Project Reality Forums

NOTE: The title may be confusing, but I meant to say "...don't nerf the graphics for the sake of ancient comps"

I know that a lot of people have seen performance drops with the recent release, and I know that the devs are working to make the game as playable as possible, but I hope they DON'T actually reduce view distances, reduce draw distances on grass and foliage, and just crank down the graphics in general.

I love the more detailed maps, longer draw distances, more statics, etc. I hope that the level of detail and view/draw distances continue to increase in the future. However, I know that this has come at a steep price for some. But I've got a three year old computer with a recently purchased 5870 and I play the game maxed out at 1680 x 1050, and it is always perfectly smooth. I don't expect everyone to go buy a 5870, but I want the option to see PR in all its glory for those who do.

The fact is, I want the team to push the envelope of the engine, and this will require a decent computer to play. Those with older comps should be able to crank down the graphics and still play, but there is a difference between older and ancient. If you spent $500 on a comp five years ago and want the game cranked down enough that you can still play, you might be asking too much. The game is technically free, so you can think of an upgrade as the price to play. I know I sound like an A'hole, but come on! I didn't spend $400 on a video card to run vanilla BF2!

As I said, I'm all for optimizing the game as much as possible, and I understand that many have taken a huge performance drop, but I really don't want to see the devs tone it down on continuing to push the envelope of what this engine can do.

What do you think?

Not everyone has extra money to upgrade a computer.
Its like having a lambo and saying that everyone should upgrade to one or they can't drive.

^ with the majority having lambos..

It's not like the majority having lambos, it's like the majority have middle of the range cars, racing on a track that even middle range cars get great times on. The problem is that we're holding them back in absolute bombs of cars, and so high range cars have to race on a track that they can only do as fast as middle of the range cars.

I don't mind it all pretty like it is, but if people with i7's and SLi 295's are lagging something needs to be fixed

I don't get it. I sure don't have a 'lambo', but I'm running it just fine here... >60 fps and all. Maybe it's more like a matter of getting the settings right? That and, of course, at least some optmization, since everyone's having that amount of trouble.

for me its gameplay,feeling,teamwork.
i really dont care graphigs,just a little.
i will upgrade my comp when pr2 is coming.

At least release updated minimum system requirements.

This will allow people to know for sure that lag problems is there set up and not the game/punkbuster.

I've been using an older computer since my main one crapped out. It is specs are slightly greater than BF2's minimum requirements, however it will not comfortably play PR .9 on lowest settings.

I tested PR on my bro's PC he has a 5870 and a i7 920 but he's lagging too, mostly on the new maps.

IT all comes down to some textures that has gone wrong such as korengal when there was a badly placed texture.

USMC_Cook wrote: I love the more detailed maps, longer draw distances, more statics, etc. I hope that the level of detail and view/draw distances continue to increase in the future. However, I know that this has come at a steep price for some. But I've got a three year old computer with a recently purchased 5870 and I play the game maxed out at 1680 x 1050, and it is always perfectly smooth. I don't expect everyone to go buy a 5870, but I want the option to see PR in all its glory for those who do.

Good for you.


I'll have you know that MY COMP IS NOT ANCIENT. I just bought it - and it's MID RANGED.

No - I do not have £500 to spend of a high-end PC, and No, even if I did I wouldn't spend it on a high end PC.

Some of us have more to life than our Computers - infact the majority have more to life than their PC, and the Majority had mid-range PCs.

And also - Idc what you spent on your PC, I spent pretty much everything I had to spare (I couldn't even afford Xmas pressies afterwards. I still got Xmas pressies tho so all Is good ) on my PC, and now I can only just play PR (my favourite game) on Low with about 30 FPS.

I think you're being arrogant - thinking that everyone should A) have enough money to spend on their PC and B) should spend what they have on their PC just so they can actually play a game they have as much right to play as you. It's elitist and arrogant.

*edit*

I have a geforce 8200, a triple core processor, and 3gb of RAM - and I just spent LITERALLY an hour trying to get onto a game that worked, then I gave up.

Also the game is 5 years old, so a computer bought four years ago should be able to run it.

I'm running an 8800GT with 2gb ram and a 2.4ghz dual core. With textures and terrain turned to low, RAM is a non-issue. My problem with performance is fps in certain areas of maps and this doesn't mean my computer is ancient by any means. The problems with fps are not related to people having old computers whatsoever, it just means that there is some problems with the current settings and such.

Let me be clear here, an average £400 comp (with a current gfx card) should have no problems running .9 but they do.

joethepro36 wrote:1
Let me be clear here, an average £400 comp (with a current gfx card) should have no problems running .9 but they do.

Says who ?
Where is it written in stone that your formula for game performance is the only valid one ?

This is a Brand New Game....not a 5 year old game because this is Project Reality 0.9 not BF2.

I would also like to know how it is arrogant to hope that the new game you just downloaded doesn't get dumbed down ?

I really think it is far more arrogant to assume that a new game will be created that ancient computers can run on high.
A 4 year old PC is ancient.

USMC_Cook I think you are wrong. For me PR was good at 0.87 and I dont want better graphics. I think is good that view distance increased but I think that solution of lag could be simplier as it looks. I noticed that sprites(moving map's details) come on view at long distances- mostly lag is from grass. I think that fps drop would be realy less if grass and other farrer objects animations would be seen just in short distances. I had about 30FPS on Yamalia but when I see from binoculars I have 15FPS!!! From binoculars I can see very little grass movement on far far away, I think that is cause of lag cause there is many of grass and if I wouldn't inspecting lag couse I wouldn't notice grass movement- it is unnecessary and in my opinion main reason of lag. If grass would be as not moving element that I think would do the trick.

victor_phx wrote:I don't get it. I sure don't have a 'lambo', but I'm running it just fine here... >60 fps and all. Maybe it's more like a matter of getting the settings right? That and, of course, at least some optmization, since everyone's having that amount of trouble.

Just viewed your specs on your profile an I almost have the same... Could I ask you what your settings are?.. and how much RAM you got?

CallousDisregard wrote:y think it is far more arrogant to assume that a new game will be created that ancient computers can run on high.
A 4 year old PC is ancient.

It's younger than the game.

It's arrogant to assume that everyone can afford to buy a new PC or even new parts to a PC every few months.

The only thing I can tell from this thread is that there are a lot of high and mighty opinions about upgrading or not upgrading. (What's that word being tossed around? Arrogant?)

As long as the maps are optimized as best they can, and everything the DEVS can do to reduce fps drops they are doing, then it is our obligation as players to meet them part way with the hardware on our end.

Currently, the software needs work. When the software is perfect, then the hardware will need work. When the hardware is perfect, then the software will need work. This is how it goes, and I accept it. Any of you?

CallousDisregard wrote:Says who ?
Where is it written in stone that your formula for game performance is the only valid one ?

This is a Brand New Game....not a 5 year old game because this is Project Reality 0.9 not BF2.

I would also like to know how it is arrogant to hope that the new game you just downloaded doesn't get dumbed down ?

I really think it is far more arrogant to assume that a new game will be created that ancient computers can run on high.
A 4 year old PC is ancient.

This is NOT a brand new game. This is a 5 year old game with a brand new modification. The engine is still exactly the same as it was 5 years ago, and the devs has done no changes to it as they're completely unable to.

I'll throw your argument right back. Is it so wrong to assume that the game you played 2 days ago, will still be playable to you even if you download a patch?

Feriluce wrote:This is NOT a brand new game. This is a 5 year old game with a brand new modification. The engine is still exactly the same as it was 5 years ago, and the devs has done no changes to it as they're completely unable to.

I'll throw your argument right back. Is it so wrong to assume that the game you played 2 days ago, will still be playable to you even if you download a patch?

True, but find a 4km vanilla map with high quality textures, 1000m view distance, over 9000 trees and overall more content.