Battlefield 3 Discussion Thread

That is what I tried to say before, but people are confident that something below GT555M (HD5730, GT540M etc.) will be able to play it "smoothly" at mid details @ 720p. I hope it too but i don't think so

 

I never said it would play at mid details. Minimum is minimum.

 

Someone else said, check it back , btw neither on minimum details with a GT540M / HD5730M you will be able to play if 8800GT / HD3870 is MINIMUM.

DICE, during E3, said that there wasn't yet a SINGLE card on market able TO MAX the game (probably @1080p?). Considering that the most powerful SINGLE card on a notebook (GTX580M/6990M) has about (a bit more) the same "raw" power of a plain GTX 560 desktop (that is simply recommended card, so not the one that can max details), I think the level of requirements are too high to achieve mass notebook market.
Considering that everything below a GT555M / HD6770M will not be able nor even to run the game on minimum @30fps (we don't even know at what resolution) and on 15" it's hard to find something above GT540M / HD6650M (except very few examples like your HP that has a HUGE native resolution to keep or some pure gaming oriented machines like Alienware/Sager/Clevo) due the "heat generated blah blah blah", the 80% of the notebook market (cause 17"+ are more "desktop replacement"), will be out of business with this game.

I repeat, I HOPE to be wrong, but the requirements released till now goes in this direction.
We're not talking about The Witcher 2 that played in single player can be enjoyable even on 25 fps with some drops. On a "multiplayer oriented FPS" having less than 30 fps (even with minimum details), means to avoid the purchase (at least to me).

With the notebook market increasing its share, making a game that can't be even player on minimum on the most of the mainstream notebook available in the market NOW, it's a suicide. (No LAN, No Mods, No Dedicated Servers write the rest of the story).

My 2 Euros (making the sum of 2 cents everytime )

 

What that program that tells you the GPU temps and usage in game? That you have in your videos SimoxTa.

 

I made a portable version of MSI Afterburner (cause i don't like it ), just extract the archive and copy the DLLs from the main folder to the RTSS one and you're good to go otherwise install it, but i prefer nVidia Inspector to overclock my card @GT540m.

(in the MSI Afterburner you have to check the OSD options to see the parameters you are interested in while gaming)

 

+1 I couldn't install afterburner it installs then locks my computer up. I am gonna try the other method you posted.

 

@ SimoxTA - considering the feedback we got back from Alpha, Core i5 and 5730m GPU's were playing the game just fine at 720p. Bad Company 2 runs decently well with that config too. Heck I am running about 60 fps with a quad core AMD Llano A8 CPU and 6750m GPU with low/med details at 1080p. So I have every confidence BF3 will run fine with a similar config easily at 720p.

 

Yeah, that is what started the discussion in the end
The minimum requirements have been raised from alpha to beta phase from what the insiders said (and that is strange due the reduction of debug code). Probably they introduced some eye candy effects and that TO ME seems quite stupid cause the new minimum requirements cut out almost every mainstream configuration. Check my BFBC2 video and you'll see i run BFBC2 @medium with my config without going below 30fps.

After that, people started saying that a GTX260M (a 2 years old card that perform better than any mainstream card available today) is better than a desktop 8800GT, that a gaming machine should be at least with a GTX460M, etc. The problem is only that the game will be accessible mainly on 17" (maybe, it depends on what resolution) due the GT555/HD5730 that is the minimum requirements declared, is very rare to be found in 15" notebook (except the models quoted before).

Let's wait these 8 days then

 

Reading this, makes me a bit more confident that my 8800m may be o.k., but I suppose my CPU could be the problem?

 

Bad Company 2 really loved quads, even with a beefy videocard. I would only imagine that Frostbite 2.0 BF3 will make even better use of quads, so yes, a dual-core notebook CPU may not cut it for higher resolutions and settings.

 

Only thing I can say is wait and see, as SimoxTa says, let's wait these 8 days than!

We should get decent feedback from those with early beta access (I don't have it, I bought from newegg).

 

I have early Beta Access Will let you guys know how my lappy runs with single and crossfire.

 

The main problem with this is that lowering laptop resolution is a real mess compared to old CRT desktop monitors. It really degrades IQ in games. HOWEVER, I can't imagine it not being playable in campaign at decent settings if all settings for your videocard are set to performance and you just turn off certain settings. It was shown, at least in Crysis 2, that High to Ultra was hardly a visual difference but a HUGE performance drop to ultra. MAYBE that will be the same for BF3. The biggest concern will "How will it play during Multiplayer?" Even MP on my old R2 with xfire 5870s could drop to low 30's on some maps during COD MW2. I imagine that even the 6990's with struggle a bit with BF3. This game may require the 7 series AMD out in Mid 2012 to run this very fluently. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

so when is the friggin beta

edit: nevermind they have a legit ea page that explains it all so the early beta starts on the 27th and the open beta starts on the 29th. dam why did they wait so long.

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/beta

also they have the minimum specs on this page which says at least an nvidia 8800gt or higher but it also says any nvidia card past 8 series with at least 512mb of ram. and according to notebook check your 8800 gtx should be on par with a gt 540m which is not a bad card at all. but your card obviously has less memory.

 

I would think that higher resolution would not be harder on the CPU; the game is probably going to be equally hard on the CPU in all settings as BFBC2 seemed to be. Hopefully a mobile i5 with hyperthreading will be enough to play it, because my CPU doesn't really bottleneck me too much in BC2. If DICE TRULY made this a PC game first then hopefully it will be more optimised than BC2 was and have more GPU usage and less CPU usage, as consoles have more powerful cpus than GPUs but computers for the most part do not.

My desktop on the other hand should be able to slaughter BF3 easily, but I don't have it here at school...

 

September 29th, September 27 for Early Access

We just received word from EA Singapore Asia region is now supported

Fluttershy: yay... squeak

 

Ok i'm going to cry in a corner (I know, i should stay silent, but I really can't understand these technical choices).

Daniel Matros (Global Battlefield Community Manager at DICE) twitted:

https://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/116140116820504576
https://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/116140729864159232

In 2 words: "Recommended" means MEDIUM.
A SLI of 580GTX (desktop) is required to play the game @ Ultra (i think @1080p)

IMHO:
- We'll have 4 presets: Low - Mid - High - Ultra.
- Only a SLI of GTX580M will be able to run the game between High and Ultra.
- A SLI of GTX560M par a desktop GTX560 so...Mid Settings
- A single GTX560M will be able to run between Low and Mid

I hope these declarations are suited for 1080p. But even on 720p I don't think we're going so better I can't even imagine a 64 player map with these requirements.

I'm seriously considering to get it on x360. It must be a joke. A BAD one.

 

I doubt it's a joke. BF2 had pretty stringent requirements when it was first released. I remember people griping because they had to get 2GB RAM, lol.

Nature of gaming these days. I still think 720p @ mixture of low/med will be fine. Just turn off all the advanced effects. I do that in BFBC2 and can get 60fps at 1080p with my AMD CPU and 6750m GPU.

 

I really think you're being overly dramatic. I really don't think they expect people to have a 560M or better just to run the game.

 

Yeah. Going by the alpha, it wasn't that bad at all.

 

yeah i agree i played the alpha at 1080p and all high settings and that was no where near optimized and it ran about 40 fps.

 

you really do overestimate things. ok let sum something up. here is a clip on someone playing with a 6750m playing battlefield 3 on 900p resolution. overclocked to at least 6770m and get 25-60fps on medium. very good at that resolution i think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkOMByvZleE

The desktop equivalent to the 6770m is the 5770 where the nvidia 450GTS is close. doesnt that surpass minimum requirements to run it at 900p in medium settings??? especially for a laptop?
and you think a desktop 560gtx which is in terms on laptop eqivalent is 580m/6990m will on run on medium settings?
the 6990m DOUBLES the fps than the 460m GTX with the same hardware which is better than the 6770m which played 25-60fps on medium.
so rethink now. do u think as highly to run it as you do now?

so lets rethink

 

Battlefield 3 Reaches 1.5 Million Pre-Orders

Well done NBR.

 

Haha, lol


But you guys mustn't forget that, when Daniel spoke about "maxing", he meant with DX11. If you guys change to DX10, it'll have a good FPS increase.

 

I dont think NBR members were the ones that pre-ordered all of those lol

I am guessing that after or in the BETA the numebrs will likely rise if it was a success(or fall if it is a failure)

 

It's going to be a rerun of alpha, and one of the mistakes, IMO, was the lack of a conquest mode. I was surprised they didn't even add that on the beta.

 

They said that they changed the layout and decided to run it again to see if the new layout will be better.

Of Course not everyone got into the Alpha so most will still be new to the game

 

I don't know if i'm explaining in the wrong way or you simply don't want to read it. I'll try to explain it again.

"GTX460M" = "GTS450 Desktop". Got it.
If "recommended settings" say "GTX460 Desktop" (to play at mid detail form what Daniel said) then YES, with "GTX460M" / "HD6770" (that match "GTS450 Desktop" that is WEAKER than a "GTX460 Desktop") you will play between MID and LOW (always mantaining the resolution @ a fixed value). "GTS450 Desktop"/"GTX460M" has 192 cores, "GTX460 Desktop" has 336 cores. It means about +43% raw power with same frequencies, ok? (God saves nVidia for rebranding policies). So if:

2x GTX460M = about 1,14x GTX460 Desktop (2x192 cores vs 336 cores)
GTX460 Desktop = Mid details (DX11? 1080p? Who knows)
Then 1x GTX460M = About Mid details * 0,57 (easily translated in "Between Low and Mid settings")

Now if minimum req say 8800GT (112 cores), the GTX460M (192 cores) is a bit above the GT555 (144 core) that is the nearest card (above) to the minimum one, so we can expect more than minimum details but less than medium cause for medium is required GTX460M +43%. (aka GTX460 Desktop, with 336 cores)

Speaking about the "GTX560 Desktop" (which is almost a rebrand of a "GTX460 Desktop"), I said it will run on Mid like Daniel said. No more, no less.

Daniel said a "GTX580 Desktop" alone CAN'T MAX the game. (DX11? 1080p? Who knows again). The strongest single card on a notebook is a "GTX580M" that has 384 cores compared to the 512 cores of the "GTX580 Desktop". (and 1x GTX580M = 2x GTX460M)
So in the best scenario 2x GTX580M could keep ultra settings (cause 768 > 512), in the worst they couldn't be enough (and we're talking about TOP CLASS NOTEBOOKS that may not be able to max the game).

Now, one step beyond. How many GTX580M have you seen in a 15" notebook? I've seen none but maybe there are some, idk honestly.

But 1x "GTX580M" = 1,14x "GTX460 Desktop" (Remember, Mid details), but let' think there is a 15" notebook with a GTX580M. The most powerful 15" could reach at most....a bit above medium settings? lol (always keeping the same resolution in the whole comparison).

That means that the 15" market is bound at most on medium settings, and we know that the minimum GPU is a GT555 (talking about the latest series) that is hard to be found in a 15" (at least not so common) due the heat related problems.

Now people who were in alpha said that the requirements released with the beta announcement are HIGHER THAN BEFORE. Ok? Forget about what you've seen in alpha. (If I had to consider what i've seen about the alpha, on a GT540M I should go smoothly between low and mid @720p). But updated requirements say a different thing and i'm trying to understand what is the reason of this choice (considered the heavy optimization they made to make it run on x360 and ps3). So forget the alpha for comparison please and focus on the parameters that Dice announced.

Now if all these analysis are based on 1080p, surely there will be more people able to max the game @720p even with lower configurations (i hate playing @ not native resolution more than lowering to minimum the details btw), but in any case, they are only numbers that should give a gross approach to what expect about the performances in game. If the results will be different (and I repeat, i hope it in a better way), probably something that DICE said about the requirements ins't completely true right now.

Now i have a headache

 

Why don't we all just wait a week? Everyone go grab a cold beverage of their choice and chill.

 

^^^^^I totally agree!

 

Is the origin store down for anyone else? I was just about to go preorder to get in on the map packs and expansion/early beta and origin isn't cooperating XD

 

i will be fine with low as long as it still looks better than the console version

 

lol i hear you. the way i see it is from witnessing it. cos the game is built for pc and port to console rather than the other way around like it was in bad company 2. the fps should be close to what graphics cards achieved with bad company 2. going form that clip. if he got between 25-60fps. the average at 900p is around 40fps for a 6770m. the 460m gtx will get a bit more on average.
my point is the the desktop cards can run it high and not on medium or as low as you think. but when you say in dx11 @ 1080p is really extreme. you would need like quad graphics all top end.
i got my g53jw with 460m gtx @ 1080p, i should be getting my sony sa with 6630m 900p. so ill mess about with both and see how they both fair.
my laptop of choice was the np8150 with 6990m. That laptop can play bad company 2 max out on ultra settings with 60fps so BF3 i fact it could play it on 900p in high settings about 40fps. but that doesnt mean max AA.

 

+ rep. good stuff.

 

(coughs loudly) i have a gtx 485m with which i have overclocked to near gtx 560ti clocks in a 15 in notebook.(ends cough)

 

As i said I didn't was aware about a model of 15" notebook with a card comparable to a GTX580M Good to you
GTX485M = GTX580M = 1,14*GTX460 Desktop, aka a bit more than what recommended settings asks (for Mid details). Now let's wait the beta In the worst cases we will play Modern Crapware 3

 

I don't think that the situation it's drammatic as Simoxta said, but it's realy strange that a game after the Alpha stage increse the reccomended hardware settings to run.
I have a 4650M, i think that my gpu it's not as fast as a 3870 desktop card, that in this case it's the minimum, but at 1336x768 i'm sure that the game at least will run, maybe not very good, but will run.
Maybe the hardware settings are suited for a 1080p resolution at 60 fps....

 

It just makes me more inclined to start building my desktop.

 

lol that made me laugh but shouldnt it be modern crapfare 3

 

True

 

ppffff I don't want to sound like bad@$$ or anything lol but i'm one of those 10% that can fly the blackhawk(bc2) like a boss... PLEASE ADD ME if "anyone" is a gd Gunner....

Origin: LeonAffiliatedLB
Steam: LeonAffiliated

lates.

 

i will add you good sir my ea name is: "babypeepee" dont judge and yes i cannot change it i already asked, and its good to know that some people can actually fly the damn helo.

oh i tried to add you but you must have your account set to private

also the battle log website is now up, but when i tried to log in it said some bs about waiting till the 27th. oh well but at least its up.

 

yeah dude, i'll change the Origin Setting when I get home. Btw, im not super crazy about flying the heli, but i can keep it up in the air for a gd while, unless half the defensive team are engineers, one tracer dart, and a lag of flares and im done lol... u can only do soo much...

 

I really hope choppers aren't flying deathtraps in BF3 like they were in BFBC2.

I'm a pretty capable Blackhawk pilot, but there's only so much I can do against magical un-dodgeable tracer-guided RPG's and CG rounds, and manually-steered AT4's that you can't flare away, and the million anti-air guns all over every map.

 

When I'm on an AH, I am very good at dodging missiles. The trick is to steer left while leaning right. Only a 50-level guy can kill me with a CG or an AT4

 

^^Weren't you my first kill when I started BC2 MP??

 

I was a lot worse at flying jets with a joystick in BF2 than my mouse(crashed all the time and had trouble dodging missiles).
Always envied the people that could get used to flying with a joystick in BF2... and was just flat out confused at how some people were flying HELOCOPTERS with joysticks... they require such a precision control that joysticks lack.

 

Helo's that require precision control that joysticks lack? Joysticks ARE precision control.

 

Nah, one stick to control every axis is less accurate than the mouse, joysticks work for repeating motions that are good for flying jets. You can move much faster and compensate for mistakes much easier with a mouse. Flying a helocopter with a joystick doesn't help your performance, flying a plane with a joystick can help performance if you get used to it.

 

I have been flying planes with my joystick ever since Battlefield 1942 (remember that game? Everyone else seems to have forgotten about it, despite it being the BEST game in the BF series by far). I never used a joystick in BC2 because DICE did not get them working properly at launch; also flying a transport helicopter around is notably less fun than flying a plane with bombs/missiles/MGs. The gunships SHOULD be better, but the maps that they are on have over powered AA turrets so helis rarely last more than a minute. In BF1942 a plane could last a whole round if you knew what you were doing, mostly because of the vast size of the maps when compared to the radius of fire of the AA. BC2 maps are all pitifully small (yes, even heavy metal is nothing compared with BF1942 maps like gazala or midway) and the air vehicles all have a height ceiling. I honestly hope there is no height ceiling for jets in BF3... This is a battlefield game, not Star Fox.