TFC vs. FF graphics

o_blunto · 02-07-2005, 01:26 AM

Now I know that the graphics are going to be incredible in FF, especialy in contrast to TFC, but will it be too much?. The nice thing about TFC was the amount of action that could go on at once (unless there were nade spammers

). I have played alot of CS:S lately and it can get pretty laggy at times when there is alot going on. Will lag be an issue in FF?

o_returner · 02-07-2005, 01:53 AM

Games advance and so do computers.

o_blunto · 02-07-2005, 01:56 AM

I suppose, but I hope I don't need to buy more crap for my computer just to play FF like I did with HL2.

o_rebo · 02-07-2005, 02:59 AM

see the thead in "chat" it has some tweaks to increase FPS at the cost of graphics quality.

o_saintgreg · 02-07-2005, 04:32 AM

Most of the lag I ever get is from the physics. For example in CS:s if someone throws a nade into the cs_italy marketplace thing with all the fruit flying everywhere I just lag spike like crazy. And I cannot see something like that situation in a fortress mod.

o_curly · 02-07-2005, 04:56 AM

It's going to be MUCH better. TFC graphics blow. They're much worse than even HL graphics. I was asking about this a while ago, and I think that the answer was that TFC was in development before the HL engine was fully developed. Basically, TFC looks awful even by HL engine standars, but FF will have full HL2 graphics. (explosions, flames etc anyone?)

o_lithium · 02-07-2005, 05:03 AM

If you can survive HL2 , you most probably will be able to run FF ... The worst you could get is sound lag.

A fool map in FF would be a banana pool lol.... but that would make computers lag/

o_hollywood · 02-07-2005, 05:21 AM

I remember the team talking about keeping "physics objects" at a minimum. This should make the game run much better on most computers.

trepid_jesse · 02-07-2005, 08:38 AM

You need to keep in mind, Blunto, that playing an older generation game on newer generation hardware is going to yield better results.

According to Gamestop, these are the system requirements for Half-Life 1:

Required

Operating System: Windows 95/98/NT 4.0
Processor: Pentium 133MHz
Video Card: SVGA Graphics Card
Hard Drive: 400MB HD
CD-ROM: 2X CD
RAM: 24MB RAM

Recommended

Processor: Pentium 166MHz
Video Card: 3D Graphics Accelerator
Hard Drive: 400MB HD
CD-ROM: 4X CD
RAM: 32MB RAM

I remember the computer I played the original Half-Life on was an AMD K6-II 475MHz processor with 64MB of ram, and it had integrated graphics/sound cards. Of course, to me, it didn't matter because I was having too much fun playin' Half-Life at 320x240 in software mode. Ok, haha, it wasn't that low, but you get the point. I remember when I went and bought a VooDoo 3 2000 PCI videocard from CompUSA, and while I was there I also picked up Quake 3 Arena to go with my new videocard. When I played TFC that day, in OpenGL at 1024x768, I just stared at the flag in 2fort because of the glow I had never noticed before.

Ok, what I'm I rambling about?

So, anywho, by comparison, here's the system requirements for Half-Life 2:

Required

Operating System: Windows XP/2000
Processor: 1.2 Ghz processor
RAM: 256 MB of RAM
Video Card: DirectX 7 compatible graphics card
Processor: internet access

Recommended

Operating System: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
Processor: 2.4 Ghz processor
RAM: 512 MB of RAM
Video Card: DirectX 9 enabled graphics card

Of course, those figures can be a bit intimidating to someone who's not aware of such scalability that the Source engine provides.

I really don't know what I'm rambling on about anymore.

If you're trying to play a "next generation" game with dated hardware the game is going to be much more taxing on your system. So, to ask the question of, "Will lag be an issue in FF," would be best answered with the question of, "Is lag, on Source based games, an issue for you?"

This wasn't the most eloquent response, but it's 2:18am.. and I dislike early classes.

o_qui · 02-07-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blunto

Now I know that the graphics are going to be incredible in FF, especialy in contrast to TFC, but will it be too much?. The nice thing about TFC was the amount of action that could go on at once (unless there were nade spammers

). I have played alot of CS:S lately and it can get pretty laggy at times when there is alot going on. Will lag be an issue in FF?

When i first played tfc 4 years ago or whatnot, i played with a terrible PC and on a terrible connection.

But it was still amazing, i think you have to accept some slowdown for graphical quality, but it dosnt mean it isnt fun.

o_revz · 02-07-2005, 04:09 PM

I used to play TFC at 640x480 in software mode getting 20-30 FPS. I've been through two complete PC upgrades since then and have gone from 56k modem to broadband in addition to the major net-code changes that happend in TF1.5 as well. There used to be no problem with the game as I didn't know any better but trying to get me back on my original setup would be painful

o_returner · 02-07-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curly

It's going to be MUCH better. TFC graphics blow. They're much worse than even HL graphics. I was asking about this a while ago, and I think that the answer was that TFC was in development before the HL engine was fully developed. Basically, TFC looks awful even by HL engine standars, but FF will have full HL2 graphics. (explosions, flames etc anyone?)

TFC looks exactly as HL does. Keeping with QWTF traditions, as many models as possible were taken directly from Half-Life. The textures are largely the same as in Half-Life, mostly just tweaked for teamcolours. Brush work is clean and professional. So, I don't see your point. Additionally, Valve redid the TFC player models at some point, so they are newer than Half-Life's character models.

o_curly · 02-07-2005, 04:58 PM

I know, the textures are mostly the same (eg in 2fort etc), and many of the weapon models are the same. (I dont' think any of the original "old" player models were HL1 models, but that's not what you're talking about) The mapping's fine too. I can't put my finger on it, but it just doens't seem to look as good. One of the indicators is the pyro flames and explosions in general. I really can't come up with a good argument, and I might be wrong. I really don't can't put my finger on it, but the graphics seem dumbed down. I remember discussing this on some forums a long time ago, and the consensus was that this was 1: because TFC was in development before the HL engine was completed and 2: to make it more acceptable for large-scale netplay for the computers at the time.

o_qbaler · 02-07-2005, 05:05 PM

I run a p4 3.2 ghz, 1 gig of ram and radeon 9800 pro. I run tfc in opengl 1024*768 highest quality in a window and I get 300 - 350 fps. I will not be running source based games in a window... why? I like high quality because I got the hardware that can handle it, but with hl2 it eats this good hardware upand I get like 50fps, so I dont play that in a window cuz it will just fuck me up!

I dont know why I said all that but anyway, as long as ppl can set their settings so that they dont lag on a reasonable computer then the game will be fine! And from what I hear source lets you do some nice things!

o_binarylife · 02-07-2005, 05:12 PM

I never had the experience of playing Half-life on a 56k. By the time it came out my parents had already sprung for comcast cable.

I hadn't learned how to build computers yet either, so I was just happy that such a cool game could be played on a computer.

o_silver · 02-07-2005, 05:21 PM

my shit works and i got a gig or ram a 9600 pro and a 2.8 p4. my old comp, when i first started playing was a i think a 533mhz p3, 128 ram, voodoo3, and that was highend for those days. i had to run software most of the time cuz of my lag on opengl

o_curly · 02-07-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qbaler

I run a p4 3.2 ghz, 1 gig of ram and radeon 9800 pro. I run tfc in opengl 1024*768 highest quality in a window and I get 300 - 350 fps. I will not be running source based games in a window... why? I like high quality because I got the hardware that can handle it, but with hl2 it eats this good hardware upand I get like 50fps, so I dont play that in a window cuz it will just fuck me up!

I dont know why I said all that but anyway, as long as ppl can set their settings so that they dont lag on a reasonable computer then the game will be fine! And from what I hear source lets you do some nice things!

Hey, I know this is totally off-topic, but try something: Turn on vsync. It'll look MUCH better with it on and you getting a solid 70-85 or so fps than your 300-350 with it off. I'm running an x800 and I get no higher than 75fps in HL games, yet it looks amazing smooth. (as soon as vsync goes off, it looks like crap in terms of fluidity)

o_blunto · 02-07-2005, 05:42 PM

I used to play TFC on a 56k and it really wasnt that bad. Sure there was occasional lag, and sniping was a little difficult, but it was do-able. Now I have 3meg DSL and score a 30 latency on good CS:S servers. I guess my fears of monster lag are really for nothing. You guys working on FF will probably make some modifications that keep the data-stream from getting too big anyway.

o__thursday_ · 02-07-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blunto

I used to play TFC on a 56k and it really wasnt that bad. Sure there was occasional lag, and sniping was a little difficult, but it was do-able. Now I have 3meg DSL and score a 30 latency on good CS:S servers. I guess my fears of monster lag are really for nothing. You guys working on FF will probably make some modifications that keep the data-stream from getting too big anyway.

I find sniping quite easy and I'm on 56k, I guess it's just me being able to guess well hehe.

o_curly · 02-07-2005, 07:45 PM

In an update that came out several months ago, all HL games were given an updated netcode thta allowed for lag compensation. (you wouldn't have sniping issues etc, and it was more balanced depending on connection, but you could get shot whne you think the enemy was behind a wall)

02-07-2005, 01:26 AM	#1
o_blunto Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	TFC vs. FF graphics Now I know that the graphics are going to be incredible in FF, especialy in contrast to TFC, but will it be too much?. The nice thing about TFC was the amount of action that could go on at once (unless there were nade spammers ). I have played alot of CS:S lately and it can get pretty laggy at times when there is alot going on. Will lag be an issue in FF?

02-07-2005, 08:38 AM	#9
trepid_jesse Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Texas Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	You need to keep in mind, Blunto, that playing an older generation game on newer generation hardware is going to yield better results. According to Gamestop, these are the system requirements for Half-Life 1: Required Operating System: Windows 95/98/NT 4.0 Processor: Pentium 133MHz Video Card: SVGA Graphics Card Hard Drive: 400MB HD CD-ROM: 2X CD RAM: 24MB RAM Recommended Processor: Pentium 166MHz Video Card: 3D Graphics Accelerator Hard Drive: 400MB HD CD-ROM: 4X CD RAM: 32MB RAM I remember the computer I played the original Half-Life on was an AMD K6-II 475MHz processor with 64MB of ram, and it had integrated graphics/sound cards. Of course, to me, it didn't matter because I was having too much fun playin' Half-Life at 320x240 in software mode. Ok, haha, it wasn't that low, but you get the point. I remember when I went and bought a VooDoo 3 2000 PCI videocard from CompUSA, and while I was there I also picked up Quake 3 Arena to go with my new videocard. When I played TFC that day, in OpenGL at 1024x768, I just stared at the flag in 2fort because of the glow I had never noticed before. Ok, what I'm I rambling about? So, anywho, by comparison, here's the system requirements for Half-Life 2: Required Operating System: Windows XP/2000 Processor: 1.2 Ghz processor RAM: 256 MB of RAM Video Card: DirectX 7 compatible graphics card Processor: internet access Recommended Operating System: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP Processor: 2.4 Ghz processor RAM: 512 MB of RAM Video Card: DirectX 9 enabled graphics card Of course, those figures can be a bit intimidating to someone who's not aware of such scalability that the Source engine provides. I really don't know what I'm rambling on about anymore. If you're trying to play a "next generation" game with dated hardware the game is going to be much more taxing on your system. So, to ask the question of, "Will lag be an issue in FF," would be best answered with the question of, "Is lag, on Source based games, an issue for you?" This wasn't the most eloquent response, but it's 2:18am.. and I dislike early classes. __________________ Support FF: Trepid, what?

02-07-2005, 01:53 AM	#2
o_returner Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Games advance and so do computers.

02-07-2005, 01:56 AM	#3
o_blunto Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I suppose, but I hope I don't need to buy more crap for my computer just to play FF like I did with HL2.

02-07-2005, 02:59 AM	#4
o_rebo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	see the thead in "chat" it has some tweaks to increase FPS at the cost of graphics quality.

02-07-2005, 04:32 AM	#5
o_saintgreg Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Most of the lag I ever get is from the physics. For example in CS:s if someone throws a nade into the cs_italy marketplace thing with all the fruit flying everywhere I just lag spike like crazy. And I cannot see something like that situation in a fortress mod.

02-07-2005, 04:56 AM	#6
o_curly Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	It's going to be MUCH better. TFC graphics blow. They're much worse than even HL graphics. I was asking about this a while ago, and I think that the answer was that TFC was in development before the HL engine was fully developed. Basically, TFC looks awful even by HL engine standars, but FF will have full HL2 graphics. (explosions, flames etc anyone?)

02-07-2005, 05:03 AM	#7
o_lithium Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	If you can survive HL2 , you most probably will be able to run FF ... The worst you could get is sound lag. A fool map in FF would be a banana pool lol.... but that would make computers lag/

02-07-2005, 05:21 AM	#8
o_hollywood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I remember the team talking about keeping "physics objects" at a minimum. This should make the game run much better on most computers.

02-07-2005, 04:09 PM	#11
o_revz Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I used to play TFC at 640x480 in software mode getting 20-30 FPS. I've been through two complete PC upgrades since then and have gone from 56k modem to broadband in addition to the major net-code changes that happend in TF1.5 as well. There used to be no problem with the game as I didn't know any better but trying to get me back on my original setup would be painful

02-07-2005, 04:58 PM	#13
o_curly Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I know, the textures are mostly the same (eg in 2fort etc), and many of the weapon models are the same. (I dont' think any of the original "old" player models were HL1 models, but that's not what you're talking about) The mapping's fine too. I can't put my finger on it, but it just doens't seem to look as good. One of the indicators is the pyro flames and explosions in general. I really can't come up with a good argument, and I might be wrong. I really don't can't put my finger on it, but the graphics seem dumbed down. I remember discussing this on some forums a long time ago, and the consensus was that this was 1: because TFC was in development before the HL engine was completed and 2: to make it more acceptable for large-scale netplay for the computers at the time.

02-07-2005, 05:05 PM	#14
o_qbaler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boston Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I run a p4 3.2 ghz, 1 gig of ram and radeon 9800 pro. I run tfc in opengl 1024*768 highest quality in a window and I get 300 - 350 fps. I will not be running source based games in a window... why? I like high quality because I got the hardware that can handle it, but with hl2 it eats this good hardware upand I get like 50fps, so I dont play that in a window cuz it will just fuck me up! I dont know why I said all that but anyway, as long as ppl can set their settings so that they dont lag on a reasonable computer then the game will be fine! And from what I hear source lets you do some nice things!

02-07-2005, 05:12 PM	#15
o_binarylife Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I never had the experience of playing Half-life on a 56k. By the time it came out my parents had already sprung for comcast cable. I hadn't learned how to build computers yet either, so I was just happy that such a cool game could be played on a computer.

02-07-2005, 05:21 PM	#16
o_silver Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	my shit works and i got a gig or ram a 9600 pro and a 2.8 p4. my old comp, when i first started playing was a i think a 533mhz p3, 128 ram, voodoo3, and that was highend for those days. i had to run software most of the time cuz of my lag on opengl

02-07-2005, 05:42 PM	#18
o_blunto Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I used to play TFC on a 56k and it really wasnt that bad. Sure there was occasional lag, and sniping was a little difficult, but it was do-able. Now I have 3meg DSL and score a 30 latency on good CS:S servers. I guess my fears of monster lag are really for nothing. You guys working on FF will probably make some modifications that keep the data-stream from getting too big anyway.

02-07-2005, 07:45 PM	#20
o_curly Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	In an update that came out several months ago, all HL games were given an updated netcode thta allowed for lag compensation. (you wouldn't have sniping issues etc, and it was more balanced depending on connection, but you could get shot whne you think the enemy was behind a wall)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)