The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Command & Conquer: Generals'.
This is a thead entirely about C and C. Post stuff like cheats for C and C. To get it started i'd like to know how much MB Ram C and C Generals needs
Page:
Lugwig wrote:
> Remember, it's all about the graphics card, the processor doesn't make
> much difference. So if you have a 128MB graphics card, (GeForce 4
> 4200-4600 or whatever else there is), it should be okay, 64MB would be
> pushing it, whilst with a 32MB you can carry on dreaming.
Incorrect.
With a game like C&C, the CPU is by far the biggest limiting factor of frame rate. While the game is in 3D, and therefore uses polygons, it is in no way graphics card depended, like games such as UT2003 etc, which need to push millions of polys. Also generally FPS games need stable and high frames per second, and this is where a good vid card will give you a missive boost.
With C&C, there is a 25 Frames per second cap. So unless you have a really old vid card, it's not going to be the bottleneck of the system, and therefore isn't going to be the thing to cause slowdown.
With C&C, stuff like the AI and the path finding put a huge strain on the CPU and sub-system - if you have a fast CPU and a good RAM/motherboard combo you will be fine up to resolutions of 1024X768. Of course, a good vid card will make life easier, but you can't change the fact that AI, Path finding and unit manipulation on the map requires lots of CPU cycles to calculate.
The better the CPU, the smoother the game. Also this is not a theory. It is fact. I built my mate a P4 2.4Ghz comp this last weekend, with 512MB DDR 333 RAM and good spec (533 bus compatible) motherboard and while he is waiting for his new Radeon 9500 Pro, we used my GeForce 3. His machine didn't slow down when we had lots of units on the screen at 1024X768+ everything on max. My comp, P3 800 256MB and the SAME VID CARD, had problems with any resolution above 800X640 once i had more than a hand full of units. The CPU just could not handle the work.
> Remember, it's all about the graphics card, the processor doesn't make
> much difference. So if you have a 128MB graphics card, (GeForce 4
> 4200-4600 or whatever else there is), it should be okay, 64MB would be
> pushing it, whilst with a 32MB you can carry on dreaming.
Incorrect.
With a game like C&C, the CPU is by far the biggest limiting factor of frame rate. While the game is in 3D, and therefore uses polygons, it is in no way graphics card depended, like games such as UT2003 etc, which need to push millions of polys. Also generally FPS games need stable and high frames per second, and this is where a good vid card will give you a missive boost.
With C&C, there is a 25 Frames per second cap. So unless you have a really old vid card, it's not going to be the bottleneck of the system, and therefore isn't going to be the thing to cause slowdown.
With C&C, stuff like the AI and the path finding put a huge strain on the CPU and sub-system - if you have a fast CPU and a good RAM/motherboard combo you will be fine up to resolutions of 1024X768. Of course, a good vid card will make life easier, but you can't change the fact that AI, Path finding and unit manipulation on the map requires lots of CPU cycles to calculate.
The better the CPU, the smoother the game. Also this is not a theory. It is fact. I built my mate a P4 2.4Ghz comp this last weekend, with 512MB DDR 333 RAM and good spec (533 bus compatible) motherboard and while he is waiting for his new Radeon 9500 Pro, we used my GeForce 3. His machine didn't slow down when we had lots of units on the screen at 1024X768+ everything on max. My comp, P3 800 256MB and the SAME VID CARD, had problems with any resolution above 800X640 once i had more than a hand full of units. The CPU just could not handle the work.
Definately more of a multiplayer game than 1player
Finally finished the game with all sides. On the story side, it's pretty disappointing.
I have a 64mb card i think, and it runs fine. Don't think "pushing it" would be the correct term. Its not all about the graphics card. Anyhow i dont really care, works on mine
Remember, it's all about the graphics card, the processor doesn't make much difference. So if you have a 128MB graphics card, (GeForce 4 4200-4600 or whatever else there is), it should be okay, 64MB would be pushing it, whilst with a 32MB you can carry on dreaming.
cookie monster wrote:
> Will it run ok with an Athlon XP 2600+, 512 mb DDR ram and a Geforce 4
> Ti 4600?
yeah it will m8. It runs perfect on my Athlon XP 2000+, 512 DDR ram, GF4 Ti4200, except Chinese migs firestorm attack slows it right down to 1 frame/ second... (when I have 24 migs anyway [48 Rockets, 48 High res explosions!])
> Will it run ok with an Athlon XP 2600+, 512 mb DDR ram and a Geforce 4
> Ti 4600?
yeah it will m8. It runs perfect on my Athlon XP 2000+, 512 DDR ram, GF4 Ti4200, except Chinese migs firestorm attack slows it right down to 1 frame/ second... (when I have 24 migs anyway [48 Rockets, 48 High res explosions!])
Still installing. It's taking longer than Sim City 4, which was painful to watch. I miss the audio briefing that ran while Red ALert 2 was being installed.
Just bought the game, and am installing it right now. I'll see if I can play with a dial up modem before asking anyone for a match, although itcoped with Allied Assault multiplayer so it should be okay.
I play Red alert 2 online
Anyone play this online? If so, whats your username?
I'm General-Dark, but i'm not so good.
I'm General-Dark, but i'm not so good.
Page: