Topic: Ship Simulator Extremes Requirements Discussion (Read 51866 times)

TNeves · « **Reply #100 on:** July 30, 2010, 22:06:58 »

Quote from: IRI5HJ4CK on July 30, 2010, 22:00:27

Hi guys,

How is the processor on this system? I noticed it was 2.8 yet most people seem to have higher? Or is there something else with this processor that makes it just as good?

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/packard-bell-ipower-i9723-06323861-pdt.html

Thanks,
Jack.

The CPU is just fine, its the new generation of Intel CPUs, and the graphic card is a medium one.

Ballast · « **Reply #101 on:** July 30, 2010, 22:09:39 »

How could it be that a 2 gb dedicated video card is 'just' a medium one?

IRI5HJ4CK · « **Reply #102 on:** July 30, 2010, 22:17:14 »

When you say it is 2GB dedicated - does that mean that it doesn't draw its 'power' from the rest of the system? Or am I totally wrong??

Jack.

Ballast · « **Reply #103 on:** July 30, 2010, 22:20:00 »

That's correct. The video card only takes memory from the rest of your system when it has 'shared memory'

IRI5HJ4CK · « **Reply #104 on:** July 30, 2010, 22:24:04 »

Ahhh I see...I thought so, but wasn't too sure! What's ironic is that at the moment, on the main computer, I only have 1GB in total...yet this one has 2GB JUST for the card ROFL

laganviking · « **Reply #105 on:** July 30, 2010, 22:49:06 »

Im worried $:-\$

Processor i think is fine, its the rest that concerns me

TNeves · « **Reply #106 on:** July 30, 2010, 23:13:35 »

Quote from: Ballast on July 30, 2010, 22:09:39

How could it be that a 2 gb dedicated video card is 'just' a medium one?

Yes, it's from the medium low segment. The memory its not so important when compared to other specs like stream processors, clock/mem/shader frequencies, new architectures, etc. Is the same as comparing CPUs taking just the frequency as a term of comparison, and then saying that higher is better.

LucAtC · « **Reply #107 on:** July 31, 2010, 02:38:08 »

A medium pc with a 9800GT, without problems.

Matthew Brown · « **Reply #108 on:** July 31, 2010, 08:34:48 »

I'm still confused

But I suppose I will just have to wait and see

I don't mind waiting.

Kind Regards

Matthew

Kevinmcg_ships · « **Reply #109 on:** July 31, 2010, 10:58:45 »

Does anyone know if Questviewer will be used in SSE?

Ballast · « **Reply #110 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:21:23 »

You ask this because of the so-called QV errors? Questviewer is the game engine that fits everything together. Questview error is just the 'messenger' for any conflicts caused by software and/or hardware.

I'm sure MVSmith has a better explanation

Kevinmcg_ships · « **Reply #111 on:** July 31, 2010, 11:34:15 »

Quote from: Ballast on July 31, 2010, 11:21:23

You ask this because of the so-called QV errors? Questviewer is the game engine that fits everything together. Questview error is just the 'messenger' for any conflicts caused by software and/or hardware.

I'm sure MVSmith has a better explanation

Hi Ballast,

Yup, you got that right

I'm not a huge fan of Questviewer.

Out of all PC games I've owned, Questviewer is the only one which crash frequently. Getting a mission to load successfully is a lottery.

If SSE will be using Questviewer then I might hold off buying SSE for a wee bit and see if anyone else is still having the Questviewer errors in SSE.

Traddles · « **Reply #112 on:** July 31, 2010, 12:53:06 »

Questviewer IS used for SSE, but it is a different version to that which is used for SS2008.

Kevinmcg_ships · « **Reply #113 on:** July 31, 2010, 13:01:14 »

Quote from: Traddles on July 31, 2010, 12:53:06

Questviewer IS used for SSE, but it is a different version to that which is used for SS2008.

Cheers for that, let's hope it is much better than the one used in SS2008.

mvsmith · « **Reply #114 on:** July 31, 2010, 14:58:55 »

http://80.95.161.114/shipsim/forum/index.php/topic,17722.msg238516.html#msg238516 (http://80.95.161.114/shipsim/forum/index.php/topic,17722.msg238516.html#msg238516)

The developers have taken a very aggressive step in SSE to eliminate newton.dll faults, which are the principle cause of so-called QV crashes on proper installations of SS08.
When QV reports a faulting module other than newton.dll, the problem is usually with the userâ€™s computer or installation.

The principal reason for a mission not to initialize is excessive AI or a large total number of player, static, and AI ships beyond what the resources of the userâ€™s system can handle.
All ships, even static ships, have dynamics that require considerable computational effort. Everything in the current environment that can move must be examined and have its new position and attitude calculated, if necessary, between every frame. This must be done for objects such as AI ships that are not in the current view so that they will be in their correct positions when they do come into view.

austin14 · « **Reply #115 on:** July 31, 2010, 23:57:38 »

i saw the system requirements but i didn't see an optimum system one.
are the ones on the homepage official?

if so would this system be able to handle SSE?
core 2 duo E8400 3.0 Ghz
2 GB of ram
EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512mb
ASUS p5ql pro
windows XP 32 bit

TNeves · « **Reply #116 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:40:10 »

Quote from: austin14 on July 31, 2010, 23:57:38

i saw the system requirements but i didn't see an optimum system one.
are the ones on the homepage official?

if so would this system be able to handle SSE?
core 2 duo E8400 3.0 Ghz
2 GB of ram
EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512mb
ASUS p5ql pro
windows XP 32 bit

Yes, don't worry at all.

Don't you want to install Win 7? In that computer its a good investment (just an opinion).

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #117 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:46:42 »

Hi gents,

A note though... With win7, the RAM won't be enough... $:-\$

TNeves · « **Reply #118 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:49:59 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on August 01, 2010, 01:46:42

Hi gents,

A note though... With win7, the RAM won't be enough... $:-\$

Why? I only have 2GB and runs very very fine. More than that and we should start thinking about Win 64Bit.

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #119 on:** August 01, 2010, 02:01:48 »

Well, SSE requires 2GB of RAM for XP and 3GB of RAM when using Vista/Win7, or at least so do the requirements say.

Hence if he'd go from xp to win7 he'd go from minium requirement for win xp, to 1GB below specs for win7. $:-\$

TNeves · « **Reply #120 on:** August 01, 2010, 02:07:24 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on August 01, 2010, 02:01:48

Well, SSE requires 2GB of RAM for XP and 3GB of RAM when using Vista/Win7, or at least so do the requirements say.

Hence if he'd go from xp to win7 he'd go from minium requirement for win xp, to 1GB below specs for win7. $:-\$

That is is something that I would like to discuss after the game will be released. I want to test a lot of things

However, I am not saying not to buy, just that probably 2GB will be enough to play it, as many other high end games.

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #121 on:** August 01, 2010, 02:17:21 »

Hmm, yeah but it's risky to speculate if you, for example, use that to decide wether or not to upgrade something ,and later find out it's not going.

There has been extensive testing already, and as one result, the requirements have gone up. That requirements change was not without reason. And I can also see for myself how much RAM it uses on my machine, in total.. when playing the game (plus some background stuff). And I am saying.. it needs it's resources, specially when missions get very crowded.

So if you recommend someone to go with a new OS, and that causes him not to be able to play the game without buying additional hardware, it's kind of a shame if it goes wrong..

So best to just go by the officially posted requirements. And you can't really compare other game specs with this one, to be honest, there's no guarantee that it will be similar to 'what a lot of others have'.

And I don't think you can play a lot of new high end games with 2GB anyway.. or I would have been able to run them on my old pc, which lacked the memory for the newer high end games, even though cpu and graphics card were up to par, sort of

.

I bought quite a few titles that I had to put aside till I got this new machine, because I also thought 'should be okay, even if I lam slightly under spec'.

Fred

TNeves · « **Reply #122 on:** August 01, 2010, 02:40:34 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on August 01, 2010, 02:17:21

Hmm, yeah but it's risky to speculate if you, for example, use that to decide wether or not to upgrade something ,and later find out it's not going.

There has been extensive testing already, and as one result, the requirements have gone up. That requirements change was not without reason. And I can also see for myself how much RAM it uses on my machine, in total.. when playing the game (plus some background stuff). And I am saying.. it needs it's resources, specially when missions get very crowded.

So if you recommend someone to go with a new OS, and that causes him not to be able to play the game without buying additional hardware, it's kind of a shame if it goes wrong..

So best to just go by the officially posted requirements. And you can't really compare other game specs with this one, to be honest, there's no guarantee that it will be similar to 'what a lot of others have'.

And I don't think you can play a lot of new high end games with 2GB anyway.. or I would have been able to run them on my old pc, which lacked the memory for the newer high end games, even though cpu and graphics card were up to par, sort of .

I bought quite a few titles that I had to put aside till I got this new machine, because I also thought 'should be okay, even if I lam slightly under spec'.

Fred

Yes, I do play, sorry to say that to you, BattleField Bad company 2 for example is a very graphic intensive game, and it runs smooth with my settings. Well, I also have my memories configured at 1000Mhz, which affects the performance too.

Talking about the thing of upgrading to Win 7 and then it goes wrong, Win 7 "uses" the memory much better than XP. My advise, was with that computer Win 7 fits nice, because mine is worst and it fits nice too, besides I expect to run the game without problems, probably not with all the eye candy on

I never said to someone, "hey you will run the game with this on, this on and that off" I just said that you will run the game, and depending on many factors not just the mems, you would have to adjust the settings to play it more nicely.

I hope you understood my English, sometimes is hard to discuss in a non native language

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #123 on:** August 01, 2010, 03:33:59 »

Hi again,

Yeah, you're english is perfectly understandable, nothing wrong with it, and I see your points too.

I was talking in general too, not saying you told him to upgrade to win7, you only posed the question, which is fair enough, since xp is kinda going out of fashion.

What I just wanted to say is, that you're always on the safe side if you take the minimum requirements as bare minimum, to avoid surprises.

But it MIGHT run, yes. Though as I said.. the specs aren't there just for fun.

Regards,
Fred

TNeves · « **Reply #124 on:** August 01, 2010, 13:43:37 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on August 01, 2010, 03:33:59

Hi again,

Yeah, you're english is perfectly understandable, nothing wrong with it, and I see your points too.

I was talking in general too, not saying you told him to upgrade to win7, you only posed the question, which is fair enough, since xp is kinda going out of fashion.

What I just wanted to say is, that you're always on the safe side if you take the minimum requirements as bare minimum, to avoid surprises.

But it MIGHT run, yes. Though as I said.. the specs aren't there just for fun.

Regards,
Fred

Thanks Happy_Fred

I agree, we should always take the minimum specs as a golden rule, to at least run the game without major problems.

Author Topic: Ship Simulator Extremes Requirements Discussion (Read 51866 times)

mvsmith

austin14