2142's engine comfuses me....

2007-01-24 13:54:57

#1

Des.Kmal: Member; +917|6633|Atlanta, Georgia, USA

OK, when I load a map on bf2, it takes a long time. Well, I have a gig of RAM, but still, it takes a long time. On 2142 it takes on average, 20-30 seconds for a map and little to NO Verifying Client Data.

I have YET to get beginning round lag on 2142. Ever. On bf2, I get it regularly. Especially on SF maps, I have to go around the map once, all the way before it goes out....

AND the graphics look SO much better on 2142. Alot better.... but wtf is the 1280x960 reso about? I play 1280x1024 on bf2....

So wtf, I thought bf2142 wa supposed to be more demanding?

Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal

2007-01-24 13:57:02

#2

CTD-CaptainBuck: BLEEDING BLUE; +71|6783|Tenn

no clue on that. but ive noticed all the same things.

2007-01-24 13:57:24

#3

Brasso: member; +1,549|6645

It is more demanding for me. 15-30 FPS = no bueno, in BF2 I get 40-50 with higher settings.

Last edited by haffeysucks (2007-01-24 13:57:37)

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2007-01-24 14:00:30

#4

Des.Kmal: Member; +917|6633|Atlanta, Georgia, USA

haffeysucks wrote:
It is more demanding for me. 15-30 FPS = no bueno, in BF2 I get 40-50 with higher settings.

i get better fps in bf2, over 80 almost all the time. but 2142 looks better. i get no less than 55 fps in 2142. like i do in sf pretty much. just NO beginning round lag in 2142

Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal

2007-01-24 14:01:47

#5

Brasso: member; +1,549|6645

Des.Kmal wrote:
haffeysucks wrote:
It is more demanding for me. 15-30 FPS = no bueno, in BF2 I get 40-50 with higher settings.
i get better fps in bf2, over 80 almost all the time. but 2142 looks better. i get no less than 55 fps in 2142. like i do in sf pretty much. just NO beginning round lag in 2142

Fuck you. I hate you and your computer. Not on Xfire?

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2007-01-24 14:03:11

#6

Mr.Casual: p-n*|3eergogglz; +136|6524|Minnesota eh

I get beginning lag hardcore in BF2SF, but 2142 is amazing fast. No lag or anything, 100 fps on all high

2007-01-24 14:03:17

#7

Havok: Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist; +302|6690|Florida, United States

Well, I'm no expert on this topic, but what I think EA/Dice did was they took the BF2 engine and tweaked it to take less time to load and to look prettier on weaker computers. I'm certainly not complaining, and I dunno what the 1280x960 is unless it's a small widescreen monitor. I just got a new 17" flat panel for temporary purposes 'till I get a new computer in September for Crysis/Spore/Alan Wake/etc and BF2142 runs on 1280x1024 now too. Can someone tell me the difference in 800x600 and 1280x1024? The only difference I see is that the flags and numbers on the 3D map are smaller, along with my cursor in BFHQ... so yea help would be nice.

2007-01-24 14:06:20

#8

Des.Kmal: Member; +917|6633|Atlanta, Georgia, USA

haffeysucks wrote:
Des.Kmal wrote:
haffeysucks wrote:
It is more demanding for me. 15-30 FPS = no bueno, in BF2 I get 40-50 with higher settings.
i get better fps in bf2, over 80 almost all the time. but 2142 looks better. i get no less than 55 fps in 2142. like i do in sf pretty much. just NO beginning round lag in 2142
Fuck you. I hate you and your computer. Not on Xfire?

not at home yet. this comp doesnt have xfire.

Mr.Casual wrote:
I get beginning lag hardcore in BF2SF, but 2142 is amazing fast. No lag or anything, 100 fps on all high

yeah, i get 100 alot, but average above 55. SF does lag hardcore... well, on one or two maps, night maps are fine, but warlord lags like a pregant whore.

Havok wrote:
Well, I'm no expert on this topic, but what I think EA/Dice did was they took the BF2 engine and tweaked it to take less time to load and to look prettier on weaker computers. I'm certainly not complaining, and I dunno what the 1280x960 is unless it's a small widescreen monitor. I just got a new 17" flat panel for temporary purposes 'till I get a new computer in September for Crysis/Spore/Alan Wake/etc and BF2142 runs on 1280x1024 now too. Can someone tell me the difference in 800x600 and 1280x1024? The only difference I see is that the flags and numbers on the 3D map are smaller, along with my cursor in BFHQ... so yea help would be nice.

yeah, i thought as much.
the monitor is a 19" dell, and i run 1280x1024 fine on bf2, it doesnt even present itself in 2142...
800x600 vss 1280x1024. the bigger the numbers the more pixels it has, which makes everything look better and lets u see more... err, look like u see more, have better movement, etc.

Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal

2007-01-24 14:11:18

#9

Magius5.0: Member; +106|6397|UMass Amherst

BF 2142 uses the shaders a lot more intensely. There are tons of places where there are specular and bloom maps (windows, metallic surfaces), and these do eat into the processor more. Plus, the special effects (Blast shields, EMP effects) are more graphics intensive than anything BF2 had to offer.

2007-01-24 14:15:35

#10

Brasso: member; +1,549|6645

Havok wrote:
Well, I'm no expert on this topic, but what I think EA/Dice did was they took the BF2 engine and tweaked it to take less time to load and to look prettier on weaker computers. I'm certainly not complaining, and I dunno what the 1280x960 is unless it's a small widescreen monitor. I just got a new 17" flat panel for temporary purposes 'till I get a new computer in September for Crysis/Spore/Alan Wake/etc and BF2142 runs on 1280x1024 now too. Can someone tell me the difference in 800x600 and 1280x1024? The only difference I see is that the flags and numbers on the 3D map are smaller, along with my cursor in BFHQ... so yea help would be nice.

A higher resolution running at Low IMO looks better than a low resolution running at Medium. And Cyborg said it was better. Ask him why, I don't exactly know.

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2007-01-24 14:16:24

#11

Tompie913: I like Chinese; +12|6398|Pittsburgh, PA

Well BF2 had to look much more real than 2142, but 2142 just had to look good, so that would explain the graphics, and I have an XPS 700 so I can't say anything about performance since they're both maxed out. I did notice that 2142 takes less time to load though.

2007-01-29 13:42:03

#12

Des.Kmal: Member; +917|6633|Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Des.Kmal wrote:
OK, when I load a map on bf2, it takes a long time. Well, I have a gig of RAM, but still, it takes a long time. On 2142 it takes on average, 20-30 seconds for a map and little to NO Verifying Client Data.

I have YET to get beginning round lag on 2142. Ever. On bf2, I get it regularly. Especially on SF maps, I have to go around the map once, all the way before it goes out....

AND the graphics look SO much better on 2142. Alot better.... but wtf is the 1280x960 reso about? I play 1280x1024 on bf2....

So wtf, I thought bf2142 wa supposed to be more demanding?

i still havent got an answer... the graphics are better AND no beginning/no lag whatsoever.

... double-yew tee efe?

Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal

2007-01-29 14:08:37

#13

GR34: Member; +215|6560|ALBERTA> CANADA

i only get beginning lag on uk servers it goes away after about15 seconds but iam in Canada so thats y i have 2 gigs of ram and an x1650 XT and an AMD 3800+ not x2 i should have got a dule core 939 before they dissapeerd

2007-01-29 19:00:06

#14

Des.Kmal: Member; +917|6633|Atlanta, Georgia, USA

i still dont get it.

Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal

2007-01-29 19:02:23

#15

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6708

Basicaly they made the eingine way more efficent so you can run better quality things and a raster rate.

x

2007-01-29 19:04:56

#16

adam1503: Member; +85|6403|Manchester, UK

As i remember hearing, they used the same engine for 2142 as they did for bf2. Except they must have streamlined it, or made it run better or something. But yes, 2142 runs a lot better than bf2.

2007-01-29 19:18:20

#17

Des.Kmal: Member; +917|6633|Atlanta, Georgia, USA

adam1503 wrote:
As i remember hearing, they used the same engine for 2142 as they did for bf2. Except they must have streamlined it, or made it run better or something. But yes, 2142 runs a lot better than bf2.

not only does it run better, it looks a FUCKload better.

Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal

2007-01-29 19:20:16

#18

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6790|Noizyland

It'd be nice if requirements for games devolved so you'd get better results with shittier hardware. I hate having an obsolete machine a year or so after buying it.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2007-01-29 19:23:49

#19

SonderKommando: Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....; +564|6675|The darkside of Denver

Its backwards for me. I can load BF2 maps in like 20-30sec but 2142 takes much much longer. At least over a min. I have a good rig too so i beats me.

2007-01-29 19:24:52

#20

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6858|Alberta, Canada

Yeah, I wish the res was higher.

I don't agree with you on the graphics subject. I think BF2 has more detail.

2007-01-29 21:05:47

#21

HUNDaemon: Exploit/Glitch "Tester"; +49|6391|Inside the AR Rockets.

GR34 wrote:
i only get beginning lag on uk servers it goes away after about15 seconds but iam in Canada so thats y i have 2 gigs of ram and an x1650 XT and an AMD 3800+ not x2 i should have got a dule core 939 before they dissapeerd

Well, looks like you're still not taking english lessons.

Anywho, EA should just re-release BF2142 in like 2 years with like.. 50 more maps, 70 more ranks, 1000 more unlocks, 250 new vehicles, 400 different types of bullets, and no support kit.

Then I'd be happy. ^^

In actual seriousness tho, they really should re-release a WAY better version of 2142, because so far, they've fucked up. Big.

2007-01-30 08:15:43

#22

Slickfish: Member; +24|6638

What do you feel they fooked up in 2142???.

I've only got 60hr's on it so there are doubtless loads of things I've missed, but I haven't found much yet, yes there are afew glitchs, but its nothing to bad, that I know of anyhow.

2007-01-30 08:23:38

#23

motherdear: Member; +25|6667|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

they just improved the shaders so that they could run faster, load faster and look better what's so bloody hard to understand about that?

BF2S Forums 2142's engine comfuses me....

haffeysucks wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

Mr.Casual wrote:

Havok wrote:

Havok wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

GR34 wrote:

Board footer