The game rocks! hehe. Normally I'm not a fan of frag games, but this one is really cool! It was fun roasting all those borg drones! and the cut scenes were kick ass! If it's one problem I have though, its that it sometimes locks up on me for no reason. Is this a demo bug or is something not configured correctly?
Pentium 3 processor running at 650 MHZ 128 Mb ram Windows 98 Over 20 Gb of hard drive space
[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Could be your graphics card. I don't think it will run on my system because I don't have a 3D accelerator OpenGL whatever card.
My system specs: (OS) Windows ME (4.90 - 3000) (CPU) 1-Intel Pentium III, 933MHz (RAM) 128MB SDRAM-133MHz (HD) 40 GigaBytes
[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
If it was my graphics card, why doesn;t lock up as soon as all the graphic intensive stuff gets started? I don't know. As I said, it only sometimes locks up. hmmmm I wonder if there isn't a patch available at a website or something.
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
It's a demo. Unstable. Bit buggy. That's why it locks up at certain points.
Btw, the full version is very stable, so if you like the demo, I can recommend it
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Cool! Now all I have to do is scrape up 50 bucks! Then I have to set my phasers to frag! MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :
That's so sad.... It works perfect on my old PII 266Mhz 128mb SDRAM, 10Gb HDD, but then again I have a Voodoo3 in there so that's probably it
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Kick ass!!! I just found Elite Force for $22!! hehe. But, alas, I still can't afford it. Is it just me or has the world been setting up everybody so that they can't afford anything anymore? Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
Here's a thought: Get a job! Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
LOL. Now there's a thought.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"I don't think it will run on my system because I don't have a 3D accelerator OpenGL whatever card."
It doesn't need a OpenGL compatible card. A Direct 3d compatible one works.
Actually, I don't know ANY game that wants an OpenGL card, but refused to accept a Direct 3d one.
".... It works perfect on my old PII 266Mhz 128mb SDRAM, 10Gb HDD, but then again I have a Voodoo3 in there so that's probably it."
Not to criticise your set-up, because I used to have something pretty bad, but bragging about owning a Voodoo3 is like bragging about owning a Betamax.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
[nitpick] It's TRIED, not tryed [/nitpick]
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I played the game. it was ok. I found that it was real short. and the loading times were slow even on a 900MHZ. the animations were kinda jerky. It looked nice overall though. not really any in depth stuff though. you just go through the level and blow stuff up. i wouldn't buy it for my own computer but a couple friends of mine, really like it.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I just ordered the full version yesterday. for 27 dollars. Jerky animations you say? I didn't have that problem with the demo. And I have a lowly 650 MHZ computer. I also found the loading times to be fairly brief. I guess more MHz doesn't always mean better!
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Well, they weren't really jerky, poor choice of word. but they seemed rough, the characters movements didn't seem smooth. when they changed direction, it seemed like the whole action took 1 or 2 frames. they were facing one direction, then the other. they developers could have taken a little more time to smooth it out. the character animations seemed rushed. but overall. it was the best star trek game i've seen so far.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
650? ha!!! lowly? HA!!!!! i have a pentium 2 333MHZ, so don't be talking about a 650 being lowly!!! it also has a 10 gig hard drive, it used to have a 3 gig, but it died. hell they don't even make 3 gigs anymore. 128 megs of ram. ATI rage video card. about 4 years old. needless to say, my computer sucks!!!!!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Nowadays, the graphic card is at least as important as the CPU for games.
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
Well, I haven't tried Elite Force, but I have played the Descent III demo, which has heavy 3D graphics. I find that it takes a little bit to render the explosions after playing for a while. I have a Celeron 500 MHz, 64MB of RAM, and I think my graphics card is a Wild Tangent something-or-other. And I only know that because there's a Wild Tangent control in my Win98 Control Panel. Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
when i installed the delta force 2 demo, i had the resolution down to around 300 X 200 or something like that. and it still ran crappy.
and the Oni demo. one frame every five seconds! it took me 45 minutes to navigate the main menu to the Quit button.
Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
I liked Elite Force, they managed to recreate the Trek feel pretty well. I'd agree with the Evil Lord in saying that the problem is due to it being a demo. It's rare enough that all demos will work perfectly for you. With your spec I'm sure the full version will work fine.
Unfortunately I've been out of the PC games loop for a while. Although my stone-age P166 32MB w/PowerVR is okay for certain things like programming, and internet browsing, the last games I was realistically able to play were of the Starcraft/Jedi Knight/X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter generation.
At the moment I'm depending on the ol' Playstation for my gaming. I'm biding my time when it comes to getting a PC (understatement, I know), but I may take the plunge soon and go for something of the 1.5GHz ilk. I don't like the idea of getting a PC with some resource-hogging behemoth of a Windows OS, but I don't really see a realistic alternative in terms of software compatability. BTW Does anyone have recommendations for AMD Athlon vs P4?
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Isn't 1.5GHz stepping into the 'Overkill' boundry a bit? Honestly. There isn't a game out there that I know of that would require more than 500MHz as long as you have a 3D graphics card. I suggest you get something a bit slower. (and cheaper) If you want the truth, just because you get a 1.5GHz CPU doesn't mean you'll get incredibly fast speed. Especcially if you have a slower OP system and things like that.
I'm perfectly happy with my 650MHz computer. It runs like a dream, and the characters in Elite Force on my computer have fairly smooth movments to them. Not jerky. This is compared to Elite Force's performance on Da_Bang80's 900MHz computer. Faster doesn't always mean better. I'll say again 1.5GHz is overkill. I suggest going for something that is around 700MHz.
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
You can never have a PC that's overkill, because from the moment you complete the transaction it has been made obsolete by a faster CPU/RAM type/graphics card/etc. That, and the fact that buying something that seems excessive today will be tomorrow's average, midrange gear. It also elimates the need for constant upgrading -you might be able to get away with a 700Mhz for a while, but it'll be behind the times in 6 months. There really is only one major rule you have to follow: buy the best you can afford.
As for P4 vs. AMD: right now, the cards are shuffled in AMD's favor. Intel's CPU was designed (optimised) to work with RAMbus technology which hasn't really lifted off due to a variety of difficulties (legal matters, technical obstacles). AMD CPU's, on the other hand, are lightning-quick in combination with DDR-RAM, which is now going into mass-production - ergo, the availability and price will soon be excellent.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Evil Lord. Honestly. If you or anyone tryed to keep 'up to date' with thier computer systems he/she would go insane and/or broke in a matter of months. I'm perfectly willing to be 'out of date' with my computer. It's the only way I can keep my sanity.
[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
True.
Still, why does everyone feel they need to buy a new system. Upgrade your current one. Sure, the motherboard and CPU pretty much have to be changed at the same time nowadays, but everything else will work. Then you can upgrade your SDRAM to Rambus or DDR-SDRAM, and a bit later you could buy a Geforce 3. Actually, you should probably do that before the RAM.
Even if you change most of the internal components, it's still a lot cheaper, because you're not buying a new CD-ROM drive, floppy drive, hard drive, monitor, keyboard, case, and so on.
Oh, and Evil_Lord, if you are going for 1.5 GHZ, get a Geforce 3. Any other graphic card would be a waste. If you're going for something a bit more reasonable though, like a 700 mhz, a Geforce 2 would be more than enough.
In any case, if you're buying new, get at least a Geforce 2 (not the MX version. The MX version is fine, brilliant even for CPU's up to about 600mhz, but after it become a bit of a false commodity). Don't get a Voodoo.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I got my computer back in February 01 for $1,250. Before I got it, I had an old 486 which ran fine all things considered. The only problem with this one is the OS; WinME is a RAM killer and so it can lag a bit, but still a hell of a lot faster than my dad's 300MHz.
People are told that they need 1.5GHz by computer companies when in most cases a cheaper less powerful system will do them just fine.
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
That is also true. But I'm what you might call a 'poweruser' (I run lots of heavy-duty applications - PhotoShop, Lightwave, and the like - as well as power-hungry games), so I need all the oomph I can get
Of course, not everyone needs that much raw power, and keeping one's PC up to date is really quite impossible. However, a more juicy setup will last longer, and provide a bit more breathing room in the future.
Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Not to criticise your set-up, because I used to have something pretty bad, but bragging about owning a Voodoo3 is like bragging about owning a Betamax.
It's my parents computer, or rather the one I used to use before I got my new one. My new one boasts an ATI Radeon 64mb and there is no difference between the kind of games I can run. A Voodoo3 may be old, but it can still handle any game out there.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You tried playing Tribes? Or Startopia?
A Voodoo III might be able to run any game. So can a PIII 350. It just won't run them especially well.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I personally have an Nvidia card that came with my computer. I have no complaints about it. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Nvidia are pretty much "the dudes" when it comes to graphic card design nowadays.
Still, saying you have a "Nvidia" graphics card is as useful as saying you've got an "Intel" CPU. They make severeal, you know. Currently, the TNT II is (just about) entry level, and is being replaced by the Geforce II MX.
The Geforce III is a monster frankly. It is the graphics card equivalent of Simon Sizer (who, as we know, is part horse). Powerful, large, but overkill in most situations.
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It doesn't need a OpenGL compatible card. A Direct 3d compatible one works.
EF uses the Quake 3 Engine, which is OGL only.
As for the game, it ran fantastic on my little 500Mhz at 1024x762x32 Full textures
My current system:
Intel Pentium III 1000Mhz 256MB 100Mhz SDRam Asus v7700 Deluxe GeForce2 32MB 7200rpm Western Digital 13.6GB HD 7200rpm Western Digital 39.1GB HD SoundBlaster Live DD5.1 XGamer Soundcard
it runs at about 90-140fps at 1600x1200x32 full texture res.
The next step: Getting Tribes 2 to run smoothly! Damn that game is resource inteseive!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Is Startopia out yet?
Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
As for the overkill, 1.5GHz may seem a bit much, but I've a lingering paranoia since I bought the P166, 5.5 years ago. At the time I bought the P166, MMX had not hit the market, but the fastest chip you could get was a Pentium Pro 200. I thought I was pretty safe getting a P166 w/32MB, and I was, for about a year. But it was rapidly superseded by the likes of the PII 266 - 300 range, which could run a whole new generation of games. Perhaps I just bought at a bad time.
Maybe the market is a bit different now, and the chip technology is reaching a limit. People say that the software isn't able to keep up with machine specs, and maybe it would be safe to go for a more modest setup.
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Gurgeh ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Chip tecnology is in no danger of reaching any sort of limit for two decades yet.
The reason CPU's have gotten ridiculously fast is that Intel, for the first time in years, has decent comptetition.
Yeah, Startopia is out. The reviews in magazines I trust have been giving it high 80s, saying the only problem is the missions in single player mode are a bit short. And the thing needs a really, really good computer too.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Chip tecnology is in no danger of reaching any sort of limit for two decades yet.
The reason CPU's have gotten ridiculously fast is that Intel, for the first time in years, has decent comptetition.
Namely AMD. Did you know that the AMD Athalon chip actually outperformed the Pentium 3???
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes.
Although, due to constantly fluctuating speeds and whatnot, the best price-performance CPU is sometimes an Intel, and sometimes an AMD.
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
quote:Chip tecnology is in no danger of reaching any sort of limit for two decades yet.
I don't know if I'd go along with that. From what I've heard, the whole process is limited by the width of the channels on the chips, which is just under 0.1 micrometres, at the moment. The challenge for manufacturers is to make the channels narrower. Perhaps they can compensate with other factors in the chip design, caches etc.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
That's the figure for silicon chips (I think. It could be a bit less), so it only applies if chips continue to change the way their do now. They'll reach a point where physics will step in and say "stop".
Of course, by then, they'll have surely thought of something else.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
The AMD Athalon 1.2 GHZ processor outpreformed the Intel pemtium 4 1.4 ghz in nearly every test, except when they tried Quake 3. P4 alsoneeds RDram. which is ALOT more expensive than SDram.and it only works for the P4.
i wonder how long we have to wait for processers to get into the terahertz range. they already have supercomputers with about a terabyte of HD space ( that's about a thousand gigabytes). it's true, i've seen it. it was used at a satelite tracking station outside my town. they track the landsat and seasat satelites.
Faster doesn't always mean better. I'll say again 1.5GHz is overkill. I suggest going for something that is around 700MHz.