Viewing Thread:
"Quick warning about UT2003"

You are going to need a *monster* spec machine to run this thing.
I've got 1.2gig Athlon processor, 256mb ram and a Geoforce 4 64mb video card, and I have to run it on 16bit colour with "normal" detail level and it's still a bit juddery on big levels.

It's cool but an absolutely ferocious spec eater.

cipro wrote:
> I played the demo an it run fine with no lag or slowdown to speak of.
> This is on a GeForce 2 and everything down to medium graphics
> settings, though I suppose the full game will be much different to the
> demo tech specs wise. And 3gig!!! bloody hell, I have just over 1 gig
> left after installing Mafia, which means I'll need second Hard Drive
> if I want to play UT2003.

All you have to do is uncheck the box for the full install. It will read the game straight from the disc, which will inevitably slow the game, but if you dont have 3 gigs what can you do? I suppose you could uninstall some games?

besides, any game that requires more hard disk space than my operating system can stay on the shelf.

this is the backlash from pc technology advancing faster than game technology. developers don't have to particularly careful with the code they write.

I played the demo an it run fine with no lag or slowdown to speak of. This is on a GeForce 2 and everything down to medium graphics settings, though I suppose the full game will be much different to the demo tech specs wise. And 3gig!!! bloody hell, I have just over 1 gig left after installing Mafia, which means I'll need second Hard Drive if I want to play UT2003.

That's it, I'm getting a better graphics card and upgrading to 256MB. All I've got is the minimum requirements.

UW.

Didnt ID do the same sorta thing with Quake(2?)

Although I think they were trying to automate it a lot more, the idea was that they added options to the game that on the whole, wer'nt really feasable for the majority fo players at the time.

For example, maximum screen res of 1600x????, a lot of 3D graphic card specific code (at a time when 3D graphic cards were still to beome the norm), and within that a lot of specific 3D graphic card stuff, so if GeForce had better lighting, or VooDoo had better anti-aliasing, it would take advantage of specific aspects? As you raised the resolution it would increase the quality of the skins, so they wouldnt appear blocky, etc...

The idea being that you use the best setting for your machine at the moment, then, as time goes by, and PC spec improves, the game has room to expand, still managing to look, well, if not cutting edge, but still indamnibly good, and extending its shelf life considerably?

Some people in the Tactical Ops community tested it a lot at a LAN and they found that the processor speed didnt make *much* of a difference as long as it wasnt really slow. Graphics cards made the frames per second increase dramatically though. Basically if you have a GeForce4 ti4600 your laughing, or any of the titanium Gf4's. I can get about 30fps in the demo on each of the maps, bar 50fps on the bombing run maps. Judging by what people have told me the full versions engine is much better and all of their fps' raised. Although the full version has much more maps with far greater poly counts so I dont know what kind of fps I would get :)

It looks incredible, plays alright on LAN against Bots on indoor environments, but outside and online it gets chuggy.
Granted, only a 56k modem but it's a tad monster.

Good game though.

Whitestripes, if you think UT2003 is pap WHY do you have such a new PC?

I just hope the game runs Ok online, my connection can be iffy sometimes.