Well, I've found out why we're not hearing performance related reports - it would violate the NDA!
lemme ask a question....... what the heck is the nda!!!
Oh, did you ( scorpion ) find anything out from a Beta tester that would be ( - ) we will just say! I understand if you cant say at this time.
NDA is a contract I believe with Beta testers not to disclose any information until release! I might be wrong but I think thats what that is...
NDA is a contract I believe with Beta testers not to disclose any information until release! I might be wrong but I think thats what that is...
Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-27 01:45:28)
None Disclosure Agreement.landcaster wrote:
lemme ask a question....... what the heck is the nda!!!
Meaning people in the Beta agreed to not disclose specifics of the games, or do in-game videos, or screenshots that was not already disclosed by EA.
Only a couple of my clan-mates are in the beta program so far, but from what I'm hearing it is sounding positive on all fronts. Any more than that I can't really say for fear of breaking the NDA by proxy...EVIL_STYX wrote:
Oh, did you ( scorpion ) find anything out from a Beta tester that would be ( - ) we will just say! I understand if you cant say at this time.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-08-27 12:32:20)
JaM3z wrote in his thread:
It looks like they re-did everything texture wise aswell and it even looks nice on a low end rig and runs pretty smooth, my friends PC is not great tbh and he userally runs bf2 on all low settings with no AA, this is like-wise for the 2142 beta, but it looks alot better then bf2 does on low settings.
I would say that it is looking pretty good on the performance end at this point. That too is all I can divulge without going against the NDA!
It looks like they re-did everything texture wise aswell and it even looks nice on a low end rig and runs pretty smooth, my friends PC is not great tbh and he userally runs bf2 on all low settings with no AA, this is like-wise for the 2142 beta, but it looks alot better then bf2 does on low settings.
I would say that it is looking pretty good on the performance end at this point. That too is all I can divulge without going against the NDA!
copy that..Tunacommy wrote:
If I was a betting man....I would side with Scorpion on this one......I would be surpised if 2142 wasn't a least a tad harder on the system. Of course DICE/EA wants everyone to believe they can run the game on their existing system so they run out and buy it.....then they don't really care if they need to buy more ram etc. because they are so excited to play the game. Easier than telling people out of the gate that they are going to have to upgrade their software to run it......Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That was kinda my point - obviously I've seen some of the more modern gambling machines, but to me, to a certain extent, they're still just simple 'mechanical' devices, and there's not really that much difference between the latest electronic machines and the old skool truely mechanical machines. Which of course isn't the case.EVIL_STYX wrote:
On the "gambling machine's" have you seen the new slot machines? Yes, I "program" and "develop" Slot Machines on a daily basis. They are computers, nothing more, nothing less. My latest and greatest development is the new Novamatic machines that I am programing the OASIS SAS accounting systems on at the moment. Along with fine tuning bonus rounds and pay tables. So there your point is mute as well. I have not been doing it for 15 years, but I have been in the field for about 7 years. You see I take on new slot machine company's and fine tuning them for certain jurisdictions! After that the program sets are sent in for state inspection and then released to the gaming industry. That is not all, but one of many of my job duty's!
Just as, to some, games can seem to be similarly simple and that there's not really any difference between PacMan and BF2 - it's just better graphics and running around a much bigger 'maze' with guns instead of away/after ghosts, right? Which is also not the case.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - we're both basing our opinions on valid information sources and either of us could be right, but we won't know for sure until we've got the game installed on our HDDs...
If you are right, I'll be one of the first to say "Good Job DICE!"...
And, I must admit, the reports (or rather the lack of reports about poor performance) I've seen about the beta do add weight to you arguments...
Personally - I would be a bit disapointed if it were not harder to run.....I don't mind upgrading here and there to see kick butt graphics etc.....
edit: spell
May be the Beta tester can confirm that (even if the code is not "optimized").Tunacommy wrote:
If I was a betting man....I would side with Scorpion on this one......I would be surpised if 2142 wasn't a least a tad harder on the system. Of course DICE/EA wants everyone to believe they can run the game on their existing system so they run out and buy it.....then they don't really care if they need to buy more ram etc. because they are so excited to play the game. Easier than telling people out of the gate that they are going to have to upgrade their software to run it......Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That was kinda my point - obviously I've seen some of the more modern gambling machines, but to me, to a certain extent, they're still just simple 'mechanical' devices, and there's not really that much difference between the latest electronic machines and the old skool truely mechanical machines. Which of course isn't the case.EVIL_STYX wrote:
On the "gambling machine's" have you seen the new slot machines? Yes, I "program" and "develop" Slot Machines on a daily basis. They are computers, nothing more, nothing less. My latest and greatest development is the new Novamatic machines that I am programing the OASIS SAS accounting systems on at the moment. Along with fine tuning bonus rounds and pay tables. So there your point is mute as well. I have not been doing it for 15 years, but I have been in the field for about 7 years. You see I take on new slot machine company's and fine tuning them for certain jurisdictions! After that the program sets are sent in for state inspection and then released to the gaming industry. That is not all, but one of many of my job duty's!
Just as, to some, games can seem to be similarly simple and that there's not really any difference between PacMan and BF2 - it's just better graphics and running around a much bigger 'maze' with guns instead of away/after ghosts, right? Which is also not the case.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - we're both basing our opinions on valid information sources and either of us could be right, but we won't know for sure until we've got the game installed on our HDDs...
If you are right, I'll be one of the first to say "Good Job DICE!"...
And, I must admit, the reports (or rather the lack of reports about poor performance) I've seen about the beta do add weight to you arguments...
Personally - I would be a bit disapointed if it were not harder to run.....I don't mind upgrading here and there to see kick butt graphics etc.....
edit: spell
But BF2142 will be to BF2 what BF2:SF was to BF2... Meaning it does requires more from your PC in some cases (namely the night maps and CQC).
Knowing I can play SF without even having to wonder about my fps or lag, I guess it will be the same for BF2142 (my rig: Dell Inpiron XPS Gen 2, 7800GTX go - 258M, 2G or RAM, yes a laptop)
I have read in more than one site that they are going to release a DX10/Vista version. That's still six months away, huh? Wonder how much drugs I will need to sell to build a DX10/Vista PC.BigmacK wrote:
Do you think a DX10 card will be compatable?
j/k I don't sell drugs.....
no really.....
I swear.....
O.k. maybe bud but that's it.....
nah, forget I said that.....
now I'm paranoid.....
ARGGGG!!!!!
(lol, sorry I'm bored. stuck in the office with no hope for an early escape)
If you run BF2 now you can run 2142, it even has better texturing... So bet away but you lost the bet!EVIL_STYX wrote:
JaM3z wrote in his thread:
It looks like they re-did everything texture wise aswell and it even looks nice on a low end rig and runs pretty smooth, my friends PC is not great tbh and he userally runs bf2 on all low settings with no AA, this is like-wise for the 2142 beta, but it looks alot better then bf2 does on low settings.
I would say that it is looking pretty good on the performance end at this point. That too is all I can divulge without going against the NDA!
enough said!
Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-28 22:48:22)