax wrote:

    @panther30 wrote:

    A decent 3d card is a must for this game to have
    it run smoothly. I mean who wants to play if the game is going to run at
    4 fps and take forever to load up(tried this on a p ii 450 with onboard
    graphics and 256 megs of ram)?

    yes, the minimum requirements need changing but more testing needs
    to be done….

    OS is a factor too.

    Using win98se, i played smoothly (fps 30-50) with p2/550, 320mb ram
    and 16mb nvidea. simple water, lower details.

    It lagged out with xp (fps2-7), using a p3/800, 512mb, 32mb nvidea.

    @willis wrote:

    Oh.. you noticed that… 😳

    Ya know I seen those reviews myself, I never considered much about the minimum-specs guy as I figured it was exactly as Shatzo commented… if I may paraphrase… “it’ll run, but it may not look pretty”.

    In my own review, I don’t mean to sound biased, but after being here for multiple years and knowing the community.. I may have treaded that fine line too far.

    Funny you stumbled upon it so soon… being it was only last WEEK 😛 .. I was driven into saying SOMETHING after those people say their systems fell apart. I’ve never see anything to this degree ever happen… and anything I have seen for problems here at the forums, I’ve seen people get as much help as can be.



    ANYWAY!!! Back to the topic…

    Those reports of people with minimum specs being wrong might be true .. Anyone wanna visit a junkyard and pull one of those old computers out? 😆

    I would think an ideal “minimum” condition would allow people to manage a running game.. all minimum specs… with time limits and requirements. Connection Lag is one thing but not system lag. With about… 8 players in all. Mode 800×600.

    @mooic wrote:

    Rcommended system
    OS: Any**
    1 GHz Processor
    256 Mb RAM (320 Mb for Win XP)
    250 Mb Hard Disk space (including swap file usage)
    Non-integrated 64MB 3D Accelerated Graphics Card
    DirectX 8 (at least)***

    I have

    XP SP2
    1.52Ghz Processor
    704Mb RAM
    45Gbytes Hdd Free
    INTEGRATED 64MB 3D Radeon 320M Graphics
    Latest Direct X

    You would think that from that list that it would run fine! But no, the framerate drops to 5 on complicated maps like in Appoc. The problem here is the integated graphics! I vote no as with a propper graphics card i know it will run fine, but i do not have that option because it is a Notebook 🙁

    #37323

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    If it helps, I’ve tested on a 1500ish with AGP 32MB Rage3D. Just about plays (20fps)

    and a recent (3000ish 64bit) laptop with integrated/shared main. Same (just about). (That’s 40.1d without water).

    Voted Yes.

    ‘3D accelerated card’ would include say an 8MB SIS6326 AGP (no way would play) and a 500Mhz (P3 flavour) CPU sounds very low.

    #37324

    cbx550f
    Participant

    I played happily for a LONG time on a 500 MHz, then a 1.3 GHz machine with a 32 MB GeForce2, FWIW.

    #37325

    Hapless Hero
    Participant

    Most of my playing was done on a 300-something MHz PII with a Geforce 2 and 384 MB of RAM. Granted, these were upgrades, but it will still a slow computer and I ran everything at nearly full detail. Obviously there were problems to be encountered with DHs and Funkies and stuff, but I didn’t care…Big booms were big booms.

    #37326

    cbx550f
    Participant

    I think this makes a point: There are WAY too many variables involved to exactly say “You need x this and y that”, nevermind the fact that it’s extremely subjective. Maybe we should just stop mentioning “Minimum system requirements” and just say “Suggested System Specifications” or something?

    #37327

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    @cbx550f wrote:

    I think this makes a point: There are WAY too many variables involved to exactly say “You need x this and y that”, nevermind the fact that it’s extremely subjective. Maybe we should just stop mentioning “Minimum system requirements” and just say “Suggested System Specifications” or something?

    Well, I’m worried that only providing suggested requirements will turn new players off from thinking about playing the game if they have a low-end system. Which is probably why there’s a minimum requirements section on retail games.

    #37328

    cbx550f
    Participant

    Yes, but note that the “minimum system requirements” on most commercial stuff is actually WAY more than you need. 😉

    #37329

    BOY
    Participant

    There was a review i remember reading that said graphics acceleration is a must, but I dont have a card, and I get along.

    #37330

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    I think you have to say “minimum…” and it should be accurate. If some poor kid with a 1/2Mbit connection spends 3 hours downloading, only to find it runs at 6fps…

    Minimum reqs. from what I can see are a 32MB? Nvidia TNT/ATI Rage 3D era graphics card*. That’s pretty much any card made within the last decade. (Do capacitors even last that long?)

    Trust me. I’m an outsider.

    *That’s: graphics performance equivalent to one of those cards. (A modern shared RAM/IGP would do it).

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.