If i want ultra high, i needa turn everything on high and put AA x4? I got only x4.
cant you read? starcraft... rofl./KRUX wrote:
ROFL....whats the name of that impressive vessel?broncobullfrog wrote:
[url]http://www.auxpa.org/auxhistory/images/history/Nighttime-SAR-training.jpg
This is a scene fron SF, on Devils Perch.
i dont like to run on high or ultra its just the landscapes look to real and the camoflauge on the soldiers look real so on wake your pretty damn screwed its easier on medium in my personal opion most of you will think different i run in 1024 x 7 something with it on medium with a few things turned up like texture and crap but on my grfx card drivers ive set it to ultra high quality and average 130isg fps which is all good for me
Using the renderer.draw fps 1 option brings up two numbers- what does each represent?
thanks.
thanks.
Last edited by Boyes (2006-01-17 08:13:07)
Well if u are fighting for your country, this is what it looks:PJaM3z wrote:
i dont like to run on high or ultra its just the landscapes look to real and the camoflauge on the soldiers look real so on wake your pretty damn screwed its easier on medium in my personal opion most of you will think different i run in 1024 x 7 something with it on medium with a few things turned up like texture and crap but on my grfx card drivers ive set it to ultra high quality and average 130isg fps which is all good for me
can u guys get the renderer.drawfps 1 command aswell lets c the fps in em also can u take 1 with ultra high 1280 1024 in the midst of a firefight
i don't think anyone has the time to press Print Screen during a firefight, unless they cheat.
to get "ultra high" u have to change the config files, try googling it.
and try the search in the forums its been talked about before.the_outsider38 wrote:
try googling it.
heres a screan shot of me and my friend on SAS team (the best team ) gota love those gas mask's!!!
settings: 1024x756 res, 4xAA, all high an 100% visabilaty
i have 750 ram and still i use all settings as low as they can be
If you mean 768mb RAM then that's not a lot mate. To run BF2 smoothly on higest settings you'd want 1.5 to 2gigs of memory. Your going to get stutters from time to time otherwise, which can get very annoying.FrEaK wrote:
i have 750 ram and still i use all settings as low as they can be
Also before anyone says anything about ultra-high settings, yes... there's not a huge overall differance. However if your graphicscard supports Shader Model 3.0 there seems to be an improvement to some effects if you run those settings. Nothing groundbreaking, but it's there.
is there a site that shows Screens side by side to tell the difference?
Cobra on Gulf of Oman
My settings look ok I guess
What does each number mean for the renderer.drawfps command?....does your fps = both combined or what?
Milk.org wrote:
http://im.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/07sld1.jpg
Cobra on Gulf of Oman
My settings look ok I guess
cant remember what the settings are at, mostly high except dynamics, not the best, but looks sweet to me ,look who i killed then how
Last edited by .ACB|_Cutthroat1 (2006-01-17 12:19:11)
Damn i thought the game looked tight with all the setting on either medium or high.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6690
I have a GF5600 Ultra and run all settings on low, except texture (medium). Also I put the view distance up to 90% opposed to 75% (That REALLY makes a difference).
I'm running on this system:
Sager 5720-v
Intel Pentium M Centrino 2.26Ghz 533 FSB
80gb 7200 hdd
2gb 533 FSB RAM
Nvidia GeForce GO 7800 GTX 256MB DDR3
17" WUXGA LCD Display
And set my Anti aliasing to 8xS (I normally run at 4x)
the Anisotropic to 16x (also normally at 4)
In game settings were maxxed out, and res set to 1600x1200 (which I normally run BF2 @). My frame rate was a bit lower with my card set so high, and the ingame shot did not look that much better than what I normally run it at. here's an example:
Sager 5720-v
Intel Pentium M Centrino 2.26Ghz 533 FSB
80gb 7200 hdd
2gb 533 FSB RAM
Nvidia GeForce GO 7800 GTX 256MB DDR3
17" WUXGA LCD Display
And set my Anti aliasing to 8xS (I normally run at 4x)
the Anisotropic to 16x (also normally at 4)
In game settings were maxxed out, and res set to 1600x1200 (which I normally run BF2 @). My frame rate was a bit lower with my card set so high, and the ingame shot did not look that much better than what I normally run it at. here's an example:
Last edited by ifixphns2 (2006-01-17 13:11:16)
well, I made some pictures using :
Geforce 6800GT 256
82.12 Forceware revision
1600x1200
AAx4
AFx8
ultra high settings
P4 640 @ 4GHz
2GB 400ddr
----------------------------------
(notice the little "extra" amount of gfx addons)
a car :
the almighty Essex :
the Essex's AA :
light :
and a cropped image of the plane. god damn good one too :
Geforce 6800GT 256
82.12 Forceware revision
1600x1200
AAx4
AFx8
ultra high settings
P4 640 @ 4GHz
2GB 400ddr
----------------------------------
(notice the little "extra" amount of gfx addons)
a car :
the almighty Essex :
the Essex's AA :
light :
and a cropped image of the plane. god damn good one too :
Last edited by Absinthe (2006-01-17 13:15:12)
S'alright I guess for low settings some of us have our shit pimped out and can get quality like this.Absinthe wrote:
and a cropped image of the plane. god damn good one too :
Last edited by Milk.org (2006-01-17 16:55:01)
yeah right, minimal requirements :
Cray "ulrta"
16TB mem
what else.. dual quad (..) 7800GTX512mb ?
Cray "ulrta"
16TB mem
what else.. dual quad (..) 7800GTX512mb ?
[drools at above pictures]
Good grief, I just installed my 256 ATI x1800XE and can only set everything to high and maintain good quality. Ultra High. Someone should try to push it to "5" in the Video.con file and see what happens.
Of course, it is better than my previous x800 which ran everything on Medium.
My next card will support everything on Ultra High. And yes, I probably could set everything to Ultra High with my current one but it'd be laggy as all hell.
Good grief, I just installed my 256 ATI x1800XE and can only set everything to high and maintain good quality. Ultra High. Someone should try to push it to "5" in the Video.con file and see what happens.
Of course, it is better than my previous x800 which ran everything on Medium.
My next card will support everything on Ultra High. And yes, I probably could set everything to Ultra High with my current one but it'd be laggy as all hell.
Last edited by clncmmndr (2006-04-19 23:02:12)
http://www.tweakguides.com/BF2_5.html <--Here you can find some side-by-side comparisons of static screenshots at Low, Medium, and High for several of BF2's graphics settings. Some of them are dramatic (50% draw distance vs. 100%), some subtle (Medium textures vs. High) but they are visible. Check it out, and I hope that answers your questions!
edit: Some more dramatic side-by-side comparison:
This, I believe, with all settings on High and 4x AA. Note the shadowing within the construction site, including the one cast by the crane, and the reflection off my M24 scope...mmm-mmm!
...And this one, taken with all settings on Low or Off (whichever was the lowest possible setting for the option). I'm inside the same construction site. But where have the shadows gone? The gradients, the nice smooth edges? (Answer: traded for a 4x increase in frame rate, that's where.)
edit: Some more dramatic side-by-side comparison:
This, I believe, with all settings on High and 4x AA. Note the shadowing within the construction site, including the one cast by the crane, and the reflection off my M24 scope...mmm-mmm!
...And this one, taken with all settings on Low or Off (whichever was the lowest possible setting for the option). I'm inside the same construction site. But where have the shadows gone? The gradients, the nice smooth edges? (Answer: traded for a 4x increase in frame rate, that's where.)
Last edited by [QXJZ]Capt_Kefra (2006-04-20 01:05:21)