System requirements released for Star Wars Battlefront

16GB RAM recommended? Really?!

http://www.pcgamer.com/star-wars-battlefront-system-requirements-released/

 

Well at least ram is cheap these days.

 

LOL these can't be real.

 

I don't understand how a game that is undoubtedly going to optimized for 8GB consoles needs 16GB of RAM on PCs...

 

Why buy it when you can download it absolutely free!
http://www.downloadmoreram.com/

 

You know.

It is as if hardware manufacturers actually pay game developers to make unstable, non-reconfigured, un-optimized games to sell better, more expensive hardware for no reason at all.

Just my 2 cents.

Software goes a long way... you can't tell me hardware reaches limitations within the 1st year of its release.

 

Hmmm.... I guess I need to upgrade my NP8150 (560m). I have 16GB of RAM but the gfx card might not cut it.

Time to upgrade to a 970/980.

 

GTX 660 min spec... I expect PS4-like graphics and resolution then.

Recommended spec is 970. For what? 1440p ultra?

 

Actually.

4k PhysX... I think

 

1080p ultra for sure. 1440p is a stretch. This is Frostbite after all.

 

As much as I hate the disaster that was BF4, I still played it to death and who am I kidding, I'm getting Battlefront no doubt. All I have to say though is that the new SW movie better live up to expectation.

 

I'm hoping Mickey Mouse makes a cameo

 

I've been Battlefield'ed out since BF3 but am really looking forward to this.

16GB ram is obscene. Most recommended specs are usually Micky Mouse (pun intended) guidelines anyway. I'm guessing if you can run BF4 you can run this almost as well.

 

I wish these companies would include mobile recommended specs as well. Laptop gaming has surely advanced enough to be taken seriously and included in these recommendations.

 

You can preload Battlefront Beta now. Beta starts tomorrow October 8.

 

Lack of optimization perhaps?
PC ports suffered from this before the consoles got more PC-like hardware, and they suffer from it now.
It may make the games easier to port, but I doubt that devs want to spend too much money on optimizations that would likely eliminate most of the high-end system requirements. It's a co-dependency within the system itself.
The devs make inefficient/unoptimized software that doesn't really take proper advantage of the existing hardware in an efficient capacity so that people would also be forced to buy new hardware to play the games better.

 

I know how optimization works. I've never seen a game come close to that kind of RAM usage and I played Watch Dogs......

The only thing that makes sense is that EA is pushing higher requirements for the beta so that they don't get a bunch of lag reports from people trying to run 1080p60.

 

Doesn't look too bad to me...

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...ta_vga_graphics_performance_benchmarks,5.html

 

But FOV set at 55!? Ugh. Vomit time.

 

I've never played any BF games so I have no idea.

 

They've always been adjustable to some degree. I play BF4 at 110 fov and BF3 I think goes up to 90 with its in-game slider.

 

What's the impact on framerate though?

 

I honestly don't know. I've never noticed much of a real impact; the game has almost always been CPU limited for me to target 120fps.

 

We want more complicated detailed games.
We want hi-poly geometries with super hi-res textures (anyone said 4k?).
We want em to run as fast as possible on our machines.

We want to keep running it on our p5+voodoo3.

 

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

No.

I don't mind games being rightfully demanding. Not at all. But if I take double the power of a console to get console-level graphics, and 6x the power of a console to get slightly-better-than-console-level-graphics, then somebody has done screwed up somewhere.

 

I think it looks way better on PC.
And consoles get refreshes too.

 

I wasn't specifically talking about battlefront in this instance =D. Battlefield 4 however is a pretty different story.

Console refreshes are pointless; ALL games that come out for them must run on their 1st generation hardware. So even if it gets more efficient/cooler/cheaper/etc, it's still built with the same limits.

 

FOV can have an impact on FPS depending on the game engine and what you're looking at. But by vomit I actually meant vomit. I can't play games with less than a 75deg FOV. Usually need 90-100 otherwise I get motion sickness.

 

Yeah but Battlefield and Battlefront use vFOV. vFOV =! hFOV.

http://www.rjdown.co.uk/projects/bfbc2/fovcalculator.php

 

I played the game for about 90 minutes or so this evening on PS4 and it looks great even on that. Very detailed textures and terrain IMO. The sounds really sell the game. I managed to get a early access PS4 key, unfortunately I wasn't able to get a PC key yet. This game was made for mouse and keyboard, but I still had some fun running around blasting people. Can't wait for tomorrow.

 

That still doesn't seem right. That site shows 90 hFOV as 59 vFOV.

If you go into BF4 and set FOV you get these:





Even if it is 55 vFOV that is only 70 hFOV...

 

Playing PC and its glorious! You can unlock with a Proxy using Australian server.

Played the last couple hours, ranked up to max level 5 in the beta. Awesome experience so far, lots of fun. Now time for some sleep.

 

I only had time for a couple of rounds... but dam it was fun. Boy oh boy those sound effects are spot on. It's a well presented game so far and I really love the attention to detail. Not sure about the net coding but things felt reasonable good too.
I definitely want this game. Not sure if I'll day one it (or anything for that matter).. but it will be mine.

 

I've been having an absolute blast with it so far. Just had a 31-5 game. Running around with the blaster and cyclic rifle is an great combo. Wear them down with rifle and finish with blaster or vice versa.

Also for reference I did not update to latest Nvida drivers and I'm maxing it out Ultra 1080p with avg around 110-130fps on my 980 Ti.

 

That's because it's hor+ FOV, which is based on a 4:3 aspect ratio. Plug 4x3 into the calculator, then set desired hFOV to 95 and 70. Notice how you get 79 and 56 vFOV? Exactly. So the actual hFOV on a 16:9 aspect ratio with your 79 and 55 vFOV are 111 and 85 respectively.

 

Now that my computer is set up, I'm gonna give this a try.

 

Battlefront in SLI:


Imported @Matrix Leader's SLI definition profiles from earlier.

Game now runs in single GPU.

>__________________________>

Also, I don't think I'm going to upgrade drivers, because:

 

Import the entire profile (the attached .nip file) with Inspector. In addition to the SLI profile (pushed from GFE after the driver was released), I noticed an additional undefined flag. It may fix the flicker in SLI.

 

Well it would seem that I have discovered the infamous BF4 CPU instability... I just got WHEA about 15 minutes into the game. -85mv has been stable in EVERYTHING I've ever tried it on but nope, not this game.

Here's what I was able to get in that time period. Ultra, 71FOV, 150% supersampling.

Spoiler

Frame rate was almost always over 60, closer to 80-90 but unfortunately since it crashed I don't have the RTSS average from HWiNFO.

 

Doesn't change much with your NVI profile @octiceps


However I will admit that multiplayer has FAR less of this (almost none in pure gameplay) and co-op/survival is the killer.

 

Do you have Nvidia Share enabled? Disable that, or add Bit #17 and #18 to the SLI profile (thus becoming 0x080716F5).

 

PFFFFT! All I get is a BLACK SCREEN. EA/ORIGIN hasn't changed!

 

If anybody wonder how it run on 7970m. Msi:ab eat coupe of fps but it's still pretty good.

 

I'm still on 355.60 and GFE doesn't update without my say-so, so I don't have it.

Also, it already has these:

 

I thought Frostbite Engine was supposed to be AFR friendly? LOL

 

I had AFR working problem-free in BF4 when its beta *cough* demo *cough* came out in 2013 without even updating drivers. Hell, BF Hardline did the same thing too; worked fine. This game however seems to be fitting with the trend that devs care much less about SLI lately =D.

Oh, did I mention that on my friend's 680 the game told him he MUST update from 347.88 to minimum 355.60 or it wouldn't work?

 

And the DA:I SLI flicker

 

Not to mention Witcher 3 1.06 broke SLI scaling and apparently water tessellation as well, so anytime you're near a pool of water your frames get murdered.

Yeah I'm glad I got rid of my 970 SLI setup and went for a single 980 Ti. Sure I'm losing about 15% performance in games, but I can say with certainty that gaming in the 45-60FPS region is actually quite tolerable, whereas before it was just a (micro)stuttering mess. Plus what's the point of timely profiles when the devs will just bork everything or not give a damn to begin with?

That said I had a great experience with 780M SLI, and for laptops I think it's a necessary evil until 16nm GPUs.

 

Well generally you don't use that anymore, so newer games aren't biting your head off. When we got our machines SLI was in full swing.