Hey everyone... There must be some other problems besides the game.
I have a p150 overclocked to 180mhz. A screamin3d (Rendition based
3d card)
with 4 megs ram, 32 megs edo ram and the game screams on my system
with all grahphics cranked way the hell up. I play at 800x600 and
the only problem I get is after a mission going to the cutscene...
Talk about Trails man... Like WOW!..;-) The graphics get way
screwed up but the next mission plays fine (something wrong with the
way it refreshes after a battle I think) But if I play at 640x480
there are no problems... I haven't benchmarked the game or anything
but my guess would be that at 800x600 I get 25-30fps til the number
of enemies gets past 4 then it slows down but not so much that it is
unplayable... Laterz all
Interstate '76 performance on low-end PCs debated
Following complaints that Interstate '76 ran poorly, users posted their frame rates and settings on systems from a 486 to a Pentium Pro. Most found it playable at 640x480 with some textures off, though Cyrix CPUs struggled because of weak floating point. 3Dfx owners and others argued over what counts as smooth.
Automated summary.
>Robert, I am glad you like the game, but I have some comments:
>You have a VERY FAST system. (PENTIUM 225 MMX)
>You have a VERY FAST video card (HERCULES DYNAMITE 128 - 4MEG)
>You have 80MEG of RAM.
>You have CHOPPY FRAME RATE at 640X480 w/full detail.
Chill out, bro. :)
I got the game last night, and it runs essentially the same on my
P133/32MB/Matrox Millenium as it does on his MMX225/80MB/Herc128!
A bit choppy in 640x480, and perfect if I turn some textures off. He _must_
have some kind of misconfiguration here! I find it _very_ playable on my P133
(the base system for 640x480 as indicated in the game manual) and I suspect
that users with P90's will find the default 320x200 or 640x480 with all
textures turned off to be acceptable as well.
Sam
--
/| http://b52-78.datanet.nyu.edu/ (currently defunct)
/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
/| I speak with my voice only, nobody else's!
: Do you wonder why Activision decided not to release a DEMO? I don't.
:
: Do you still wonder why Activision STILL has not answered legitimate
: QUESTIONS about I76 System Requirements in this newsgroup? I don't.
:
: Do you wonder why the Beta Testers of this game would proclaim high marks
: for the graphics? I do.
:
: Do you wonder why 800X600 and 1024X768 are included as options in I76? I do.
...
Hey, have you actually played the game at all? Or have you seen
it on a friend's machine? The game is fun. Frame rate or not, the game
kicks ass. Most Pentiums will, at the least, be able to play the game
with a decent frame rate in VGA. I have a Cyrix 6x86-150+, 16MB EDO, a
cheapie motherboard, and an S3 Trio 64 video card. My system runs under
the benchmarks of both Pentium 150's and of other 6x86-150's (it's the
motherboard that's the big problemo). I have to run the game with almost
all detail down in VGA for a good frame rate. Am I complaining? No! The
game rocks. Maybe next time you'll judge a game by how it plays, not by
how it looks.
: Do you think that *** magazines will give I76 a GREAT rating? I do.
I wonder why. Maybe because they'll actually play the game,
unlike you likely have.
: Do you think that the *** magazines will publish a CLEARLY WRITTEN
: ARTICLE concerning the EXCESSIVE system requirements for this game? I don't.
They have before for games like Nascar when it came out, like
Quake when it came out, etc, and I think they will here, also. They'll
basically say "The game rocks if you have the machine to run it. If you
don't (which I assume would be like P90 or less), it gets too slow even in
VGA to be playable". But for any system that can handle the game at a
playable frame rate in VGA (which I would be is around an average P100 or
so), what's the problem?
Jeff
_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^^^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_
| "all pain disappears it's the nature of my circuitry / drowns out | \ all i hear there's no escape from this my new consciousness" - NIN /
^^'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,___,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'^^
First of all, the Demo would be like 60 megs long....and Activision has
said they will
release a demo, but most likely they're waiting for hte magazines to pick
it up, as its going
to take some CD space to get this game up and running.....
I play this game in 320x200 mode with almost full detail, full screen, on a
P120 and
the FPS is close to 30.......
Of course, if you guys and ***ing about SVGA 640x480 graphics then what
do you
expect......I don't know of many games that run at hi-rez smoothly, with as
much
detail as this game has.....
What? Please Elaborate...
do.
Perhaps the reason why ALL games include these resolutions, so that
way...10 years from
now, you can fire up the game in the new ultra-high rez and experience it
all over again
Pro-200.....and I still play the game in 320x200.
People have come to expect too damn much........thats a personal IMHO. I
do not represent
Activision in any way, shape, or form.......there's a lot going on here in
this game.....ground
detail, car details, etc, etc, a much more complex terrain model than MWII
Mercs has.....
Its a great game.....
don't.
Again, *WHAT* Excessive system reqiurements?? All new games that come out
require
super-computers to run....its been that way since the PCjr! Once the 3DFX
Patches are
out I'm sure a lot more people will be satisfied.....
Brant
Just all IMHO......
Quoted text (13 lines)
> Hey everyone... There must be some other problems besides the game. > I have a p150 overclocked to 180mhz. A screamin3d (Rendition based > 3d card) > with 4 megs ram, 32 megs edo ram and the game screams on my system > with all grahphics cranked way the hell up. I play at 800x600 and > the only problem I get is after a mission going to the cutscene... > Talk about Trails man... Like WOW!..;-) The graphics get way > screwed up but the next mission plays fine (something wrong with the > way it refreshes after a battle I think) But if I play at 640x480 > there are no problems... I haven't benchmarked the game or anything > but my guess would be that at 800x600 I get 25-30fps til the number > of enemies gets past 4 then it slows down but not so much that it is > unplayable... Laterz allQuoted text (17 lines)
>>Robert, I am glad you like the game, but I have some comments: >>You have a VERY FAST system. (PENTIUM 225 MMX) >>You have a VERY FAST video card (HERCULES DYNAMITE 128 - 4MEG) >>You have 80MEG of RAM. >>You have CHOPPY FRAME RATE at 640X480 w/full detail. >Chill out, bro. :) >I got the game last night, and it runs essentially the same on my >P133/32MB/Matrox Millenium as it does on his MMX225/80MB/Herc128! >A bit choppy in 640x480, and perfect if I turn some textures off. He _must_ >have some kind of misconfiguration here! I find it _very_ playable on my P133 >(the base system for 640x480 as indicated in the game manual) and I suspect >that users with P90's will find the default 320x200 or 640x480 with all >textures turned off to be acceptable as well.<..>
<...>
On my P100, I get really smooth framerates (I'd say 25-30) with everything
cranked up to maximum (except for the rear view mirror) at 320x200 - It's
still a lot of fun that way.
But, I don't want to spoil anything, so I've only gone up to mission four
and am now going to wait for the Direct3D patch before continuing. I'm
still pretty happy I got it though, frankly it's almost worth it just for
the intro.
Yes, I dunno if it was just me but the ALPHA version of this game had awful
looking VGA graphics....when I finally got a BETA copy, it was MUCH better.
IMHO this game is perfectly playable in VGA resolution, it looks NICE in
VGA resolution. Yes, it looks better in SVGA, but it WILL require you to
have a 3D card accelleration to run it with full detail. On my pro-200
full-detail VGA mode has got to be 40+fps easy.
As for 800x600, there's no way you're getting fast framerates at this
resolution.....its just not happening. Svga places a HUGE amount of work
on the processor/bus, etc.........the fact is this: Without 3D support, no
game is truely SMOOTH at 640x480 full detail....unless its a few years old,
and doesn't have the tons and tons of hi-detail texturemapping that all new
games seem obsessed with.
This seems to be one of those really common problems with USENET. Some
people play a game of Duke Nukem 3D on a 486 getting like 15FPS and
they go WOW, MAN IS THIS AWESOME..>SUPER SMOOTH FRAMERATES<!!!....and
the rest of us go "You must be on crack, buddy..". Personally the best
I can do on Quake with my Pro-200 (STB Lightspeed 128 videocard...a
pretty quick setup IMHO) is like 24fps using QBENCH. That, to me, is
unplayable.
I MUCH prefer 320x200 at 60fps....I mean, I could go inbetween and
still get perfect framerate....but the *** is that if suddenly a
bunch of stuff starts happening, the frames drop like bricks.........I
much prefer a constant, unwavering 40fps in low rez over hi-rez.
Hopefully in the future all SVGA games will offer off-chip support (3D,
Texturemapping, whatever). Kinda sucks when you think that in 1989 we
got VGA graphics and today...with machines ten times more powerful than
anything out in 1989, we still cant do SVGA smoothly on bone-stock
machines...
Brant
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > I have a Cyrix 6x86-150+, 16MB EDO, a > >cheapie motherboard, and an S3 Trio 64 video card. My system runs under > >the benchmarks of both Pentium 150's and of other 6x86-150's (it's the > >motherboard that's the big problemo). > So, if I understand you correctly, your system is approximately equivalent to > a Pentium 120-150.> With terrain texture off and cloud off, 640x480 I76 is playable but
> not smooth on my P166. I have 3DFX so I know what smooth is.
Or, you have 3DFX so you have a greatly exaggerated concept of what
smooth is. That would actually seem more likely.
Kind of like criticizing a Saturn for being too slow, and following it
up by saying "I have a Ferrari, so I know what fast is."
Not that I would not like 3D support in I76, but I am not going to let
its absence stop me from buying the game. I have been waiting over ten
years for a game like this (since Autoduel...).
Regards,
Benjamin E. Sones
I play the game on my p120 with 24mb of ram and reactor card and it is
playable at 640x480 with some textures off... I really cant complain,
this game rocks when playing it with a gp1 like I do!!!
I love the conversations between you and the other (what's his name..?
sparky? cant remember...anyway)
So if you have a p100 with decent graphic card and 16 ram or more I
suggest you to look at it cuz its pretty damn good!!
speed (a bit higher, actually...I get about 28fps or so in Qbench on
my Pro200)for months and months now, and it's quite playable. Maybe
you have some kind of funky-cool-supervision. Or something. I
dunno...
Anyway.
C. Tew
----
Goodbye
You can keep this suit of lights
I'm not coming down...
-U2, "Gone"
----
Quoted text (12 lines)
>> With terrain texture off and cloud off, 640x480 I76 is playable but >> not smooth on my P166. I have 3DFX so I know what smooth is. >Or, you have 3DFX so you have a greatly exaggerated concept of what >smooth is. That would actually seem more likely. >Kind of like criticizing a Saturn for being too slow, and following it >up by saying "I have a Ferrari, so I know what fast is." >Not that I would not like 3D support in I76, but I am not going to let >its absence stop me from buying the game. I have been waiting over ten >years for a game like this (since Autoduel...).//snip//
>...Any Quake players can
>assure you that high frame rate is the key to multiplayer actions.
//snip//
Damn good point! The computer isn't going to razz you for bagging
your ass. For multiplayer games, players are going to go for any
speed advantage they can get. If there is even a hint of 'lag' to a
3d accelerated version, the ***-types will switch to low-res with
all the toys turned off. After all, your graphics adapter isn't
visible on the scoreboard:).
Jus' my $.02.
====
Remove the '_UNSPAM_' from my email address to reply.
No, it isn't greatly exaggerated. Every 3d card owner on the planet gets
pissed when there are superior alternatives to 3d game development (be it
OpenGL, Direct3d, or native ports), yet game companies insist at relying on
crummy old directDraw and VESA technology for their 3d titles. Xwing VS Tie
comes to mind. It's ignorant. Game companies must finally face the fact
that a ***y P90 with a good 3d card will walk all over an MMX200 - hands
down. What seems more exaggerated now? Playing a game on an overpowered
machine that will NEVER live up to the 3d gamers expectations? Or
supporting the drop-jaw technology out there NOW (3dFX, Verite, etc.),
which is most decidedly here to stay and flourish?
But you can't purchase a Ferrari at the price of a Yugo. However, a P166
or P200 upgrade is considerably more costly than a 3d board. You're making
a moot point by correlating speed with street value :)
uttered these pearls of wisdom:
True. But I found out that I make more frags at 640 X 480 with my
GLQuake then I do at 320 X 200 in WinQuake / DOSQuake. Why? Well, it
sure helps out when I'm sniping, that's for sure (especially when I'm
playing the Sniper in TeamFortress).
Also, as they're fond of saying in Flight Sims (which I-76 has more in
common with then Quake), "He who gets first sight, gets first kill."
Now, if I'm playing multiplayer the 3D version of I-76 at 640 X 480
(or above!), and I'm facing an either a opponent or group of opponents
who are playing "standard" I-76 at 320 X 200 to get a descent
framerate... who do you think will get first sight?
--------
"Only the crazies hang around nursery."
Remove the "X" in front of my name if you want to send me email.
Hopefully, this will kill some of the damn spam.
Quoted text (11 lines)
>//snip// >>...Any Quake players can >>assure you that high frame rate is the key to multiplayer actions. >//snip// >Damn good point! The computer isn't going to razz you for bagging >your ass. For multiplayer games, players are going to go for any >speed advantage they can get. If there is even a hint of 'lag' to a >3d accelerated version, the ***-types will switch to low-res with >all the toys turned off. After all, your graphics adapter isn't >visible on the scoreboard:). >Jus' my $.02.Well, to add my 2 pennies to the fray, it seems this game is very
"whole package" dependent. My P133 runs the game in 640X480 very
smoothly with only rear view and clouds turned off. By very smoothly,
I mean no perceptible stepping, or jerks, and immediate control
response. FWIW my system consists of;
P133
32 megs EDO
ATI mach64 w/ 2M Vram
256 pipelined burst
Ensonic 16bit soundscape
6X cdrom
as you can see, there is nothing super special here, but it seems to
run better on my machine than what a lot of people are saying. Go
figure. The only other things I can think of is that I turn the music
off while driving (never ran it with it on, b/c I don't like music
while I am concentrating on driving) and my memory wait states
are pushed to the minimum.
On the whole, I think this is a kick ass game, and well worth the
play, if you like blowing things up, and having a pretty decent
physics model. Can't wait to try multiplayer.
Scott Ford
'86 Mustang GT
'56 Ford F-100
>True. But I found out that I make more frags at 640 X 480 with my
>GLQuake then I do at 320 X 200 in WinQuake / DOSQuake. Why? Well, it
>sure helps out when I'm sniping, that's for sure (especially when I'm
>playing the Sniper in TeamFortress).
Quite the opposite. glQuake is slow in some part even at 512x384.
Average frame rate is faster but unless it is consistent, it doesn't
mean much.
Slow down is very noticeable in custom CTF maps. Most important fight
in Quake occurs at close range; therefore, 320x200 is sufficient to
see everything you need. Only benefit from glQuake is when you turn
off polyblend. This gives you a clear view of the water thus making
water fighting easier.
As for TF, I'm not sure since I'm a pure CTF player.
Yes, but I think the point he was trying to make was just that: You own a 3DFX card,
and now you suddenly expect every game on earth to run as well as it runs on your
3DFX card, which ain't gonna happen.
Reason #1: Most people who buy 3D cards are still buying those damn
cheap Virge cards, a few are buying Verite's, but only really INFORMED
gamers are buying the more expensive Voodoo cards....and all of us
Netters (who, realistically, know a lot more than your non-internet
gamer) know that the Voodoo is the real chipset to buy right now.
But also remember that the 3D Card market is SMALL right now...REALLY
small.
If you make a game that *only* runs with a 3D card, you're shooting
your sales in the foot right off the bat....people get pissed if they
buy a game, only to find they absolutely *NEED* to buy a $200 upgrade
to run the thing.......
Activision has done the right thing...released the game for everyone,
and will then cater to the "Graphics-Extremists" with a D3D patch.
Now if the patch doesn't improve things...well, thats a different
story....
Brant
Well, with the big radar-brackets, I didn't think that was as much of a
big deal.
Brant
???? :D
