LSD T Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Game is not badly ported. Period. Wow you are beyond the pale. Aside from the nigh on infinitesimal comments from 1000's of the 1%ers, the fact the game wile processing absolutely f*ck all of note struggles to keep a stable FPS reading above 50 fps when in empty areas, looking at a bland sh*tty textured wall from zero distance gets no more than 70FPS, the fact that an i7 CPU with 280GTX can hardly run it issue free, without any stutter. That's one of the reasons I'm calling you a lying c*nt. You have sh*t performance, from all accounts from your benchmarks reported, yet you claim fantastical performance that others with 10 times the system cannot get. There is no way whatsoever that you are experiencing anything less than a sh*t gaming experience, only difference is that you have no standards. I would advise you to fire up RivaTuner (Low resource hogging framerate monitor app) and monitor you supposedly perfectly smooth framerate, you'll be shocked to discover just how low your standards are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSD T Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Complete cockrot and it's utter pricks like you that boost up all the responses of outrage and anger here.How the f*ck are you expecting us to believe your sh*t, you seem to think a system with 30FPS+ in benchmark indicates flawless performance, that's why you seem so oblivious to the fact the game is so badly ported only a c*nt could be happy. Which you are. Its your fault, GTA 4 runs smooth and looks like this to me. Looks like what? I could get those screenshots from a 75MHZ PI, they show nothing to suggest it's not a slideshow. BTW, what is my fault? It's comments like that that show we have some c*nts on here whose sole goal is to annoy, what is my fault, that you're lying, that the game is the most piss poor quality port around, that Rockstar can take you for a c*nt and palm this sh*t out and drop it without any recourse? I bench over 68 FPS at the best run 1920x1200 View Distance 75 Detail Distance 100 Cars 35 Shadows 16 In-game that translates to shockingly bad stutter and dips way below 30FPS when raining, have you got as far as the carwash scene? Benchmark that highly 'optimised' piece of class... Great still image pics though, for whatever purpose that was for... Edited January 12, 2009 by LSD T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Game is not badly ported. Period. Wow you are beyond the pale. Aside from the nigh on infinitesimal comments from 1000's of the 1%ers, the fact the game wile processing absolutely f*ck all of note struggles to keep a stable FPS reading above 50 fps when in empty areas, looking at a bland sh*tty textured wall from zero distance gets no more than 70FPS, the fact that an i7 CPU with 280GTX can hardly run it issue free, without any stutter. That's one of the reasons I'm calling you a lying c*nt. You have sh*t performance, from all accounts from your benchmarks reported, yet you claim fantastical performance that others with 10 times the system cannot get. There is no way whatsoever that you are experiencing anything less than a sh*t gaming experience, only difference is that you have no standards. I would advise you to fire up RivaTuner (Low resource hogging framerate monitor app) and monitor you supposedly perfectly smooth framerate, you'll be shocked to discover just how low your standards are. welcome to the beta testers club buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Great still image pics though Thanks hehe, i like them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvr2fst Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It's Half Time! Let's look at the teams. Team - Rockstar f*cked Us LanceLongstiff flyer2359 Goatman455 Lastsource nynth.plague nitro_hedgehog Pooscooper nvr2fst OabAli bpx ZaCkOX Blazur Geedoo kormgar Sorkenlol Kurgen Ardbug Team - Perfectly Fine CharmingCharlie chngdman SativaHaze Vive La France TruXter Team - Neutral Drag_Drift pLaTaNo Dungeoncrawler GoreMaster With a chance of people moving from team to team. Some it was hard to decide which team. !!GAME ON!! You put me on the wrong team I am happy with the game. I agree it needs a tune up I dont think Rockstar F*cked me. They said they prefered certain hardware....so thats what I did. I got the prefered hardware. I will never play a game I like without having the Prefered system. Never, never, never. Now kindly fix my team affiliation. Thank You sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Now kindly fix my team affiliation. Team - Rockstar f*cked Us LanceLongstiff flyer2359 Goatman455 Lastsource nynth.plague nitro_hedgehog Pooscooper OabAli bpx ZaCkOX Blazur Geedoo kormgar Sorkenlol Kurgen Ardbug Team - Perfectly Fine CharmingCharlie chngdman SativaHaze Vive La France TruXter thales100 nvr2fst Team - Neutral Drag_Drift pLaTaNo Dungeoncrawler GoreMaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 hey come on man I deserve a position on one of those teams... you decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangxxter Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Team - Rockstar f*cked Us LanceLongstiff flyer2359 Goatman455 Lastsource nynth.plague nitro_hedgehog Pooscooper OabAli bpx ZaCkOX Blazur Geedoo kormgar Sorkenlol Kurgen Ardbug Team - Perfectly Fine CharmingCharlie chngdman SativaHaze Vive La France TruXter thales100 nvr2fst Gangxxter Team - Neutral Drag_Drift pLaTaNo Dungeoncrawler GoreMaster My hardware is below minimum system requirements. People often forget, what "minimum system requirements" mean: that means absolute minimum graphics at 800x600 or 1024x768. I play at 800x600 and minimum graphics at 15-20 fps, that's a fair deal. Rockstar didn't f*cked us! Stop to complain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvr2fst Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Now kindly fix my team affiliation. Team - Rockstar f*cked Us LanceLongstiff flyer2359 Goatman455 Lastsource nynth.plague nitro_hedgehog Pooscooper OabAli bpx ZaCkOX Blazur Geedoo kormgar Sorkenlol Kurgen Ardbug Team - Perfectly Fine CharmingCharlie chngdman SativaHaze Vive La France TruXter thales100 nvr2fst Team - Neutral Drag_Drift pLaTaNo Dungeoncrawler GoreMaster Thank you kindly.....I felt like a black man at a KKK rally! Nothing racist I mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Thank you kindly.....I felt like a black man at a KKK rally! Mmm , you mean a quad core at a celeron party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Live video pending on performance of GTA IV on my rig for LSD and all who call me liar, chock full with cocky and arrogant remarks from me in faggy voice that makes me look like a jerk. Stay tuned. Also, I would say I'm neutral in these teams, mainly because I think some things can be worked on, but overall, I'd better serve the perfectly fine team because I'm certainly not to the point of complaints considering my specs and full 30 FPS and weather does not slow me either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvr2fst Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Thank you kindly.....I felt like a black man at a KKK rally! Mmm , you mean a quad core at a celeron party. And Or In true life I would prefer being at the party you spoke of.......but I dont know these guys can be pretty passionate about there stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And Or In true life I would prefer being at the party you spoke of.......but I dont know these guys can be pretty passionate about there stuff! Yep, they could kick your ass and call you a lier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvr2fst Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And Or In true life I would prefer being at the party you spoke of.......but I dont know these guys can be pretty passionate about there stuff! Yep, they could kick your ass and call you a lier. I hate when they do that. It takes me a week to recover..........I mean being called a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Video is processing - will be playable soon. No one get mad, I'm being smug with the smug ones, they can read - or watch it - and weep, and make fun of me, and the way I talk, and rub one out to my Niko getting all wet outside. Everyone not taking offense, thanks for listening, everyone getting offended, please, we're all friends here - or at the very least it's the internet. If I came across any kind of way to you in my previous posts, just know my own frustrations are from constantly asking the same question and still watching people throw around aspects of specs that are not really important if they are all running slowly. I could be shining a light for you guys right now, I could be giving you the hints you need. So what if it results in an upgrade, wouldn't you rather upgrade for IV than another game? Well, for GTA, and maybe Even Rockstar? I know I'd rather upgrade for this and them before I upgraded for EA or some sh*t. I really think there is a speed of component thing going on, rather than rating or capacity, but also, I'll reiterate one more time: I might just have "the Only lucky PCChips USA MOBo from 2006 that didn't come DOA after the first 2 were RMA'd" because even my little poll is getting votes where people who meet and exceed my arguement here are voting "1066 and up - runs like ass" and also, people are voting for "800mhz and lower - runs great!" as well. So, give more time for that poll, say like a week, and maybe we'll pick out some info from the feedback there too... edit: will repost vid when it is processed, taking forever... Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA_XP Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I feel f*cked. All these interviews, previews before the release dat made be damn much excited. When I have read the post on Gamespot this one: It runs also perfectley on three-years-old machine! I was blew up! That made me more nicer and save up my money. The release date was over and GTA4 are in the stores. In the morning I clicked this PC version section and the first topic I read, was called "Bad performances on ATI HD 4xxx series" Wtf? I read and scrolled further and only I see are only "bad, optimized, issues, flickered weid dithered MS Paint brush shadows. Damn, an shamefull coded game. How could this happened to the most greates game ever in the history? With all that freedom, cars, buildings, great graphics, nice shaders, good looking trees and roads, the sky is breathness. This should be the Game of the 2008/2009. Atleast there are some FPS boost I read them. And many people dont give to get the good FPS like MonkeyMHz and such others. R* cant ruin their reputations with all the previous GTA series. And I hope they open their eyes and start fixing the issues. And I need open my eyes when I must wake up xD I dont bother it because I see some pple can enjoy this game. So I dont wanna give bad things. Cheers Toronto, I hope you can fix them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSD T Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Video is processing - will be playable soon. No one get mad, I'm being smug with the smug ones, they can read - or watch it - and weep, and make fun of me, and the way I talk, and rub one out to my Niko getting all wet outside. Everyone not taking offense, thanks for listening, everyone getting offended, please, we're all friends here - or at the very least it's the internet. If I came across any kind of way to you in my previous posts, just know my own frustrations are from constantly asking the same question and still watching people throw around aspects of specs that are not really important if they are all running slowly. I could be shining a light for you guys right now, I could be giving you the hints you need. So what if it results in an upgrade, wouldn't you rather upgrade for IV than another game? Well, for GTA, and maybe Even Rockstar? I know I'd rather upgrade for this and them before I upgraded for EA or some sh*t. I really think there is a speed of component thing going on, rather than rating or capacity, but also, I'll reiterate one more time: I might just have "the Only lucky PCChips USA MOBo from 2006 that didn't come DOA after the first 2 were RMA'd" because even my little poll is getting votes where people who meet and exceed my arguement here are voting "1066 and up - runs like ass" and also, people are voting for "800mhz and lower - runs great!" as well. So, give more time for that poll, say like a week, and maybe we'll pick out some info from the feedback there too... edit: will repost vid when it is processed, taking forever... Processing the video from the ingame editor and not from an external capture? A PI 200MHZ chip can do that. Besides, surely from your comments an hour long video being processed would be done in seconds... I see you find yourself to be some kind of misguided messiah, only you appear to talk like a back to front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico_bellic Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Rockstar knew long before they released this that the minimum and recommended requirements weren't enough to play the game properly. So do you think we were deliberately misled by Rockstar, or were they just unaware of how poorly GTA4 the game actually was? Nope. You are wrong. Rockstar didn't f*ck anyone. I HAVE minimum specs and I RUN THIS GAME perfectly fine. Fix your PC, learn to run a PC, learn to configure a PC, whatever it is, it is on YOUR OWN END, sorry. That is the Fact. If your ram is slower than 533mhz, there is your problem. If your FSB is slower than 1066mhz, there is your problem. If your upgrades were just plugged in and not properly configured, whenever you upgraded, years ago or now, there is your problem. No, rockstar didn't f*ck us, complainers are doing that. If you need help, please, outline your problem... Neither screenshots nor trailers have shown that it would flicker, z-fight, pixel-noise and geometry/texture pop-in all over the screen like it has not been seen anymore in games for ages. How fast is your ram and your video card? and how fast is your FSB? The oNLY way I can produce those errors (except zfighting, which is apparently ATI's fault) is by slowing down my speeds to under the ones I suggested above. You know, I am getting a little sick of bullsh*t like this. If you are running fine you have no idea how the game should run. Your like one of those players that plays the game and misses "bugs". I would love to say this game runs fine but when you install it on 10 different computers with differents os, different speeds, video cards, ram, etc... and high specs, something tells me right off to not believe you. I don't think you completely understand how the game should run. I been playing it since the day it came out for the xbox 360 and again, I will say, it's f*cked to hell for the pc. Yes Rockstar did f*ck us, took our money, and if you believe they will fix this sh*t your wrong because the first patch and lies proves just that. It will take a long time to fix all of this. Not gonna happen. The fact you say "perfectly fine = 100%" tells me you don't know where the crap is in the game, and I can't take what you wrote for real. That is a fact! You almost sound like a sales rep for gta 4 for pc. Ha Ha I can't wait to see your sales down the line. I still haven't bought your Lost and Damn version and I never will, nor will I recommend any Rockstar titles to anyone. You took my 50 bucks along with everyone else, it's what you at least deserve. o'rlly? StatisticsAverage FPS: 33.29Duration: 37.78 secCPU Usage: 91%System memory usage: 68%Video memory usage: 38%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: MediumRender Quality: HighView Distance: 21Detail Distance: 31HardwareMicrosoft Windows XP ProfessionalService Pack 3Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 3800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891Audio Adapter: SB Live! 24-bitIntel® Core2 CPU 6320 @ 1.86GHzFile ID: benchmark.cli Please, tell me why on MINIMUM specs (processor, you can see video card is not as important in my benchmark...) I get THIRTY fps... Please, tell me, HOW fast is your RAM. I ask because I think that is the main reason for people complaining - they have 333 or 400mhz ram or something, I don't know... Only way I can get a slow game is to slow down my ram. I can put view all the way up and the only time it slows me down is when I ALSO have traffic on 100. If I keep view low, my processor usage does not *seem* to rise, and 100 traffic offers me no slowdown that I've noticed *YET*, but I don't play often with 100 traffic, but I did go all through a day of invincible cop killing and 100 traffic before and after wanted level (makes cars spawn less for the AI of the cops and their sounds and lights to not slowdown much... However, setting my ram slower than 533MHZ, and ALL settings LOW makes a SINGLE cop car slow me down, and it feels slow to drive or even run without looking at the ground - again, check and make sure your ram isn't dated old.) I know how the game should run - I run it, once again, flawlessly at a smooth 30FPS... The minimum one would expect of a game... and coincidence, I think not - I am on *gasp* minimum processor I could take you serious if you have 1066mhz FSB, processor that supports it, and 533MHZ ram, and these are slow by today's expectations, and are the speed of mine... I'm convinced Rockstar knew this game underperformed on many computers because it was poorly ported, yet still released it at their target schedule to get the game out for 2008 holidays. Basically I feel cheated getting it early when it should have ran on my computer, and all I have is an unplayable game which sells for crap on ebay. I'm convinced your ram is slower than 533mhz, or does not match your FSB, which could be below 1066mhz... I could be wrong about all of this, but it's my findings so far. At what fps you get when raining? Is that what you called PERFECTLY FINE??? My benchmark result is 47.94 and real gaming experience when raining, my fps easily drop to 20 and I have Q9300 2.5Ghz, GF 9600GT 512MB, 2GB Corsair DHX Dual channel PC 6400(DDR 800) I'm with f*cked us team Edited January 12, 2009 by nico_bellic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Rockstar knew long before they released this that the minimum and recommended requirements weren't enough to play the game properly. So do you think we were deliberately misled by Rockstar, or were they just unaware of how poorly GTA4 the game actually was? Nope. You are wrong. Rockstar didn't f*ck anyone. I HAVE minimum specs and I RUN THIS GAME perfectly fine. Fix your PC, learn to run a PC, learn to configure a PC, whatever it is, it is on YOUR OWN END, sorry. That is the Fact. If your ram is slower than 533mhz, there is your problem. If your FSB is slower than 1066mhz, there is your problem. If your upgrades were just plugged in and not properly configured, whenever you upgraded, years ago or now, there is your problem. No, rockstar didn't f*ck us, complainers are doing that. If you need help, please, outline your problem... Neither screenshots nor trailers have shown that it would flicker, z-fight, pixel-noise and geometry/texture pop-in all over the screen like it has not been seen anymore in games for ages. How fast is your ram and your video card? and how fast is your FSB? The oNLY way I can produce those errors (except zfighting, which is apparently ATI's fault) is by slowing down my speeds to under the ones I suggested above. You know, I am getting a little sick of bullsh*t like this. If you are running fine you have no idea how the game should run. Your like one of those players that plays the game and misses "bugs". I would love to say this game runs fine but when you install it on 10 different computers with differents os, different speeds, video cards, ram, etc... and high specs, something tells me right off to not believe you. I don't think you completely understand how the game should run. I been playing it since the day it came out for the xbox 360 and again, I will say, it's f*cked to hell for the pc. Yes Rockstar did f*ck us, took our money, and if you believe they will fix this sh*t your wrong because the first patch and lies proves just that. It will take a long time to fix all of this. Not gonna happen. The fact you say "perfectly fine = 100%" tells me you don't know where the crap is in the game, and I can't take what you wrote for real. That is a fact! You almost sound like a sales rep for gta 4 for pc. Ha Ha I can't wait to see your sales down the line. I still haven't bought your Lost and Damn version and I never will, nor will I recommend any Rockstar titles to anyone. You took my 50 bucks along with everyone else, it's what you at least deserve. o'rlly? StatisticsAverage FPS: 33.29Duration: 37.78 secCPU Usage: 91%System memory usage: 68%Video memory usage: 38%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: MediumRender Quality: HighView Distance: 21Detail Distance: 31HardwareMicrosoft Windows XP ProfessionalService Pack 3Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 3800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891Audio Adapter: SB Live! 24-bitIntel® Core2 CPU 6320 @ 1.86GHzFile ID: benchmark.cli Please, tell me why on MINIMUM specs (processor, you can see video card is not as important in my benchmark...) I get THIRTY fps... Please, tell me, HOW fast is your RAM. I ask because I think that is the main reason for people complaining - they have 333 or 400mhz ram or something, I don't know... Only way I can get a slow game is to slow down my ram. I can put view all the way up and the only time it slows me down is when I ALSO have traffic on 100. If I keep view low, my processor usage does not *seem* to rise, and 100 traffic offers me no slowdown that I've noticed *YET*, but I don't play often with 100 traffic, but I did go all through a day of invincible cop killing and 100 traffic before and after wanted level (makes cars spawn less for the AI of the cops and their sounds and lights to not slowdown much... However, setting my ram slower than 533MHZ, and ALL settings LOW makes a SINGLE cop car slow me down, and it feels slow to drive or even run without looking at the ground - again, check and make sure your ram isn't dated old.) I know how the game should run - I run it, once again, flawlessly at a smooth 30FPS... The minimum one would expect of a game... and coincidence, I think not - I am on *gasp* minimum processor I could take you serious if you have 1066mhz FSB, processor that supports it, and 533MHZ ram, and these are slow by today's expectations, and are the speed of mine... I'm convinced Rockstar knew this game underperformed on many computers because it was poorly ported, yet still released it at their target schedule to get the game out for 2008 holidays. Basically I feel cheated getting it early when it should have ran on my computer, and all I have is an unplayable game which sells for crap on ebay. I'm convinced your ram is slower than 533mhz, or does not match your FSB, which could be below 1066mhz... I could be wrong about all of this, but it's my findings so far. At what fps you get when raining? Is that what you called PERFECTLY FINE??? My benchmark setting is 47.94 and real gaming experience when raining, my fps easily drop to 20 and I have Q9300 2.5Ghz, GF 9600GT 512MB, 2GB Corsair DHX Dual channel PC 6400(DDR 800) I'm with f*cked us team HAHAHAHA PERFECT COINCIDENCE, MY VIDEO IS IN THE RAIN HAHAHAHAHA! You guys are really turning me from "damn, I hope they get it working" to "haha now I'm being toyed with and I'm about to drop the bomb on them with this video and they'll see I'm not bullsh*tting" and I don't like the attitude it is giving me And, as you can now see LSD, no, not an ingame render LOL, but I woulda thought that too probably Hard link, as you can see, still waiting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2KcUS1gwzs It is one take, from desktop to game, loading and all, no renders It is probably manual only since it has "GTA IV" (for copyright) or "f*ck" (vulgarity, no matter how funny we think it is ) in the titles/descript/tags Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DML Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 All these types of threads are really starting to get old. There's one lesson people should learn from GTA IV: First: For all you people wondering which side of the fence I sit on (if you're so new to this forum that you don't already know), I can run the game at a playable frame rate. It looks ok, it plays ok. Many things could've been done better, and they would've if the port was done by Rockstar North, and/or if the game was designed for the PC platform. Am I spending day and night whining about it? No, I'm not. Do I respect Rockstar for the effort in the port? No, I do not...the only reason we're seeing it is because they thought they could squeeze some money from the PC crowd. Am I totally done fighting Rockstar until the next GTA game is announced? Yes, I am, I've got work to do. For the real message I intend to portray here: NEVER listen to Rockstar when they say things like "only for the PlayStation 3 and the XBox 360". If so many people didn't listen, then rush out and buy a console just to play GTA IV, then the console sales would not have been as high as they were, and Rockstar would've actually felt compelled to put serious effort into the port (e.g. Rockstar North at the wheel instead of Toronto). I didn't even have to buy a PS2 when GTA III was released to know how much sh*t they spew (lies they tell). I mean, come on!, anyone who climbs into bed with Sony like they did, given the past performance of GTA 1 and 2 on PC, MUST spew sh*t for a living. I called it back then (not being arrogant or anything, but I did)...and sure enough, to this day, they continue to spew sh*t out of their mouths like diarrhea. Moral of the story: Don't let the game sell so well on console, and the PC version will turn out better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Video is processing - will be playable soon. No one get mad, I'm being smug with the smug ones, they can read - or watch it - and weep, and make fun of me, and the way I talk, and rub one out to my Niko getting all wet outside. Everyone not taking offense, thanks for listening, everyone getting offended, please, we're all friends here - or at the very least it's the internet. If I came across any kind of way to you in my previous posts, just know my own frustrations are from constantly asking the same question and still watching people throw around aspects of specs that are not really important if they are all running slowly. I could be shining a light for you guys right now, I could be giving you the hints you need. So what if it results in an upgrade, wouldn't you rather upgrade for IV than another game? Well, for GTA, and maybe Even Rockstar? I know I'd rather upgrade for this and them before I upgraded for EA or some sh*t. I really think there is a speed of component thing going on, rather than rating or capacity, but also, I'll reiterate one more time: I might just have "the Only lucky PCChips USA MOBo from 2006 that didn't come DOA after the first 2 were RMA'd" because even my little poll is getting votes where people who meet and exceed my arguement here are voting "1066 and up - runs like ass" and also, people are voting for "800mhz and lower - runs great!" as well. So, give more time for that poll, say like a week, and maybe we'll pick out some info from the feedback there too... edit: will repost vid when it is processed, taking forever... Not to rain on your parade, but unless the video is showing you in it as well, it's hard to believe the video. Like I said, I can tweak the bad game into looking great. Wow, let's keep the pages going. I'm surprised C hasn't gone anywhere .... yet? So, let's talk about those clock speeds. Looking at the video cards. Because ATI has had faster speeds probably since last year vs Nvidias. However the cards have still shown lack of ability to out bench mark Nvidia in most cases. Why? Well you can't just look at specs and assume. There is such a thing as called drivers too. And just incase anyone else is completely dumbfounded about coding games for pc: 1.) You code to the operating system, Windows XP, Windows Vista. 2.) Code to the generalized graphics of midsized priced graphic cards. So incase you want to bump up graphics later. 3.) If you code to motherboards, and all the different chipset versions of video cards, you run into HUGE problems. Just code to the above. If you follow that, they wouldn't of had a problem. Putting in all this sh*tty code to fix around other hardware, software, using their bloatwire, requiring all these updates, clearly Rockstar did f*ck up on the programming side. If you aren't a programmer, yes you will not agree because you don't have a clue about the other side of the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA_XP Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It says This video is unavailable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastsource Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 LastSource, I get 30 average (33.something by benchmark on page 2 or 3 of this topic) and I only have HD3850 (I realize this is more powerful than your card) and my CPU is only 1.86ghz - maybe a new GFX card is all you need to gain some more performance The pixel-noise from all the dithering and the shadows are NOT because of hardware limitations. They are bad by design and will never be better. This will disappear at full resolution... P key already does it just fine at 1680. But it will not be noticable in full res, P key or not. The flickering and geometry/texture pop-in are not really due to the "limitations" of 512MB graphics ram. If I use high resolutions 1680x1050 to counter the missing AA filters I get terrible geometry/texture pop-in. I don't suffer this unless I turn my AGP into PCI (not express). Perhaps your video ram speed is doing more than you realize. I can say however that I have that 1.86ghz processor at only 1066mhz, 533mhz 2gig ddr2, and an hd3850 - average, again, 30FPS - I wonder if it's worth it to move Up to an HD3850 - they are very cheap nowadays and it will definitely last until the next few nvidia cards come (when we will all be drooling for upgrades ) Vert101: Drop that view distance to 21 - 30, you'll gain FPS, and 1280x960 is not that far off from 1280x720, try both higher resolutions and 720 (I realize you will lose 240 pixels vertically, but give a try, even just to test for all of us). The Gigabyte GV-NX96T512HP (Nvidia 9600 GT 512MB Overclocked) I am using is about 30-70% faster than a HD3850. See for example this review http://ht4u.net/reviews/2008/gigabyte_gefo...0gt/index18.php The pixel noise from dithering and shadows is still noticable even at 1920x1200, even with P key. But, for now I would accept the graphics if I could play it at 1920x1200 with postprocessing (P key) without flickering and geometry/texture pop-in. But this is not possible with "only" 512MB graphics ram. The flickering and geometry/texture pop-in are even visible at 1680x1050, ant there I only use 390MB of 498MB of graphics ram, as GTA says. To get flickering and geometry/texture pop-in free graphics I need to lower the video ram usage in GTA to about 300MB of the 498MB available, which is not possible in 1920x1200 mode even with low textures and 1 view distance. Only with using the commandline resolution glitch I can "simulate" how it would run if I could reduce the shadow map resolution to free up some vram at 1920x1200 mode. But this no solution for everyday use (and a setting for shadow map resolution would be less than 1 day work for R*). The flickering and geometry/texture pop-in is very easy to test, by loading the game, driving a few blocks with a car, and then turn the camera 180° fast. If you see noticable pop-in of geometry / textures, every time you turn your camera another 180° then there will be visible flickering and geometry/texture pop-in in many places even if you play just "normal". Flickering and geometry/texture pop-in stops only if I go to 1440x900 or below, where the aliasing and pixel noise and blur on a 24" screen is already far to strong. So right now I have two choices, either 1920x1200 with flickering and geometry/texture pop-in or 1440x900 with too much aliasing and pixel noise and blur. (Or as third option use the -availablevidmem 2.0 switch and get some massiv lags after 15-30min of gameplay). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It says This video is unavailable. That's because he doesn't put videos up all the time, otherwise he would know the video takes a while to be ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico_bellic Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 From now on people will be more carefull of new games from R* Beware of R* crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S_G Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am just wondering are we getting an influx of new PC gamers or something ? I've been gaming on the PC for well over 10 years and I always took it as read that everyone knew the "specifications" were a complete and utter pile of horse sh*t. They don't mean anything, think about it for a second the developers release a minimum specification erm for what ? What resolution ? what settings ? what frame rate ? Just exactly how is a PC on minimum settings meant to run the game ? I have never yet seen this answered. We of course can come to our own conclusions what we think it should mean. I guess most people would say the minimum requirements is a playable frame rate of 15 - 20fps at the lowest resolution of 800 x 600 with all the settings on the lowest. If you can't get the game running on a 1.8ghz Duo2core with 7900 at those settings then you are doing something wrong. Even I can get the game running at better than minimum settings on a core2duo 2.4ghz and a 8600gt which is at least 50% slower than the 7900gt. So it is open to debate about whether they lied or f*cked us over with the minimum requirements. Now again the recommended what do they mean ? I mean sure they give you a list of computer equipment but what does it mean for performance. Is recommended a PC that can play the game maxxed out ? If so then every single developer is lying their arse off and that includes people like Crytek. I would probably suggest the "recommended" is a PC running it at console settings and if that is the case then again they didn't lie, you can get console settings out of the recommended specs they listed. I will admit the 8600gt is being a bit cheeky and it would have been more accurate to put an 8800gt there. At the end of the day the specifications that developers give you are absolute bullsh*t, I don't even know why you are trying to cause a controversy by saying "Rockstar f*cked us" if that is the case then every single developer since the first PC game came out has "f*cked us". I think you are way too overzealous in your defense of this game. It is obviously a poor port for which little time was spent on optimization and testing. There is absolutely no excuse for an 8600GT not performing adequately. All of Rockstar's previous games ran acceptably INTEGRATED VIDEO. Saying something was designed for "future hardware" is an easy excuse: obviously future hardware will run this game better, because that hardware will be faster. Look at Crysis for example. It was not designed for "future hardware", only its absolutely highest settings were. Almost any hardware could run the game at low settings. CryEngine 2 is considerably more advanced than RAGE in regards to rendering and physics (with the exception of PC motion and simulation, thanks to Euphoria), yet it still runs better. One could argue that traffic and pedestrians are more advanced, but why does it still perform horribly when density is turned down as low as possible? Hell, GTA IV doesn't have volumetric clouds, its DOF actually blurs distant objects, motion blur actually blurs MOVING objects, proper shadows, dynamic HDR lighting without ridiculous bloom, CONSIDERABLY larger textures, much farther draw distance, and probably most interestingly, parallax mapping. How the hell does a game with parallax mapping perform better than GTA IV? I don't think I have ever played any other game for which the system requirements were SO far off and blatantly false. Yes, there have been such games (none that I've played), but they are generally critically panned and do not come from developers as highly respected as Rockstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Video is processed now, redone here since its new page: @Z welcome back, nah, I got up real early feeling kinda sh*tty, hanging around today. Yea, I am new to youtube, haven't had this cam that long and haven't used it much other than family events etc, been a rough while. It will take me less time in the futurE? Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DML Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 From now on people will be more carefull of new games from R* Beware of R* crap Not really. The day that Rockstar sees people say NO to the "exclusive" console version, and then wait for the PC version, then we will see more quality and effort in their games. Until then, if we the consumers continue to act like suckers, Rockstar will continue to treat us as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Video is processed now, redone here since its new page: @Z welcome back, nah, I got up real early feeling kinda sh*tty, hanging around today. Yea, I am new to youtube, haven't had this cam that long and haven't used it much other than family events etc, been a rough while. It will take me less time in the futurE? Looks legit. If you really aren't having problems why are you here? I would be online playing multiplayer. Oh I forgot to mention, sometimes I would get double speed, a lot of people aren't bringing that up but I noticed it a while back thought I should bring that up also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastsource Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Video is processed now, redone here since its new page: @Z welcome back, nah, I got up real early feeling kinda sh*tty, hanging around today. Yea, I am new to youtube, haven't had this cam that long and haven't used it much other than family events etc, been a rough while. It will take me less time in the futurE? are you using a "-availablevidmem 4.0" commandline option? Are you not getting massiv lag after about 30min of playing without starting any mission or loading a saved game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts