[RIDIC]

It would be nice as well if you were able to run it in Windows Mode - often I am multitasking and having to alt+tab is kind of a pain. I will deal with it but just thought I would ask. Pretty Please!!!

[Twinky]

AMD 64x2 5600+ 2.8ghz
8gb DDR 800 gSkill memory
XFX 8600 gt x2 (SLI)
WD x2 120gb hard drives

I beleive this setup would be overkill for anything netdevil can put out, and I'm looking forward to it.

[Scorch]

Thanks for all the system feedback. Its looking like we will be going with 800x600 right now just because while the older cards can handle the polys, they just can't deal with and kind of fill rate and lower res really gets much better performance.

I have no idea if we will support that awesome sounding 3 monitor system running off a Matrox card. If so, we may need to get one of those setups running in the office just to make sure.

As for my specs, I mostly run on my Dell Laptop these days because its just so fast for games. Its a M1710 with a 512MB video card and 2GB RAM. Over the year + that I have had this thing I almost never use any desktops anymore, I even got rid of my desktop at work. Plus its 1920x1200 which is great.

As for windowed mode, we already support it now. All the devs run in that mode while debugging so its pretty much required.

[SpaceDrake]

Huh, still going 800x600? Really, Scorch, I was running 1024x768 back in 2001, when we were testing Jumpgate Original. I don't actually know anyone who's at all interested in gaming who runs under 1024 anymore.

All I can really say is, remember to support multiple screen dimension ratios. 1024x768 and 800x600 are all 4:3, but my new flatpanel is natively 5:4 and most of the bigger widescreens are 16:9. A lot of gamers run above 4:3 now so be sure and give widescreen proper support.

EDIT: wait, I just saw this:

Originally Posted by Scorch

We have a p800 with 384 MB RAM, and a 64MB no shader video card we are working with as a min-spec benchmark. The tough things are fitting into video memory with lots of polys with more data in a vertex than there used to be (textures can simply be reduced in size for this card), fill rate (so 800x600 may have to be there still), fitting into physical memory as Jumpgate now loads everything into RAM all the time (something we are of course changing but being an action game we can't have load screens when you jump for example) and processing LOTS of particles is tough on the slower CPUs. The game runs on that machine, but not fast enough yet.

Scorch, I really think you need to aim higher, dude. This is a PC from almost 8 or 9 years ago now. What you describe is a newish mid-level PC I store-bought in 2000 as a teenager. Even low-end PCs (sub-$1000 PCs) bought in stores now are much, much more powerful than this. I'd aim for minimum specs of at least 1.5ghz, at least a GeForce 4-era card and 512MB of RAM. Any store-bought from the past two years can meet or beat those requirements handily, and most "gamer" machines purchased in the last year can demolish them.

Don't be afraid to go for the tech, man!

[alphabet]

Scorch, those specs are easily attainable with my rig. I actually think you are shooting too low of the mark. Check out Pirates of the Burning Sea, Vanguard, World War II Online, EvE.

800x600? Raise the bar brother.

[Mickey_D]

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2.0GHz
512MB
185GB
ATI AIW Pro 7500 64MB (worst part of my system in my mind)

[Powo]

Jumpgate should be able to be played in the minimal resolution of 640x480 when it comes to 3d in-space flight.

As for the in-station graphics, yeah it should be higher than 800x600.

[Milkman]

I agree with the 640x480 being a possible option in space. F.E.A.R (only new game i have on an older system) runs at that resolution. Wanting a large range of resolutions isn't bad. Also some people like to run as low of resolution as possible to get the most FPS as possible because they feel it gives them an advantage.... that topic however is not for this thread. :P

[Sephiroth]

I'm currently running an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB
1 GB RAM



And yea, you could probably aim higher than what you are.

[Jump]

So what advantage would a player in space running at high resolution have over one running at 640X480 or 800x600? Or would it be the other way around? I ask because I don't know. I was never very good at PVP.

[Milkman]

That is hard to say as depending on the game. I don't want to go too far off topic, but back in my Q3 days alot of players ran really small resolutions and only 16colors (not 16bit) so to make it easer for particular things to stand out like enemy players. That always bugged me, expecially at LAN partys/tournys that the rules didn't forbit it. I had my image quality maxed looking pretty and they had theirs as low as they could go with mods and kicking my butt... except for when they didn't and boy did that feel good.

But back to min spec info for Scorch. FYi WoW min resoution is also 800x600 it seems. So wanting to support that isn't a bad thing if trying to keep the min spec low so as many people as possible can play.

[vorlon31]

You might want to consider TrackIR compatibility too Scorch, (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/) of course I have no idea what that actually entails but its another selling point and another marketing tool. Quiet a few flight sim guys follow the links on the trackir sight for compatible games. Just an idea.