Wow, BF2 suuucks with < 1 GB of RAM

F

finalgt

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Messages
5,506
I remember back when this game first came out people were saying they were running it fine with just 512MB of RAM...but I'd sure like to know what their definition of fine is. Shortly after it came out my motherboard got borked, so I ended up just buying a new one...long story short, I had the misfortune of getting a DFI. The kicker is, I've got a second 512 stick of RAM, but the computer doesn't boot up with it in there...can't tell if it's because the motherboard "doesn't like" the RAM (which is the most retarded concept ever) or if I just got a defective one. Either way, I'm not going to RMA it, I'm just going to buy something non-DFI.

I suppose the point of the thread is, why is it that games like Black & White 2 and CS:S will run 1600x1200, with anti-aliasing, no problems, whereas I can't even run BF2 on low texture, 1024x768 with no AA without having the controls freeze up every 2 or 3 seconds? Seems like absolute terrible coding.
 
Huh? BF2 has a million textures, other 30+ people, body hit collision, network data, and a whole bunch of game data which easily goes over 512 MB and you're going to say it's bad coding? :D

-J.
 
Uhhh, its not bad coding bud, its just continually raised demands of next gen PC games. Get used to it or go back to playing consoles
 
Coldtronius said:
Uhhh, its not bad coding bud, its just continually raised demands of next gen PC games. Get used to it or go back to playing consoles
Click to expand...

HaAhahahHhHaahaha...good one.
 
Amazing how we have gone from a society that used to criticize buggy and badly optimized system intensive games, to a society that now expects and in certain cases encourages it.
 
logan1 said:
Amazing how we have gone from a society that used to criticize buggy and badly optimized system intensive games, to a society that now expects and in certain cases encourages it.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
logan1 said:
Amazing how we have gone from a society that used to criticize buggy and badly optimized system intensive games, to a society that now expects and in certain cases encourages it.
Click to expand...

Double QFT

It is badly coded. There are games out that look better and demand more than BF2 does, any yet BF2 runs like crap. Its too bad its such a fun game, otherwise no one would play it and they might actually get the point and fix the problems. And anyone who says it's not badly coded, shows how much you really know about games, and how they work.
 
pistola said:
Double QFT

It is badly coded. There are games out that look better and demand more than BF2 does, any yet BF2 runs like crap. Its too bad its such a fun game, otherwise no one would play it and they might actually get the point and fix the problems. And anyone who says it's not badly coded, shows how much you really know about games, and how they work.
Click to expand...

*vomit*

Tell that to all the game/review sites that gave glowing reviews to BF2 and didn't mention anything about the graphics coding. And please give me specific coding examples you've come across that you would improve. Most likely you have a computer programming job right now so you're probably pretty busy with coding. I'll appreciate any insight you can provide to substantiate your claims.

I'll go so far as to say that the net code in the game is sub-par because other online FPS games have much better hit detection/animation to match what is actually happening. In BF2 I've come to expect to kill someone who just ran around the corner. lol
 
BF2 should really be named Desert Combat:Source

It's nothing but pretty graphics with totally shit gameplay physics

DC >*
 
ALT+F4 said:
BF2 should really be named Desert Combat:Source

It's nothing but pretty graphics with totally shit gameplay physics

DC >*
Click to expand...

Welcome to [H]forum! Thanks for the 4-letter intro! :rolleyes:
 
its a great game if you have the hardware to run it. i get 80-100 fps on average with my system in my sig. i dont see any of the problems you talk about. coding? yea right. get a better computer then play it and tell me about coding being bad.
 
UT2004, other than DM, runs like poo with 512 ram. That's right.... poo! Is that badly coded too? No, it is light on other requirements though. These MP games take a lot of memory. Probably why almost ALL console fps are usually more limited in this respect. CoD2: 8 or something? BF2:MC: 24 or something?
 
Are you serious? UT2K4 runs like poo on a 512 MB system? You make me giggle. ;)

Maybe I'm just a hardcore tweaker or something but any game runs perfectly fine on my 512 MB system.

-J.
 
GeForceX said:
Are you serious? UT2K4 runs like poo on a 512 MB system? You make me giggle. ;)

Maybe I'm just a hardcore tweaker or something but any game runs perfectly fine on my 512 MB system.

-J.
Click to expand...

What res/settings?
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
I'll go so far as to say that the net code in the game is sub-par because other online FPS games have much better hit detection/animation to match what is actually happening.
Click to expand...

Not to use your own words, literally but oh well:

please give me specific coding examples you've come across that you would improve. Most likely you have a computer programming job right now so you're probably pretty busy with coding. I'll appreciate any insight you can provide to substantiate your claims.

Really silly. Just because someone hasn't reverse engineered something and hasn't gotten into the "nitty gritty" of it doesn't mean that when comparing it to something else, it just doesn't stack up. You did exactly the same thing as he did, so please no high and mighty horses.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
Tell that to all the game/review sites that gave glowing reviews to BF2 and didn't mention anything about the graphics coding. And please give me specific coding examples you've come across that you would improve. Most likely you have a computer programming job right now so you're probably pretty busy with coding. I'll appreciate any insight you can provide to substantiate your claims.

I'll go so far as to say that the net code in the game is sub-par because other online FPS games have much better hit detection/animation to match what is actually happening. In BF2 I've come to expect to kill someone who just ran around the corner. lol
Click to expand...

Please, BF2 is not technically impressive enough to warrant the amazing amount of hardware it needs. This seems to be a recurring problem with Dice games. If it consistently runs shitty and consistently looks shitty for what it takes to run, it's probably consistently made shitty.
 
venomous35 said:
coding? yea right. get a better computer then play it and tell me
about coding being bad.
Click to expand...

My sys is considerably better than yours. SLI 7900GTX, [email protected], and yet I say the coding on BF2 sucks. Now, I will limit my complaints to the net code as most ppl will tell you that in single player you don't experience the problems that occur when playing online but that's anther story.
 
deathBOB said:
Please, BF2 is not technically impressive enough to warrant the amazing amount of hardware it needs. This seems to be a recurring problem with Dice games. If it consistently runs shitty and consistently looks shitty for what it takes to run, it's probably consistently made shitty.
Click to expand...

But the real problem is just the net code. If you play single player, even ppl who have what we would consider "marginal" gamer systems can run BF2 just fine with a lot of eye candy, however, as soon as you go online it starts acting up. Nevermind the horrible Gamespy integration, the game's net code creates problems.
 
GeForceX said:
Are you serious? UT2K4 runs like poo on a 512 MB system? You make me giggle. ;)

Maybe I'm just a hardcore tweaker or something but any game runs perfectly fine on my 512 MB system.

-J.
Click to expand...

The mode most like BF does (whodathunkit)! Onslaught surely benefits from greater than 512.

Guess I am the antithesis of the thread then. IMO, if "tweaking" what amounts to the memory footprint of your background apps or games by 10's of megs actually makes a difference... color me the "time for an upgrade" guy. Unlike Oblivion I never saw any UT2004 tweaks worth doing that weren't a way around hardware limitations. My opinion people picked a badly laid out topic to rant about gaming opts then. >512 should have rightly been in every PC gaming rig out there for awhile now, and in part a lot of it is the games we like are memory intensive.
 
Moog said:
Bad coding?

3 words: Red. Tag. Bug.
Click to expand...

That's not graphical coding. That's a server/client issue related to the net code which we all agree isn't so hot.
 
Perhaps the people who are telling me it isn't badly coded would like to prove where I am wrong, seeing as how I have more or less proven that the only thing impeding me from running it decently is the fact that I can't use my second stick of RAM. I know it would be obscene for me to expect to run the game at 1600x1200 with high textures (which is what I was doing before on my 6800GT with a gig of RAM), but to stutter even at 1024x768 LOW textures, with a faster video card? You must be kidding me.

And for the record, pretty much the easiest way to get me to ignore anything you will ever say in the future is to say anything along the general vein of "get a better computer."
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
What res/settings?
Click to expand...

Highly tweaked config with standard pro 800 x 600 resolution - but then again it has nothing to do with that - it has to do with how I tweak Windows XP. Many years of experience with Windows XP tweaking and perhaps game configs. And no I don't care to share that particular information. It took lots of work to get to that place. :D

-J.
 
finalgt said:
And for the record, pretty much the easiest way to get me to ignore anything you will ever say in the future is to say anything along the general vein of "get a better computer."
Click to expand...

Agreed. My computer is actually a measely P4 3 GHz (first gen. HT) that utilizes RAMBUS! :eek: 512 MB PC-1066 RDRAM. The only upgrade I have ever made in its lifetime (4 years) is a 9700 Pro to a 6600 GT. This thing runs Quake 4 TDM in the 60 FPS range with no stuttering. It runs BF2 with forgiving frame rates with no stuttering. It runs UT2K4 in the 120 FPS range with no stuttering. It runs CS:S in the 100 FPS range with no stuttering.

Does it have to do with the fact it's an Alienware? :p

-J.
 
GeForceX said:
Highly tweaked config with standard pro 800 x 600 resolution - but then again it has nothing to do with that - it has to do with how I tweak Windows XP. Many years of experience with Windows XP tweaking and perhaps game configs. And no I don't care to share that particular information. It took lots of work to get to that place. :D

-J.
Click to expand...

I think any game at 800x600 will run fantastically with 512mb RAM. Especially if you're doing that res on a 6600GT.
 
Gotta say when I read that I wonder why people bother writing counterpoints to my posts anymore, when I'm just using examples I think most are familiar with already. The "master tweaker" sensation in an easy to run and well programmed game like UT2004, is probably because of way too little ram. Yeah, you tweak your memory use by 10's of megs like I said, and you get a somewhat significant gain because you had way too little already. Yeah, maybe he can run good with details and res way below what most are running, it's smooth enough, you doubt more ram will help (even if it might, expectations on gameplay are low). Sure, I imagine a self proclaimed master tweaker had more to it than that. I may have assumed somethings, like >800*600, but I feel clear I didn't ASSume. I just think rebutting my post with 800*600 and I have tweaks I won't share that are so leet, was amusing. I'm sure these mega secret tweaks wouldn't amount to a hill of refried beans on a rig with a pair of nuts. His rig is fine. I imagine a reluctance to upgrade the RDRam is drving the decision and the denial.

After all these years I can't say the simplest of things without people trying to pick it apart. Here, look at this old ass game, renowned for a well running and forgiving engine, and how even it benefits from >512 in certain modes. Guess going old gives some people fodder for oh it runs perfect on 512. Hey it's actually not your fault. If BF2 and everything else run great for you, more power to you. But for the people with out these mystery master tweaks, they're complaining about BF2 and the amount of ram disposable $500 computers with monitors come with.

If we're really trying to help the OP, the only hope is draw distance and low textures. I'd hope with 512 windows is tweaked to run minimally already. If the game can use greater than 512 by itself, it's a square peg in a round hole scenario. Tweaking can only help so much. Want to call BF2 badly coded fine, but there are well coded games that will have you trying to sledge hammer the cube through the round hole. Plenty.
 
finalgt said:
I suppose the point of the thread is, why is it that games like Black & White 2 and CS:S will run 1600x1200, with anti-aliasing, no problems, whereas I can't even run BF2 on low texture, 1024x768 with no AA without having the controls freeze up every 2 or 3 seconds? Seems like absolute terrible coding.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, have you run the game in single player with those settings? Your system sounds good enough to run at those settings without too many problems, especially if you're not running all in game settings at high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top