Battlefield 3 Beta

to0kenZA said:
Lol, nee dude, dis een van ons clan mates. Hy post elke 5 minute 'n BF3 blog of article. No jokes.
Click to expand...
O I C now.

Well, the only old new news is that:
* The lousy PS3 will get the DLCs ahead of everyone else. http://bf3blog.com/2011/09/playstation-3-getting-battlefield-3-expansions-one-week-earlier/
* The 1911 Pistol is the veterans award, so all with BF2 or BC2 get it. http://bf3blog.com/2011/09/battlefield-3-veterans-get-m1911-pistol/
* There won't be a commander role. http://bf3blog.com/2011/09/battlefield-3-commander-was-a-hot-topic-at-dice/
* nVidia is developing drivers specifically for BF3. Not that my 8800GTS would greatly improve...
* Pre-Orders topped 1.5M. http://bf3blog.com/2011/09/battlefield-3-pre-orders-top-1-5-million/
 
Last edited:
DICE community manager Daniel Matros has been answering questions about Battlefield 3 on Twitter. Battlefield fan @bkohn1 asked him whether a rig matching the Battlefield 3 recommended system requirements would run the game on ultra settings. Matros replied to say that “recommended is usually medium

So will a top of the range Nvidia GTX580 do the trick? Apparently not. Matros revealed that we’ll need two 580s in SLI to make the most of the Frostbite 2 engine. The minimum system specifications may not be too punishing, but for those who want to see Battlefield 3 at its very best, a hefty upgrade may needed. Battlefield 3 may well be worth the expense. Would you be tempted to upgrade?

fml,see how my hd 6870 cf do or i will need to get 6970s :/
 
The 8800 is a dx9 card isn't it? Bf3 doesn't support xp/dx9 afaik.

I could be mistaken... I have been too busy to keep up with bf specs and can't remember what such an old card supports.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
 
It's official.
If you don't have dual GTX580's in SLI you not going to max BF3.

[QUOTE="PC Gamer]So will a top of the range Nvidia GTX580 do the trick? Apparently not. Matros revealed that we’ll need two 580s in SLI to make the most of the Frostbite 2 engine. The minimum system specifications may not be too punishing, but for those who want to see Battlefield 3 at its very best, a hefty upgrade may needed. Battlefield 3 may well be worth the expense. Would you be tempted to upgrade?[/QUOTE]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/09/23/battlefield-3-will-need-monster-rig-to-run-on-ultra-settings/

I myself am happy with med/high settings, as seen in most of the beta game play, I am guessing ULTRA spec will add very little in the ways of visual improvements like sharpened textures and such. Oh well we shall see.
 
All this talk about Maxing Out setings on FPS games :/
No one likes motion Blur, 90% of players will turn of Glow and Ambient
80% of users will turn of Shadows to speed up performance and Dynamic Lighting hurts my eyes

I think we are losing sight of what is important, a game that runs at a stable, high Framerate
 
I'm sure there'll be a lot of customisation available with regards to the graphics settings. I'm going to be struggling to decide how to balance graphical quality with performance, really hoping I can get the game looking decent at 60fps with 2 x GTX560's
 
Xero said:
All this talk about Maxing Out setings on FPS games :/
No one likes motion Blur, 90% of players will turn of Glow and Ambient
80% of users will turn of Shadows to speed up performance and Dynamic Lighting hurts my eyes

I think we are losing sight of what is important, a game that runs at a stable, high Framerate
Click to expand...
I'd prefer able to play not able to high res, seriously wtf blur is biggest loud of crud. When I turn my head I don't get blurred vision...
 
That's exactly my point
Everyone is concerned about how high they will be able to run the GFX settings on the game, while mere mortal men are scared of having choppy GFX or not being able to play
I don't know anyone who maxes out settings for online FPS games, becasue tbh, some of the eye candy really sucks
As you said, blurred vision, signs of an early brain tumor, seeing glowing spots everywhere, early onset Vision loss

125 FPS, that's the minimum everyone should be concerned about, not how pretty it looks at that FPS
 
I think a huge performance increase will be seen switching off tessellation on DX11 systems. It's like running Crysis 2 in Dx9 vs. Dx11 the differences are so subtle during game play, it's only when you stop to actually look for it, otherwise you don't really see it.

Battlefield 3 probably going to be the same IMHO.


That is probably the WORST BF3 advert ever... :/
 
Last edited:
Xero said:
125 FPS, that's the minimum everyone should be concerned about, not how pretty it looks at that FPS
Click to expand...

This isn't really true as most mere "mortals" also only have 60Hz screens... Which means that your screen is only displaying every 2nd frame that your card is trying to send to it.

You should try to setup your game so that it averages 60Hz rather than using the vertical sync setting.

This is assuming that you don't have a plasma, crt or >100Hz lcd monitor.

In terms of frequency sweet spots... Well if you find that it is improving your use then do it.... Otherwise it isn't a necessity.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
 
Darth, I dunno which Games you've played online, but FPS at 125 for instance belances out what you see, what you transmit and what you can do ingame
As an example, there are spots that you can Jump in COD4 that anything under 125FPS won't allow you to do
I'm not talking about visuals only, FPS in UDP network based games also helps in determining Latency, as lower FPS generally means higher hardware load, in turn causing increased latency
 
Ok i have heard of that in cod4.... But playing a game at low spec just to have the few exploits ingame?

I have played quite a few fps online actually. But i must admit that i like to play MP not only for the game part but still utilising the good graphics of the game to get the full experience.

I like low latency too... But it isn't as big a factor in the total game experience that i would decrease other aspects to a large degree.

Sure some graphics gimmicks are over the top, but beyond disabling those you aren't getting the full experience imo.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
 
Darth, true, I find it sad as well that that machines that CAN run games at higher settings, and I mean decent res and not with all the Glow/Blur/Ambient overkill that some games have, are nerfed in favor of framerate.
But there are some guys who's machines can't run high res versions of anything and who wind up playing a game that looks a lot like Quake
Also you should see some of the competitive players' gfx settings, looks WORSE than Quake purely to boost Framerate.

My point was this though, I think many gamers would rather have a gmae that runs, instead of having a really High Def Slide Show :)
 
Haha. Totally... but chasing super high framerates was what i was saying is pointless.... Optimise at what your hardware can handle... And the first limit is your monitor.

Then you can play the whole way down to around 25fps. Although there isn't much room for drops due to high use parts.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top