Than he has a bad monitor... I played on my 17" screen @ 1280x960. 1024 is for 15".
I wasn't laughing at the res. though. I was laughing at that crappy game that require 8800GTX to run it at Ultra at 1024 res. Talk about unoptimized shit.
Than he has a bad monitor... I played on my 17" screen @ 1280x960. 1024 is for 15".
I wasn't laughing at the res. though. I was laughing at that crappy game that require 8800GTX to run it at Ultra at 1024 res. Talk about unoptimized shit.
I have philips 19" crt but i am using 1024 because the refresh rate is 100 and bigger resolutions have lower refresh rate.But with ultra settings + AA of this game the graphics are superb.So why change the res and hurt my eyes?
35-40 with all max
if i set the shadows and some other useless settings lower i have 55-60 fps.
Of course the game is too heavy for old cards so the better would be buying a gtx card (not gts)
And the game isnt crappy........(you cant run a 360 or ps3 game with old cards at 100fps...)
[
This type of post is almost always found in some racing game. There are setting to tune the sensitivity, use them! (now they are a bit hidden, you have to press right on the control setup screen acouple of times). Defauls is just what you said, but move couple (or just one slider a bit) and it's great.
Whatever never in any racing game period have I ever seen such shit control while driving. I went into the menu's and changed settings still utter shit control. Clearly reading through the thread seems many agree. K your turn, where you point out how I suck at racing games(which isn't the case). I just hope it'll only be an issue with the demo, which I think it probably will be. I'll also go back into the menu's and dig around some more just to be sure.
Than he has a bad monitor... I played on my 17" screen @ 1280x960. 1024 is for 15".
I wasn't laughing at the res. though. I was laughing at that crappy game that require 8800GTX to run it at Ultra at 1024 res. Talk about unoptimized shit.
I have philips 19" crt but i am using 1024 because the refresh rate is 100 and bigger resolutions have lower refresh rate.But with ultra settings + AA of this game the graphics are superb.So why change the res and hurt my eyes?
35-40 with all max
if i set the shadows and some other useless settings lower i have 55-60 fps.
Of course the game is too heavy for old cards so the better would be buying a gtx card (not gts)
And the game isnt crappy........(you cant run a 360 or ps3 game with old cards at 100fps...)
Dude, if a game runs like that on a 8800GTX like that, it's not optimized.
This game runs pretty poorly for me. Unfotunately in this case, my monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050. Being that this game runs as poor;y as it does on my machine and that I am unwilling to drop the resolution I have most settings on high, but a few on low, wind effects and blurring off. Only 2x AA and even still I can barely muster 25 - 35FPS. What a joke. I guess I'll just hold out for the 360 version instead.
Whatever never in any racing game period have I ever seen such shit control while driving. I went into the menu's and changed settings still utter shit control. Clearly reading through the thread seems many agree. K your turn, where you point out how I suck at racing games(which isn't the case). I just hope it'll only be an issue with the demo, which I think it probably will be. I'll also go back into the menu's and dig around some more just to be sure.
Hmm, where did I say you suck at racing games? Anyways, I used linearity at 0 and the saturation slider at 80% with keyboard and it was fine. Try those and if it still sucks, then I can't help
It's one of the frist next gen game... I mean when did you last see a racing game taking 12GB of HDD space!!!
The PS 3.0 make it that the MINIMUM spec for this game is 6800 GT
If you want next gen gaming, expect it to require next gen hardware... simple as that!
Actually the elite part with this game, is that it runs with high resolution, so the game will still look good in two years with Geforce 9 or 10 , at 2048*1600 or some similiar high resolution!
If you want to attack a game that requires too much; attack HALO which is DX 10 only so it requires a 300 euros card like 8800 gts or so, and also requires you to buy Windows Vista which cost 200-300 euros as well!
It's one of the frist next gen game... I mean when did you last see a racing game taking 12GB of HDD space!!!
The PS 3.0 make it that the MINIMUM spec for this game is 6800 GT
If you want next gen gaming, expect it to require next gen hardware... simple as that!
Actually the elite part with this game, is that it runs with high resolution, so the game will still look good in two years with Geforce 9 or 10 , at 2048*1600 or some similiar high resolution!
If you want to attack a game that requires too much; attack HALO which is DX 10 only so it requires a 300 euros card like 8800 gts or so, and also requires you to buy Windows Vista which cost 200-300 euros as well!
That's insane!
NOOB ALERT!NOOB ALERT!
Halo 2 is not a DX10 game ffs. Just because it's Vista only doesn't make it a DX10 game...
If you really want to be precise, it's a DX9L, as it uses some of the advantages found in it. And lol, why do you think they made it Vista only? Certainly not because of DX9L... It's a dumb marketing ploy, duh.
Neither a screen is a valid source of track times. Trainers can alter the time. You'd have to watch a whole replay in order to know.
I'll upload a screen, let's just trust my honesty!
I hope you didn't take any offence. I wasn't talking about your honesty, I was just being general. You wouldn't believe the top times on TDU's single-player challenges.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum