Battlefield 3 Discussion Thread

BF3 doesn't use more than ~75kB/s at max does it?

 

It has nothing to do with 56k dialup or engineer behind tank. In many cases I know there's no engineer there, and it still can take a few hits on a disabled tank. Even so, I don't know how many times my tank has been disabled, I hop out to repair, and another shell hits my tank and bam, it's dead. Unless there's 2-3 engineers on a tank like crazy will it make any difference once disabled.

I measured the bandwidth required in a session and it was < 50 kB/s. So bandwidth needs aren't crazy. It's all about ping. Even then low ping doesn't mean squat, I usually have one of the lowest pings on the servers I play and still get consistently bad hit detection. I never had rubberbanding lag on Bad Company or BC2 servers nor in BF2. There were other issues, but nothing as bad as it is in BF3. And I don't care the reason either, it needs to be fixed. I don't understand how it determines what's going on. If on my screen I see me get the jump on someone by a solid half second or more and have a few rounds into them, how does it turn around that they kill me instantly and only have 10-20% damage? Those few bullets should have done 60-80% damage, suppressed their vision, and made it difficult for them to aim.

 

Tried sliding network smoothing to the left?

 

Tried left, middle, right. It *seems* to help sometimes but other times it's worse. I shouldn't have to adjust a slider every game and no way to know if it's really doing anything for me or not.

Unless there's a for sure way to tell if it's doing anything I don't see the point. I just ended up chasing my tail because I would have decent hit detection then it would tank, move the slider, and then seemed like it was better, then would get worse, then moved it again... etc.

 

anyone having tis issue when playing battlefield 3?

 

Yes. I had it twice this morning.

 

How will this game run with a 7870m? Does anyone have one? I've been looking but I can't find a lot of benchmarks of the 7870m

 

It's comparable to nVIDIA's 560M (click the link to see benchmarks) but slightly stronger so it can run it on medium with no problems

 

About 2/5 chance mine will say that.

 

so how ur guys avoid it??
what lappy ur guys using?
mine is everytimes

 

Notebookcheck it scores 1000 points more on 3Dmark 11, around 670m levels .

 

630M 2GB DDR3 310.70WHQL
6870 CF 1GB 12.10 CCC WHQL
It's randomly happening for both my PC/Laptop
Try update drivers

 

Never seen that before ...

The only error message I got from BF3 once was Out of Memory which was an easy fix ... suspend all my VMs before joining.

------

I think that error you got mean that you switched graphic cards while it was running?

 

This is why I'm trying to focus on hardcore mode...no kill cam, and when you nail someone squarely, they go down. Don't want them to know where you're at? Just move to another location.

 

LOL 22-0 http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/53191213/1/185814515/

 

Imagine this being your first game... 22 KDR LOL

 

What FPS would you see with three liquid cooled GTX 690's? 300~?

 

6-way sli? I don't think thats possible.

 

They sell it on Cyberpowerpc's site. I was like, "wow", and it's only 2k more than the average m18x.

I bet you'd see at least 300-400FPS on 1080p. You'd probably have to use v-sync though, and get a 120Hz monitor. But with that power, gotta go three monitors, haha. Or you could play on a 240Hz 1200p LED TV.

 

Huh? Since when is it possible to sli more than 4 gpu's? That's crazy!

 

It's not.

The 690 is often pre-understood as a double 680.. slightly underclocked though than a SLi 680, but still thats why. 3 x 2 = 6

 

I know that's why I thought it's impossible to use more than 2 690's because 2 690's are 4 gpu's.

 

What

Just

What....

 

Am I being an idiot? If yes, I am sorry.

 

Not at all, just thought this was something everyone knew

It's combining the power of two kepler cards (basically 2x 680's in SLI slightly underclocked (almost)): GeForce GTX 690 | GeForce

 

Why would they allow you to configure three of them? Would only two work together, rendering the third useless? That's...dumb.

 

So I am right when I say you can't sli more than 2 gtx 690's? Then what was he saying? Anyway I should probably stop posting about this in this thread.

 

Maximum amount of GPU in one setup is 4

A 690 has 2 GPU per PCB

Therefore the limit is two 690s

 

Also limited by the number of SLi connectors. I believe the 690 only has 1

 

Guess you could use the last for phyx only? Lol

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

Talk about overkill

 

Limit is 120FPS for 3d monitors

Gonna waste your money bro

 

Wait I am sorry are you telling me the limit is two 690's in SLi? ... No

It's four, a quad SLi that is the maximum Mobius 1. Not sure if you understand how the 690 is set up

 

There are 240Hz 3D LED TV's, haha. Imagine eye-finity with three 46" screens, 3x 690's.

 

Here's how I always thought it worked. SLI is limited to four graphics processors. Since every gtx 690 has two gpu's inside you cannot put more than two gtx 690's in SLI because you would exceed the 4 gpu limit. If you pair up two gtx 690's you actually have a 4-way sli setup, not a 2-way. The limit of 4 is about 4 gpu's, not four graphics cards.

 

All I know is you can purchase three GTX 690's in SLI from CyberPowerPC.com. Perhaps only two of them work together, but yeah... I've never seen this, not even on Youtube - it's pricey ($8k~ max specs).

 

I don't think it's really possible. Using the third gtx 690 as a dedicated physx card is like using a v8 engine for your mixer.

 

Oh yes my bad. Understandable, but the thing with the 690 is -to make it simple , it is TWO GPU's combined to one, two 680's underclocked and melted together (although not really.. long story)

That's why it's possible to four-way SLi them, although it shouldn't be

 

So is BF3 actually worth getting? I have researched it and it only seems to get 2.5-3 out of 5 on most ratings.

Looks like a really fun game but you do seem to have update lots and sign up to extras just to play the damn game.

My specs will play it, just I don't want to be clogging my computer up with extra crap...

Any opinions will be much appreciated!

 

It is probably the best first person, multiplayer shooter you will ever play. It's definitely worth $50. You can get the premium version with all five expansion packs for under $50.

 

Getting shot behind cover is great too?

 

Well I can get the standard version for PC for only £19.99 including delivery which is damn cheap. FarCry 3 only cost me £21.98 inc. delivery though and that is far newer.

So are the expansion packs worth getting?

Is it an issue all of the extra bits that you have to download and create accounts on or do you just get used to it? For instance, I have had Steam for years now and it still royally pis*es me off popping up everytime I turn my PC on and it's interface annoys me! Arrrghhh...

 

also get battlefield 2 but only for the single player. great games and well worth getting. both single player games were brill.
i hated B2 and B3 multiplayer at first as there was always snipers everywhere. massive maps and you run for 2-3 minutes and as soon as you get anywhere near the main play area you was dead. i now only play nosher kanal which is one of the smaller maps in a shipyard but imo one of the best.
cant advise on all the expansions as only got back to kartland but never played any maps of it yet.

 

The expansion packs are definitely worth while getting. You get more than a dozen new maps, weapons, vehicles, etc. and priority queue when joining a full game, you don't wait as long.

If you buy BF3 Premium it comes with all of them for one low cost. You download them through origin, a program similar to steam. The file sizes are pretty big, I believe the game has a 7GB update just to play BF3, and then another 25GB for the expansion packs.

 

Massive maps are good! I remember Crysis multiplayer, loved that and was sh*t hot at it when I was really in my stride! Now I play WoT and WoWp and they have pretty damn big maps.
WoWp = Best Beta ever! Especially on my Cyborg Joystick!

Oh wow that big! I think i'll just stick to the normal game then if I get it, only have a 120GB SSD on board, looking at buying another one over the months, but space is at a premium at the moment so only the best games can have it!

 

I hope you guys took advantage of this:
Amazon had the premium service (without base game) on sale for $25.
If you've got the $5 off promo code from Nov/Dec, then final price is $20.

Now the price is back to its normal range, so I'm not sure if it will go on sale again in the future (before 1/31st).
Might wanna keep yours eye out on that.

2012 Editor's Choice Digital Games

 

Play rush then if you don't like big maps moving around for 2 minutes over and over only to get owned every time.

 

At first, it's hard when you die right away. But Battlefield is all about large maps with vehicles and drawn out battles. I know the feeling when you've been running for a bit (in reality usually less than 60 seconds) and get blown up totally unexpectedly. But considering I've spent a ton of time in flight sims where you spend 30 minutes powering up, taking off, and flying to your waypoint only to get blown out of the sky just as you're approaching target... now that's frustrating, lol. But on the same token you learn to survive instead of just run and gun. I see too many newbs whine about dieing all the time when all they do is run into the middle of a 3 way firefight. Duh. No you don't have all the time in the world to be stealthy but you do have enough time to stop and assess the situation before you go head first into battle.

But as 3Stars noted, there are other modes and maps. Although Conquest is awesome especially if you get a decent squad.

 

Anyone getting any texture flickering with a -680m sli set up? Particularly distant textures and back ground to xtures.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

Nope, I didn't notice anything like that, it looked amazing.