!! Call Of Duty: United Offensive on PIII 450 mhz and Geforce FX5200 !! :)

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

"Spack" wrote in message
. ..
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much
better
than
an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these games
you

Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that a
slow
CPU is good enough to play this game

The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise

No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a fast
processor.

Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game out
there =D

Skybuck.



A 2600 is choked by FarCry and Doom3

"Spack" wrote in message
...

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

"Spack" wrote in message
. ..
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much
better
than
an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these
games
you

Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that
a
slow
CPU is good enough to play this game

The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise

No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a
fast
processor.

Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game
out
there =D

I never said it wasn't. Do you even bother reading anything anyone writes
in
your distorted little world?

Hahahaha lol.

You're the one that's being twisted...

You're insinuating that the graphics card is not fast enough to play a
decent game :P

Playing games is about having fun. If you need 1600x1200x70 fps with high
textures too have fun, you're ****ing out of your mind =D

Bye,
Skybuck ;D

"ec" wrote in message
news:M2C4d.353040$sh.316978@fed1read06...

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

"Spack" wrote in message
. ..
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much
better
than
an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these
games
you

Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that
a
slow
CPU is good enough to play this game

The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise

No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a fast
processor.

Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game
out
there =D

Skybuck.



A 2600 is choked by FarCry and Doom3

That can be debated.

1. Slow software algorithms, unoptimized software for AMD 2600+ :P
2. They are not really games.. since they not much fun to play anyway =D

Bye,
Skybuck.

"ec" wrote in message
news:M2C4d.353040$sh.316978@fed1read06...

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

"Spack" wrote in message
. ..
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much
better
than
an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these
games
you

Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that
a
slow
CPU is good enough to play this game

The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise

No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a fast
processor.

Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game
out
there =D

Skybuck.



A 2600 is choked by FarCry and Doom3


Well, I wanna say one more thing about Doom 3.

Try unpacking the pk4 zip files.

I'll bet you 50 bucks that makes a hell lot of differences

No more decompression required, that means a whole lot of CPU power is
suddenly freed :P

If you wanna take that to extremes, try using TGA instead of JPEG... and
maybe wav instead of MP3 etc.

Since I played Doom 3 pretty ok on the AMD2600... the hell level required
the most power... probably because of too much object and non optimal
algorithms =D

The only time doom 3 slowed down was during loading off stuff (read
decompressing stuff...)

Probably because it had too little RAM... only 256 MB of RAM.

So plug in more RAM and maybe the engine will cache more stuff... which
means less loading and less decompressing

Funny isn't it =D

Like how much GHZ do you think Doom 3 needs =D

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

A 2600 is choked by FarCry and Doom3

1. Slow software algorithms, unoptimized software for AMD 2600+ :P

However, if you happen to play them on a 2600+ with a graphics card that's
up to the job, they aren't slow. Oh my, how can that be, after Skybuck has
clearly proven that CPU speed has nothing to do with game performance (that
was sarcasm, in case you didn't realise!). Strange that both of these games
run fine on my PC at good visual quality and acceptable frame rates (and I'm
not talking 5fps) on my lowly 2400+ (note to Skybuck - AMD chip numbering is
not inversely proportional, so the 2400 I have is SLOWER than a 2600 - and
note for the pedantic, yes the actual frequency the Thoroughbred 2400 runs
at is higher if the 2600 is a Barton, but other factors result in a speed
gain equivalent to the Thunderbird ratings). The difference between an
XP2600 with a Radeon 9000 not running these well and my system doing so is
that I have an FX5900XT (and Far Cry ran fine on my GF4 Ti4200 too, not
tested Doom3 on it yet.

2. They are not really games.. since they not much fun to play anyway =D

Is the same Skybuck who ranted and raved about how good Doom 3 was at 5fps
on his system? *Note to games developers, please get Skybuck to be involved
in the design phase because unless you manage to make it fun for him your
game cannot be called a game!* I think I have a spare clue somewhere on my
desk, if I find it I'll send it to you Skybuck, you're obviously short of
them right now.

Dan

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

Hahahaha lol.

You're the one that's being twisted...

You're insinuating that the graphics card is not fast enough to play a
decent game :P

Yes, I am. I've had a PC with a slow graphics card in the past, and it
didn't take long to realise that it was holding my system back.
To be able to play a first person game at an acceptable level I'd rather not
having jerky motion, or response rates to my keypresses over a second. Games
with slower gameplay don't need a faster card.

Playing games is about having fun. If you need 1600x1200x70 fps with high
textures too have fun, you're ****ing out of your mind =D

And now you're insinuating that I play my games at that level. Here are some
facts.

#1 Most games I tend to play at 1024x768 with medium to high textures
depending on what I can get away with. I rarely bother with FSAA or Aniso
settings. For Far Cry this gives me around 45fps on average, and for Doom 3
around 30fps. If I was forced to play at 800x600 with low details settings
for everything and still have unacceptable jerkiness and response rates
(note Skybuck, I didn't say fps) then I'd be unhappy. I tried Doom 3 with
higher settings and when the timedemo was giving me a rate of 20fps I found
that when playing there was a noticeable problem with movement and response
when there were 2 or more imps shooting at me, so I backed the settings off
to get me closer to 30fps in the timedemo which resulted in much smoother
play and stopped me getting frustrated.

#2 I don't buy the latest hardware just because it's available. My current
PC has an XP2400+ because I was given it by a friend in trade for a spare
PSU and a spare mouse I had kicking around. The GF4 Ti4200 I bought was to
replace a GF3 Ti200 because I wanted a card with integrated VIVO and felt
like treating myself to a new card - at the time it was being replaced by
the FX series, so I wasn't buying "cutting edge" hardware. And I now have
the FX5900XT because eBuyer mispriced it at £60 (around $100) and it was too
good an opportunity to pass up, especially as I had just bought Far Cry and
the Ti4200 was struggling to play acceptably at 800x600 in medium settings.

#3 I don't overclock my system - I don't feel that I need to. So far I've
had no piece of hardware fail on me, and as I upgrade I either sell on the
spares or build them up into a PC for someone else in my family. So all my
components are running at stock speeds, but at least they last - I'm still
running parts that I've had for over 4 years in a PC thats on 24/7.

Dan

"Spack" wrote in message
...
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

A 2600 is choked by FarCry and Doom3

1. Slow software algorithms, unoptimized software for AMD 2600+ :P

However, if you happen to play them on a 2600+ with a graphics card that's
up to the job, they aren't slow. Oh my, how can that be, after Skybuck has
clearly proven that CPU speed has nothing to do with game performance
(that
was sarcasm, in case you didn't realise!). Strange that both of these
games
run fine on my PC at good visual quality and acceptable frame rates (and
I'm
not talking 5fps) on my lowly 2400+ (note to Skybuck - AMD chip numbering
is
not inversely proportional, so the 2400 I have is SLOWER than a 2600 - and
note for the pedantic, yes the actual frequency the Thoroughbred 2400 runs
at is higher if the 2600 is a Barton, but other factors result in a speed
gain equivalent to the Thunderbird ratings). The difference between an
XP2600 with a Radeon 9000 not running these well and my system doing so is
that I have an FX5900XT (and Far Cry ran fine on my GF4 Ti4200 too, not
tested Doom3 on it yet.

2. They are not really games.. since they not much fun to play anyway =D

Is the same Skybuck who ranted and raved about how good Doom 3 was at 5fps
on his system? *Note to games developers, please get Skybuck to be
involved
in the design phase because unless you manage to make it fun for him your
game cannot be called a game!* I think I have a spare clue somewhere on my
desk, if I find it I'll send it to you Skybuck, you're obviously short of
them right now.

Yes, Doom 3 was cool playing the first times... just because it was Doom 3
and New and New Graphics...

But then once single player is done... it goes into the waste basket lol.

Like I said normally I dont care about single player...

Doom 3's multiplayer probably sucks.

Now to get back on Call of Duty...

Meanwhile I have played 'Base Assault' mode.. that's a pretty cool game
mode...

At first I didn't know what to do.

It turns out... one has to use a tank to shoot at the bunkers... until their
destroyed... and takes a while... at the bottum of the screen are white bars
that decrease... get orange, red and then bunker is destroyed... well... at
least the top... and then a dynamite has to be planted.

One time I got really ****ed and frustrated... in the mp_kurks level...
probably because my tactic didn't work that well.. enemy tanks kept coming
and coming towards the germans near the right hill from german site... I
tried to take out those tanks... I wanted to capture the right hill.

But it can only be done if other teammates help... I thought it would work
if we would all roll out with tanks... in a massive tank battle... tried it
over and over again.. Got blasted/killed over and over again... then finally
we concuered the hill.. but then my 'stupid' teammates just kept sitting on
the hill instead of moving in... to take over the land... and then the
following happened... one single enemy soldier... simply took a tank... I
could not shoot him in time...
maybe if the others tried and shoot him as well.. he might have been
stopped... anyway... now the enemy solder had this tank and shooted my
tank... at that point I knew we were going to loose the hill again since my
teammates weren't paying attention and not shooting the tank...

In reality it was 3 tanks of ours vs only a single enemy soldier... but
there were 2 unmounted enemy tanks... but my two teammates were'sleeping'...
so the enemy soldier took the first tank... killed my half tank... at that
point I simply gave up.. because I knew exactly what the enemy would do...
and he did... he simply got out of his damaged tank... and took the next
tank... at that point I knew I had lost... there was no way my half damaged
tank could ever win from a new enemy tank... So I got really ****ed at my
teammates not helping out lol.

At that point I realized 'Call Of Duty, United Offensive' is another one of
these latest games that requires much more brain cells and experience.

Now to be fair... maybe my tactical idea was flawed... I definetly will not
try that again... next time I will simply be a soldier... sneak into the
houses... and try to kill tanks with panzers... maybe that's easier because
the enemy doesn't notice... I still have to try it...

Anyway my point is this game requires a lot more tactics and experience and
insight than any other shooter before I think... it's not really more your
typical brainless shooter... it starts to have this strategic element as
well. lol.

So now comes my point.... these games are becoming more and more like a
sport. And as with sport... people have different skill levels.

I think it's better to have noobs vs noobs, novice vs novice, and experts vs
experts... so they can learn from each other and get slowly better.

So as I have said before at other places... these games need a
rating/ranking system for the players. just like www.playsite.com

So that only players of a certain skill level are allowed to play with each
other =D

But in a real war.... there are probably experience soldiers who are
're-supplied' with rookies... having had that experience with cod uo.. I can
really imagine that soldiers could get really frustrated and annoyed with
newbie soldiers lol....

So a very simply solution is rating players and storing this information on
servers or a main server... that would help quite a lot... at least than
players have an indication how 'smart/experienced' somebody is... so one can
take that into account

You know... armies don't have these ranks for nothing

Well I still like the way cod is going... I would love to see a next game...
with more strategic elements... like a general being ablo to play the
overall strategy... or maybe squad leaders who can give other players
objectives and when they complete the objective they get bonuses or more
rank or extra/special wapens or more ammo etc =D

Bye,
Skybuck.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:28:05 GMT, "robin.gordon1"
wrote:

where the hell did you get it. all my local shops etc.. tell me it hasn't
been released yet and wont be until the end of October. HHmmmm


Here in the US, 24-hr shipping from www.ebworld.com.
You in Europe, by any chance ?

John Lewis

Robin

I agree with this somewhat. Cuz you shouldnt have to pay up the ass just to
play a video game. You can get good graffix on a console now. And there
from $100 to 150. Where as the latest and greatest vid card is like
$300-$500. My current system is a 2600+OC'ed to 3200+ and 512mb of ram and
its almost like I feel like I have to upgrade, but thats just way above my
budget right now. So im gonna use this setup as long as possible maybe
another 1 year to 2 years.
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

"Spack" wrote in message
...

"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

"Spack" wrote in message
. ..
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
...

BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much
better
than
an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these
games
you

Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show
that
a
slow
CPU is good enough to play this game

The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise

No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a
fast
processor.

Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game
out
there =D

I never said it wasn't. Do you even bother reading anything anyone writes
in
your distorted little world?

Hahahaha lol.

You're the one that's being twisted...

You're insinuating that the graphics card is not fast enough to play a
decent game :P

Playing games is about having fun. If you need 1600x1200x70 fps with high
textures too have fun, you're ****ing out of your mind =D

Bye,
Skybuck ;D

Well more from me on Call Of Duty.

I just spent 23 minutes playing the game.

First the level had to reload 3 times.

Then I got killed twice with one shot kill.

It seems I can't kill people as fast with regular guns as they can kill me.

Maybe that's because Call Of Duty United Offensive is more favourable
towards 'campers'.

The wapens have this 'aiming' mode... which a camper can set up so it can
aim better.

That might explain some deaths... also the sniper guns seems to be one shot
kills mostly...

But the main reason is probably the damage the wapens do is much higher than
say most RTCW Demo Servers.

What sux the most about the game... is the inaccuracy of the wapens in
general. A few wapens are like acceptable... most simply fire way to much
stray shots.... add the low frame rates to it... and maybe I can only shoot
a few good shots.

Yeah and the weirdest thing is I have this feeling that other people can aim
better than me... or can shoot me better than I can shoot them... that's
weird... I think that's simply not true... maybe they have more luck than me
with fire going less stray...

The most funny thing would be if the game detected a crack and simply
reduced firing accuracy lol.

Like the bazooka was way off... I aimed without second mode... and it flew
waaayyy ---- over there

Same goes with the thompson etc ( I already reported that) and other wapens.

Also I agree with people writing that the levels are pretty big... maybe
even way to big.

Personally I miss the great long action from RTCW Demo... where people can
shoot for many seconds at a row at each other without both dieing...

( Though it depends on server settings )

Now... it's just BAM your dead.. go respawn.

Then you have to start walking all over the map again...

Also driving in tanks gets pretty boring very fast... I am very good with
tanks... that' s way to easy.

So after only playing a few days of call of duty... I am already pretty
bored with it...

I played RTCW Demo for 3 or 4 years - wow go figure... big difference. And
RTCW Demo is still fun =D

But I am having doubt deleting COD UO from my harddisk right now...

Maybe there is still hope... that some servers have better settings... so
that one lives a bit longer... and less tanks and stuff.

So I am gonna give another few days... and then it's probably going into the
waste basket

But... the game is still on the AMD 2600+ so I can still play it over
there... though single player got quite boing in the second level... with
the bridge ?

Crossing the bridge was hard... all these enemies kept respawning etc and
shooting me... I played that level like 15 times or so and still not made it
?

That's a first

Maybe I ll try playing single player.. maybe at the easiest level so I can
see and play the 'planes' level... maybe I can find a save game on the
internet to save me some time lol - how lame lol

Ok one last thing... I have never been shot and never hope to get shot in
real life... cod is a little more realistic and less about fantasy and maybe
less fun because of that... anyway even if I did get shot in the body I
would probably not die as fast as in cod... so my compliant about dieing to
fast is valid... there ya go.

So to some it all up:

1. Inaccurate wapens
2. Favourable towards campers
3. Too many one shot kills or nearly one shot kills
4. Dieing way to fast
5. Levels pretty big...
6. Team deatchmatch boring, no objectives... everybody just sits/camps
around and waits for somebody to pop up and shoot in 'camper mode'
I played 1 hour of team deathmatch and maybe so 3 other enemies walking
around !
7. Haven't even played deathmatch lol - bull**** maybe I should try it
lol... but I dont think so lol.
9. To many tanks - boring.

Still some good things:

1. Capture the flag - good.
2. Base assault - medium.
3. Search and destroy - ok. ( 1 life )
4. Retrieval ??? nobody playing that ?

Bye,
Skybuck.