[swaaye]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

I wasn't really expecting huge increases over the console version in this game but still dissapointing to see it running on DX9 only.

Saying that, the 4GB recommended memory could say a lot about the draw distances in comparison to console.

Fallout 3 and Oblivion were pretty much identical on every platform and since Bethesda isn't talking about the PC version I'd expect nothing new this time either. Hopefully the UI is ok but don't hold yur breath.

I'm curious as to how much they've improved the engine considering the game is designed yet again for the same 360 hardware. 3rd generation of Bethesda's Gamebryo on 360 efforts (yeah I know they renamed the engine but it certainly looks similar).

I hope movement feels better than Fallout 3 and Oblivion. Their physics are floaty and weird.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Fallout 3 and Oblivion were pretty much identical on every platform and since Bethesda isn't talking about the PC version I'd expect nothing new this time either. Hopefully the UI is ok but don't hold yur breath.

I'm curious as to how much they've improved the engine considering the game is designed yet again for the same 360 hardware. 3rd generation of Bethesda's Gamebryo on 360 efforts (yeah I know they renamed the engine but it certainly looks similar).

I hope movement feels better than Fallout 3 and Oblivion. Their physics are floaty and weird.

I don't know about Fallout but certainly Oblivion on Stock had a few improvements over the console versions in terms of draw distance and density of foliage. And that was way back in 2006! I'd certainly hope for more than that by now but as you say, I don't expect huge differences. I'll leave that to the modders

[I.S.T.]

I'd like to point out that those are the recommended specs for the High setting, not Ultra.

So, if you want teh pretties, you're gonna need a faster card.

[homerdog]

DX9 only that's pro.

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by homerdog

DX9 only that's pro.

Like that means anything. See The Witcher 2.

[swaaye]

They call it DX9 but you can't run it on DX9 cards. It's fun to ponder the modern game industry and its evolution. And since the consoles aren't restricted exactly to PC D3D9, we probably end up at a disadvantage to if they'd gone 10/11.

Oblivion didn't do well with 2gb RAM sometimes so the 4gb thing only makes sense for a hopefully more advanced game. RAM is super cheap now anyway.

[Malo]

Cmon we know it's about base performance and minimum vram rather than feature set really.

[swaaye]

I will try the game on my recently acquired X1950XTX and let you know The biggest issue is that AMD hasn't touched the drivers since 10.2. Some recent D3D9 games have simply been broken.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

Like that means anything. See The Witcher 2.

Actually TW2 runs poorly compared to the visuals IMHO. BF3 looks and runs way better.

[RenegadeRocks]

The usual questions:
I have a
Intel Q9450 2.6Ghx Quad core\
Corsair 4Gb DDR2 RAM
ATI 4850, 512MB.
Win 7 Ultimate


Should I go for the PC version or go for the PS3 to ensure an smoother no hiccups performance.Lets just suppose for a second that mods don't matter. I don't want to buy the game and find out I can't get a smooth enough performance to enjoy it. Since my monitor is native 1920X1080, if I run anything at resolutions lower than that, I get a lot of blur, which I want to avoid at all costs.

Wish they release a benchmarking tools, but they never have !

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by homerdog

Actually TW2 runs poorly compared to the visuals IMHO. BF3 looks and runs way better.

Yes, but my point is that it's still quite a pretty game.

[Ancient]

Originally Posted by homerdog

Actually TW2 runs poorly compared to the visuals IMHO. BF3 looks and runs way better.

TW2 is RPG. BF3 is FPS.

RPGs are always more demanding!

[Malo]

And BF3 is DX10+. Built from the ground-up with no DX9 in mind allows them to take advantage of a lot of features to make it both look and run better no?

[homerdog]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Not gonna make excuses because it's an RPG (what does that have to do with anything?).

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

The usual questions:
I have a
Intel Q9450 2.6Ghx Quad core\
Corsair 4Gb DDR2 RAM
ATI 4850, 512MB.
Win 7 Ultimate


Should I go for the PC version or go for the PS3 to ensure an smoother no hiccups performance.Lets just suppose for a second that mods don't matter. I don't want to buy the game and find out I can't get a smooth enough performance to enjoy it. Since my monitor is native 1920X1080, if I run anything at resolutions lower than that, I get a lot of blur, which I want to avoid at all costs.

Wish they release a benchmarking tools, but they never have !

It' a no brainer that the PC version will run much better than the PS3 version on that setup unless the PC port is an complete and epic failure.

Your packing around 5x the power of PS3, even at 1080p you should have no problem at all setting the details to console level and achieving a smoother framerate. Although I doubt console level details will equal maximum. If you want that then you're probably gonna have to drop your resolution. But whichever way you look at it you're winning if you go with the PC version unless you just can't stand not turning everything up to maximum.

Plus it'll be cheaper!

[Malo]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Plus it'll be cheaper!

Whilst it will probably drop in price faster than the console version, the retail price for Skyrim is $59 on all platforms, including PC.

[Ethatron]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

I don't know about Fallout but certainly Oblivion on Stock had a few improvements over the console versions in terms of draw distance and density of foliage. And that was way back in 2006! I'd certainly hope for more than that by now but as you say, I don't expect huge differences. I'll leave that to the modders

LOL, good luck (to myself probably - SkyGE):

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Malo

Whilst it will probably drop in price faster than the console version, the retail price for Skyrim is $59 on all platforms, including PC.

Sound like pc gamers in the us get a raw deal, no wonder pc gaming is less popular over there. In the uk the pc launch price is £28 and the console launch price is £39.

[swaaye]

I think Oblivion PC was $50 but the Collector's Edition was $60. PC version was cheaper than console. I guess they are going all the way this time. People will pay. There's a super expensive collector edition this time too.

[Ancient]

Originally Posted by Malo

And BF3 is DX10+. Built from the ground-up with no DX9 in mind allows them to take advantage of a lot of features to make it both look and run better no?

?

BF3 is a console game too!

That's exactly what I was thinking. Not gonna make excuses because it's an RPG (what does that have to do with anything?).

Yoy can not compare run&gun FPS with RPGs!

In fantasy RPGs there is always a LOT of NPCs and monsters on map doing something, fighting, etc. They are much more interactive. That's very demanding.

Some of them, like The Witcher 2, have day/night and good/bad weather cycle. Also very demanding!

[swaaye]

Well, some open shooters are probably just as complex as these Bethesda games. But I think that most shooters have developers that are more technically oriented than RPG developers. Bethesda uses all middleware AFAIK and it probably isn't ideally tailored to their games (although I think it gets better with each evolution).

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by Ancient

?

BF3 is a console game too!

yah, but the PC renderer is built only for DX10/11. It does not run at all on WindowsXP, and looks and runs better for it.

TW2 is both more demanding and worse looking than BF3, at least on my PC. And I don't think any of the maps in TW2 are bigger than say Caspian Border.

[Ancient]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Well, some open shooters are probably just as complex as these Bethesda games. But I think that most shooters have developers that are more technically oriented than RPG developers. Bethesda uses all middleware AFAIK and it probably isn't ideally tailored to their games (although I think it gets better with each evolution).

I have never seen that complex shooter. Exception is Stalker, but he is not typical FPS.

Bethesda is bad example.

yah, but the PC renderer is built only for DX10/11. It does not run at all on WindowsXP, and looks and runs better for it.

TW2 is both more demanding and worse looking than BF3, at least on my PC. And I don't think any of the maps in TW2 are bigger than say Caspian Border.

Please!? When you put everything on low, which renderer game use!

I have already told you about TW2.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by Ancient

Please!? When you put everything on low, which renderer game use!

It uses the DX10-level path in the DX11 API. It won't use anything like Geometry Shaders obviously but it will use some new mechanisms to improve performance. Please Google before claiming something is wrong

Also if you want an open world FPS with lots of NPCs, what about Just Cause 2?

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Ancient

?

BF3 is a console game too!

But console games aren't limited to DX9! One of them doesn't even support it! Don't confuse APIs with hardware.