<!--quoteo(post=1805055:date=Nov 9 2010, 05:51 PM:name=SgtBarlow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SgtBarlow @ Nov 9 2010, 05:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think people miss understand minimum system requirements all round. They list a mix of requirements & required free resources. This means after your system has started up and all your on-load apps are running, does your system have the minimum amount of required resources left over to run the game sufficiently.
Its not asking you if your have 256MB RAM in your system, Its asking you have you got atleast 256MB left over to run the game? In my case my system needs atleast 2Gig of Ram for me to meet that requirement cause i have loads of stuff running.
Though My "Reccomended" requirements if i wrote them would be, Single Core 2.4Ghz, 1Gig of Ram, 512MB DX9 Card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never heard of people advertising "minimum free RAM." How is the average user supposed to know that?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1805319:date=Nov 12 2010, 12:15 AM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Nov 12 2010, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->256 mb ram is more like 1997-98<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> DDR is from 2000-2001 though in a time where SD was still sold alongside DDR, the sizes 128Mb to 256Mb modules were common and the 512Mb modules were top of the range (expensive shizzle <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/awesome.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />) <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> For a >= 1.2Ghz machine, it had to be DDR...
Hehe, when NS2 is done, I'm going to get my 1.4Tbird out of it's box and test it on that!
<!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Taking into account that LPC only had one module or two 128Mb's... And that is indeed somewhat 1999 <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
It's been said time and time again that the min. reqs. are by no means set it stone. They said it's what they're aiming for, and although we pretty much know they'll end up modifying them a little, they are the ones building the engine, so they know what could be possible or not. There's no use for them to change them right now if they have to change them again later. They'll update them once they have a better picture of the engine's requirements.
I know it's not the best to have lower specs announced, but going back and forth and updating them every day isn't much better in my book.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Heh, it's not like they can set min. reqs. based on the alpha performance.
Heck the most powerful pc's from across the globe have been gathered, alas even their power is no match currently for NS2. It seems... NS2 is simply too powerful for our current technology, in the end we will harness it's power.
<!--quoteo(post=1805321:date=Nov 11 2010, 08:44 PM:name=Mr. Epic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Epic @ Nov 11 2010, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805321"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not quite, 97-98 would have been 32mb (64 in really expensive NT machines).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1805322:date=Nov 12 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Nov 12 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've never heard of people advertising "minimum free RAM." How is the average user supposed to know that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They won't, They can only guess. Ram for example is fikly, its best to announce it as <u>Minimum required</u> in addition to what is already used up by your system and background apps, You should not tell people you "need" 1.5 Gig of Ram because your Game might need 1 gig to run but your system might startup using 800Mb, the variation is too great to make assumptions like that, that in my books would be bad speccing. Problem is, Specs have always been summerised and just stayed that way cause thats how they where printed to fit on the back game covers pre internet/early years. It just stayed that way even though there is plenty of space on a webpage to explain more carefully, very few do and its a horrible habbit thats just stuck with everyone to summarise requirements like that, they have always been illusive except to those in the know how.
HDD Space & Ram should always be treated as additions what is already used, Its pretty obvious with HDD space yet why would anyone treat RAM any differently from how they treat a Drive? Its just one of those odd things where people think about RAM in a different way for an unknow reason like its some sort of strange disease, its bizarr.
I agree with the original poster. If the game uses up 200-320Mb on low settings in the Alpha as Kouji_San said. Imagine what it'll be in Beta when the other features are included. The minimum specs are just deceptive and they need to be rethought, be given a disclaimer, or removed.
Im still amazed people are still thinking the min requirements apply to the alpha.. lol
Alpha's don't have "true" minimum requirements. They change that often and fast, it would be pointless. Minimum requirements are usually taken into fact when a game gets into beta/late beta. after most of the optimizations and finalizations have been done.
Anyone running a system with DDR1, a single core (or a very low end dual) and 4-5 generation old gfx card who are expecting amazing playability from a game that is quite visual and in alpha... well, What did you expect?
I'm going to keep referring to the Half-life 2 Alpha as an example of how requirements change massively from alpha to finished release.
Come ooon, is common sense really THAT gone from the world?
It is allowed to do some reseaarch for yourself.
If you have a 5-6 year old computer with something lower than DX9 you shouldnt expect to run ANYTHING modern. DX9 has been the industry low for a relatively long time now.
Minimum specs are 99% of the time bull######, and the recommended are the minimum. That is how i treat them. Now, i am aware that not all people are that techy and / or have a lot of cash. But damn, go to any computer shop online and you will see most of those old cards arent even sold anymore, that should be an indicator that they suck, besides, and low-mid end card from the never series really aint that expensive.
That aside, you were informed that you bought into a game in APLHA stage, and if you now whine about it and you can't run it, well, im sorry, but jokes on you.
Game has been improving lot lately, much better FPS, but i can tell you even a 5870 that is OCed and an i7 920 cant run it properly yet, that says something about how totally and utterly useless the minimum specs are at this point. So instead of complaining about performance and specs and stuff and that the game will never be done, do the ###### research on how long an alpha actually takes, large studios with hundreds of people can take years to make games, now UWE is alot smaller, and have gotten very far in a short period compared. You cant compare a big company to a small one.
<!--quoteo(post=1805296:date=Nov 11 2010, 04:52 PM:name=LPC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LPC @ Nov 11 2010, 04:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805296"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sgt Barlow got it right I guess, developers just slack when it comes to making clear what they _mean_ with the minimum requirements.
4.5 GB HD space is obviously free space left over (however, to some even this is not obvious).
a DX 9.0 vid card is obvious too.
but then:
1.2 Ghz processor - is this 1.2 GHz above the hertz I need to run Windows? or is a 1.2 GHz processor seriously enough?
256MB RAM - ok, so I have 256 MB RAM, am I fine? no. obviously? no! not every gamer is a whizzkid, not every parent of a 12 year old child is a whizzdude.
How hard can it be to the write minimum requirements down so that they can only be interpreted in _one_ way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Genuinely, I can't tell if you're being serious in your posts.
Let's take a look at what UWE has to say. This is taken verbatim from the NS2 FAQ.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A 1.2 GHz Processor, 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP, Steam, mouse, keyboard and of course, an internet connection. We are working hard to make sure NS2 runs well on average hardware without having to upgrade your machine! We do not currently have a release date set for NS2, but will let you know as soon as we do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is that not absolutely crystal clear? Beyond there being no doubt as to what requirements they refer to here(because there is no doubt), the game is in Alpha. Don't expect it to run well on anything right now, not even your top of the line whizzdude computer.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1805361:date=Nov 12 2010, 09:08 AM:name=Arcadian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arcadian @ Nov 12 2010, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805361"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the game uses up 200-320Mb on low settings in the Alpha as Kouji_San said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did also mention it might come down, due to the very unoptimized state the Alpha is is currently. But this was a simple test on a localhost server with about 12 buildings on the map (one of each, mostly)
<!--quoteo(post=1805377:date=Nov 12 2010, 04:57 PM:name=Pistachio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pistachio @ Nov 12 2010, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Genuinely, I can't tell if you're being serious in your posts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm having the same thoughts, as it seems we have provide enough info on the subject but the OP keeps on repeating the same thing with a few changes to what he's said before...
The fact that most current gen high-end machines can't run it properly doesn't say anything about the min. reqs. either. There are serious FPS/NET issues that are being worked on, they are in-engine bugs. A small example perhaps?
If you run an <b>highly</b> unoptimized map in goldSRC (original HL1 engine that NS1 uses). A map that is seriously over-stressing the engine's boundaries. Even the mightiest pc that is available today won't help improve the performance one bit. The same is true for Alpha Spark, it is over-stressing itself due to limitations, bugs, possible memory-leaks or other performance bugs. In this case the powerful current gen PC's can't do much either, to improve performance if the engine itself can't run smoothly yet.
The good news is that it is already showing signs of getting there! I think the min. reqs. posted are quite close to what it will be... Those older AMD/ATI combo's were quite fast in the end. And shutting down all shiny things, it might work!
<!--quoteo(post=1805301:date=Nov 11 2010, 06:14 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Nov 11 2010, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805301"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Common sense is an endangered species" (this sentence is mine)
First, if the sys. req. say that you need at least Win XP then you know you need no less the 1Gb of RAM, and better if you have 2Gb. Everything else you say is plain trolling. As everyone is tired of people complaining about the game in this stage you have found a new path to keep complaining.
Do you put your head inside a microwave and turn it on? The specifications don't say that you don't have to do that, so...
COMMON SENSE!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Common sense says don't over promise for absolutely no reason. Even not having system requirements and just saying "to be determined" would be reasonable.
If you had a microwave that had somewhere in the manual a stupid specification - following your lead how about "safe to run with your head and/or pet inside!" - then most people would ignore it and think it was silly. But there's always a chance, particularly when not everyone knows about computers / microwaves, that someone won't know and will be misled.
Yes they're generally busy but how long would it take to edit the page?
<!--quoteo(post=1805377:date=Nov 12 2010, 04:57 PM:name=Pistachio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pistachio @ Nov 12 2010, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Genuinely, I can't tell if you're being serious in your posts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well mister, I feel thay most of you simply don't understand my posts.
I am complaining because I feel / am misled by they way UWE says I need a minimum of 256 MB ram, the point I'm trying to make hasn't got anything to do with my own system specs.
Am I being a pricky prick? yes. but that's just because it's a feeling that's been build up over the years of reading minimum requirements which were ridiculous. I guess Im just a bit sad about it, why can't they just change one single line so people won't be misled so easely.
I might be wrong to think that a 1.2 GHz processor isn't enough - alltough I doubt it -
[qoute] Minimum specs are 99% of the time bull######, and the recommended are the minimum. That is how i treat them [/qoute]
Treat them anyway you like, because noone can truly explain what is meant by them, that's exactly the point of this thread.
[qoute] That aside, you were informed that you bought into a game in APLHA stage, and if you now whine about it and you can't run it, well, im sorry, but jokes on you. [/qoute]
mister duderino:
I never said I can't run the alpha, and Im also not going to turn this into a flame war, I've had enough anger management for that.
Written for the 2004 engine: "Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs: * Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor * OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98 * Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card * Hard Drive: 4.5 GB * Memory: 256 MB RAM * Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive "
The dev team thought about doing Natural Selection 2 in the source engine before their own.
A few posters need to think about this before they say that the requirements are reasonable. They are based on the minimum reqs for the original Half-Life 2. It's a forgotten placeholder, but they're taking preorders now so they need to correct it or put up a disclaimer.
Comments
They list a mix of requirements & required free resources.
This means after your system has started up and all your on-load apps are running, does your system have the minimum amount of required resources left over to run the game sufficiently.
Its not asking you if your have 256MB RAM in your system, Its asking you have you got atleast 256MB left over to run the game?
In my case my system needs atleast 2Gig of Ram for me to meet that requirement cause i have loads of stuff running.
Though My "Reccomended" requirements if i wrote them would be, Single Core 2.4Ghz, 1Gig of Ram, 512MB DX9 Card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never heard of people advertising "minimum free RAM." How is the average user supposed to know that?
DDR is from 2000-2001 though in a time where SD was still sold alongside DDR, the sizes 128Mb to 256Mb modules were common and the 512Mb modules were top of the range (expensive shizzle <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/awesome.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />) <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> For a >= 1.2Ghz machine, it had to be DDR...
Hehe, when NS2 is done, I'm going to get my 1.4Tbird out of it's box and test it on that!
<!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Taking into account that LPC only had one module or two 128Mb's... And that is indeed somewhat 1999 <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I know it's not the best to have lower specs announced, but going back and forth and updating them every day isn't much better in my book.
Heck the most powerful pc's from across the globe have been gathered, alas even their power is no match currently for NS2. It seems... NS2 is simply too powerful for our current technology, in the end we will harness it's power.
lol oops, i was thinking about hard drive sizes
They won't, They can only guess.
Ram for example is fikly, its best to announce it as <u>Minimum required</u> in addition to what is already used up by your system and background apps, You should not tell people you "need" 1.5 Gig of Ram because your Game might need 1 gig to run but your system might startup using 800Mb, the variation is too great to make assumptions like that, that in my books would be bad speccing.
Problem is, Specs have always been summerised and just stayed that way cause thats how they where printed to fit on the back game covers pre internet/early years. It just stayed that way even though there is plenty of space on a webpage to explain more carefully, very few do and its a horrible habbit thats just stuck with everyone to summarise requirements like that, they have always been illusive except to those in the know how.
HDD Space & Ram should always be treated as additions what is already used, Its pretty obvious with HDD space yet why would anyone treat RAM any differently from how they treat a Drive? Its just one of those odd things where people think about RAM in a different way for an unknow reason like its some sort of strange disease, its bizarr.
Alpha's don't have "true" minimum requirements. They change that often and fast, it would be pointless. Minimum requirements are usually taken into fact when a game gets into beta/late beta. after most of the optimizations and finalizations have been done.
Anyone running a system with DDR1, a single core (or a very low end dual) and 4-5 generation old gfx card who are expecting amazing playability from a game that is quite visual and in alpha... well, What did you expect?
I'm going to keep referring to the Half-life 2 Alpha as an example of how requirements change massively from alpha to finished release.
It is allowed to do some reseaarch for yourself.
If you have a 5-6 year old computer with something lower than DX9 you shouldnt expect to run ANYTHING modern. DX9 has been the industry low for a relatively long time now.
Minimum specs are 99% of the time bull######, and the recommended are the minimum. That is how i treat them. Now, i am aware that not all people are that techy and / or have a lot of cash. But damn, go to any computer shop online and you will see most of those old cards arent even sold anymore, that should be an indicator that they suck, besides, and low-mid end card from the never series really aint that expensive.
That aside, you were informed that you bought into a game in APLHA stage, and if you now whine about it and you can't run it, well, im sorry, but jokes on you.
Game has been improving lot lately, much better FPS, but i can tell you even a 5870 that is OCed and an i7 920 cant run it properly yet, that says something about how totally and utterly useless the minimum specs are at this point. So instead of complaining about performance and specs and stuff and that the game will never be done, do the ###### research on how long an alpha actually takes, large studios with hundreds of people can take years to make games, now UWE is alot smaller, and have gotten very far in a short period compared. You cant compare a big company to a small one.
4.5 GB HD space is obviously free space left over (however, to some even this is not obvious).
a DX 9.0 vid card is obvious too.
but then:
1.2 Ghz processor - is this 1.2 GHz above the hertz I need to run Windows? or is a 1.2 GHz processor seriously enough?
256MB RAM - ok, so I have 256 MB RAM, am I fine? no. obviously? no! not every gamer is a whizzkid, not every parent of a 12 year old child is a whizzdude.
How hard can it be to the write minimum requirements down so that they can only be interpreted in _one_ way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Genuinely, I can't tell if you're being serious in your posts.
Let's take a look at what UWE has to say. This is taken verbatim from the NS2 FAQ.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A 1.2 GHz Processor, 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP, Steam, mouse, keyboard and of course, an internet connection. We are working hard to make sure NS2 runs well on average hardware without having to upgrade your machine! We do not currently have a release date set for NS2, but will let you know as soon as we do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is that not absolutely crystal clear? Beyond there being no doubt as to what requirements they refer to here(because there is no doubt), the game is in Alpha. Don't expect it to run well on anything right now, not even your top of the line whizzdude computer.
I did also mention it might come down, due to the very unoptimized state the Alpha is is currently. But this was a simple test on a localhost server with about 12 buildings on the map (one of each, mostly)
<!--quoteo(post=1805377:date=Nov 12 2010, 04:57 PM:name=Pistachio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pistachio @ Nov 12 2010, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Genuinely, I can't tell if you're being serious in your posts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm having the same thoughts, as it seems we have provide enough info on the subject but the OP keeps on repeating the same thing with a few changes to what he's said before...
The fact that most current gen high-end machines can't run it properly doesn't say anything about the min. reqs. either. There are serious FPS/NET issues that are being worked on, they are in-engine bugs. A small example perhaps?
If you run an <b>highly</b> unoptimized map in goldSRC (original HL1 engine that NS1 uses). A map that is seriously over-stressing the engine's boundaries. Even the mightiest pc that is available today won't help improve the performance one bit. The same is true for Alpha Spark, it is over-stressing itself due to limitations, bugs, possible memory-leaks or other performance bugs. In this case the powerful current gen PC's can't do much either, to improve performance if the engine itself can't run smoothly yet.
The good news is that it is already showing signs of getting there! I think the min. reqs. posted are quite close to what it will be... Those older AMD/ATI combo's were quite fast in the end. And shutting down all shiny things, it might work!
(this sentence is mine)
First, if the sys. req. say that you need at least Win XP then you know you need no less the 1Gb of RAM, and better if you have 2Gb.
Everything else you say is plain trolling. As everyone is tired of people complaining about the game in this stage you have found a new path to keep complaining.
Do you put your head inside a microwave and turn it on? The specifications don't say that you don't have to do that, so...
COMMON SENSE!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Common sense says don't over promise for absolutely no reason. Even not having system requirements and just saying "to be determined" would be reasonable.
If you had a microwave that had somewhere in the manual a stupid specification - following your lead how about "safe to run with your head and/or pet inside!" - then most people would ignore it and think it was silly. But there's always a chance, particularly when not everyone knows about computers / microwaves, that someone won't know and will be misled.
Yes they're generally busy but how long would it take to edit the page?
Well mister, I feel thay most of you simply don't understand my posts.
I am complaining because I feel / am misled by they way UWE says I need a minimum of 256 MB ram, the point I'm trying to make hasn't got anything to do with my own system specs.
Am I being a pricky prick? yes. but that's just because it's a feeling that's been build up over the years of reading minimum requirements which were ridiculous. I guess Im just a bit sad about it, why can't they just change one single line so people won't be misled so easely.
I might be wrong to think that a 1.2 GHz processor isn't enough - alltough I doubt it -
[qoute]
Minimum specs are 99% of the time bull######, and the recommended are the minimum. That is how i treat them
[/qoute]
Treat them anyway you like, because noone can truly explain what is meant by them, that's exactly the point of this thread.
[qoute]
That aside, you were informed that you bought into a game in APLHA stage, and if you now whine about it and you can't run it, well, im sorry, but jokes on you.
[/qoute]
mister duderino:
I never said I can't run the alpha, and Im also not going to turn this into a flame war, I've had enough anger management for that.
* Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
* OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
* Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
* Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
* Memory: 256 MB RAM
* Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive "
The dev team thought about doing Natural Selection 2 in the source engine before their own.
A few posters need to think about this before they say that the requirements are reasonable. They are based on the minimum reqs for the original Half-Life 2. It's a forgotten placeholder, but they're taking preorders now so they need to correct it or put up a disclaimer.