PDA

View Full Version : Delayed PC Release?



yobro03
25th Aug 2009, 22:01
Why is the PC version taking so long to come out. I think it sucks we have to wait? oh well i still cant wait for this to be released.

butterskenny
25th Aug 2009, 22:49
Because of enhanced graphics.

gclhoutx
26th Aug 2009, 04:05
Your answer is in this Thread:

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=92028

It's to double check that all the Physx graphics is implemented in correctly. :whistle:

Master_Arkham
26th Aug 2009, 10:23
Yeah, that's right, but it would be nice, it's bad we have to wait but it will be a nice experience proving phyx!

yobro03
27th Aug 2009, 12:05
I know i watched the comparison for with/without PhysX in the game, i think the subtle touches will make the waite all that worth while

Ace Antilles
27th Aug 2009, 16:22
I know i watched the comparison for with/without PhysX in the game, i think the subtle touches will make the waite all that worth while

That's very true. The funny thing is though unless we see a video comparison of the whole game we won't know what's added and what wasn't! :scratch: :lmao:

But we get a good idea. It's only small stuff but it does add to it. I'm going to play on high Physx because it does add so much more than normal. Large fluttering banners etc.

shadowmatt18
27th Aug 2009, 16:40
unfortunately if you don't have a top of the line graphics card, you won't be able to run the physix. i run graphics on very high with zero lag. i run physix on normal the lag is enormous. i don't know if anyone here has a way to correct this but just a warning for people out there getting the PC version for this.

yobro03
27th Aug 2009, 20:43
unfortunately if you don't have a top of the line graphics card, you won't be able to run the physix. i run graphics on very high with zero lag. i run physix on normal the lag is enormous. i don't know if anyone here has a way to correct this but just a warning for people out there getting the PC version for this.

I only have an nvidia gtx 260+ and i can run it at max. my graphics card didn't cost that much here in the UK an i get awesome frames with batman and other top line games.

shadowmatt18
27th Aug 2009, 22:58
I only have an nvidia gtx 260+ and i can run it at max. my graphics card didn't cost that much here in the UK an i get awesome frames with batman and other top line games.

then i guess i have to update my graphics card is all i need to do.

Ace Antilles
27th Aug 2009, 23:22
I have an 8800 GTS 512mb and can run the demo with High Physx on.
But if you turn Anti-Aliasing up too high then it can lag out more too.

Then again I also have a Quad Core and 8gb of ram :D

The game was designed with the GTX cards in mind. You can get it free when you buy 1 too.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_batmanaa_bundle.html
http://uk.nzone.com/object/nzone_batmanaa_bundle_uk.html

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 04:33
Well, I have a hyper-threaded Pentium IV, 3.33 GHtz, 4 GB ram, and an 8600 GTS, and I still can run it at high with PhysX to normal. My PC's still hangin' in there, haha. (knock on wood)

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 05:01
Well, I have a hyper-threaded Pentium IV, 3.33 GHtz, 4 GB ram, and an 8600 GTS, and I still can run it at high with PhysX to normal. My PC's still hangin' in there, haha. (knock on wood) yeah right... I just tested this with an overclocked 8600gt and a 4200 X2 cpu. it was most certainly not playable on high settings and physx on normal. I was averaging high teens to low 20s during fights. turning off one of my cpu cores makes my cpu basically a 3200 A64 which is faster in games than a 3.2 P4. once I did that framerates dropped into the single digits at times and I could never average more than about 20fps. btw your 8600gts would only be 1-2 fps faster than this overclocked 8600gt in this demanding of a game.


now turning off physx made it very playable for the demo with averages around 30-35 fps during fights on the 4200 X2 setup. with one cpu core disabled it was still a little too sluggish even with the physx off. I have no idea how you can consider running physx on your 8600gts and single core playable. BTW I am looking at averages with action going on and not just walking around which of course would have a higher framerate.

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 05:49
You know, I really love it when people are cocky. Sorry to tell you, but I not only can run this at high with those settings, but very high, PhysX on high too, with v-sync disabled and motion blur disabled, as well as AA. I've been a member on this board since 2003, and anyone will tell you, I don't brag, nor am I one to lie. I CAN run this game at a framerate of 20-30 fps at very high (far from 2, in fact, it runs at these settings BETTER than on High with v-sync enabled and PhysX on normal, oddly enough), the above disabled, and with PhysX on High. There's no physical way I can prove this to you, of course, as in I can't "show" you this in motion, but it's definitely the truth. Whether you wish to believe it, or not, doesn't really matter in the end. I'm the one enjoying the experience, after all.

Goes to show you that people shouldn't discount "old" hardware so easily. Disposable society, only the new is best...

In fact, of all the recent games I've purchased, the only game to give me problems, which is buggy on higher end systems and ones that are the best too, for some inexplicable reason, was Ghostbusters, unfortunately. Barely playable.

Edit: my only concern now is if the final build of the game will run as smooth. Coincidentally enough, it was another demo from an Eidos-published game that ran far smoother than the final game that is making me question this. Tomb Raider: Underworld. The demo ran smooth at silk all of the way up, minus AA, but the final build was buggy, and choppy in the framerate department. So, anyway, on that front, we shall see...

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 06:01
snip


sorry but I have tested this game on multiple comps and that is BS. if you want to think that your run the game on very high settings and physx on high with a single core cpu and 8600gts then have fun in your special place.

here are some runs and this is even with ambient occlusion turned off. these runs are for the entire beginning fight scene. now your 8600gts could maybe do 1-2 more fps but your single core cpu would actually lose some fps so if anything my results are as good or better than what you would get. even my sig pc which is many times faster than your single core cpu and 8600gts can only average in the 40s at these settings.

4200X2@ 2.2
8600gt gddr3 overclocked to 600/1320/1600
2gb ram

1024x768 very high settings, no AA. no AO, high physx

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
1467, 90323, 8, 24, 16.242

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
1447, 84028, 4, 25, 17.220

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 06:15
Again, in all of the years on this board, people know me to tell the truth, so I don't know what else to tell you. What possible reason whould I have to lie about this?

Btw, processor speed is a big key factor in why I can see slow-downs in the above. 2.2 GHz isn't very fast, regardless if it's dual core, or quad core. I think people get way too caught up in cores, they loose sight of this fact. I doubt this will bother jarring you to accepting there is a possibility you aren't right in this, but just saying for posterity... I do not have a webcam, or suitable camera, to record the performance. That seems to be all you'd be willing to accept, from the looks of it.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 06:25
Again, in all of the years on this board, people know me to tell the truth, so I don't know what else to tell you. What possible reason whould I have to lie about this?

Btw, processor speed is a big key factor in why I can see slow-downs in the above. 2.2 GHz isn't very fast, regardless if it's dual core, or quad core. I think people get way too caught up in cores, they loose sight of this fact. I doubt this will bother jarring you to accepting there is a possibility you aren't right in this, but just saying for posterity... I do not have a webcam, or suitable camera, to record the performance. That seems to be all you'd be willing to accept, from the looks of it. the fact that you mention my cpu is 2.2 goes to show your lack of even basic knowledge of computers. even ONE core of my X2 cpu at 2.2 is faster than a 3.2 P4. this 4200 X2 is basically two 3500 2.2ghz A64 cpus in one package. the 3500 2.2ghz A64 was faster than the 3.2 P4 was in gaming. throw in the fact that this game loves dual core cpus and I actually have twice the processing power with the 4200 X2 than you do. I have even used this 8600gt in my E8500 machine and it made no difference because its clearly gpu limited with the 8600gt.

smellyhobo
28th Aug 2009, 06:42
im upset about the fact that they couldnt release the physx in a patch and release the game on the same day as the consoles. now ill probably have to wait till winter vacation because college will eat my life until then. T_T

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 06:51
trek554, again, think what you want, man. It's too tiresome to waste effort on. Really.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 07:10
trek554, again, think what you want, man. It's too tiresome to waste effort on. Really.
doesnt it make you wonder one bit that the recommended card just to run the game with physx on normal is a gtx260? not to mention your single core cpu is super slow for modern games. just ONE core of an E8500 downclocked to 1.2 would be faster than your P4. so you have a gpu and cpu with 1/6 the power of the pc in my sig yet you can almost match it? lol

the fact that I am sitting right in front of a pc with an 8600gt and much better cpu than yours that cant even come close to getting what you are claiming should also tell you something. I have tested it and even showed you the numbers since common sense was never even factored into your claims.

I have also tested and benched this game on several other comps too with even better setups than yours and they sure as heck couldnt do what youre are claiming either. I also have some mods and members on another site running multiple benchmarks on various hardware and their numbers are right in line with mine.

it would be like you going to a car forum and claiming your stock Mustang V6 can run a 12 second 1/4 mile. do you not think you would be ridiculed by real racing or car enthusiasts?? well what you are claiming is no different to me. so who is likely to be mistaken? several hardware enthusiasts, some of which do this for a living or you?

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 07:14
I stand by my statements, uh, "hardware enthusiast," so please, feel free to keep being cocky and trying your best ton instigate an argument.:rolleyes:

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 07:22
I stand by my statements, uh, "hardware enthusiast," so please, feel free to keep being cocky and trying your best ton instigate an argument.:rolleyes:
its not being cocky. its letting you know that I understand hardware and how to test and benchmark things. you made a claim that I and anyone else with real hardware knowledge knows isnt possible in this game. again do you think that several enthusiasts and dozens of tested computers are all somehow inferior to your magic 8600gts and single core cpu? wake up and be realistic. I guess once official sites post their numbers in a few weeks they will all be wrong too? perhaps you should email them and let them know that your 8600gts and single core cpu can beat their mid range gaming setups. and I can roll my eyes too...:rolleyes:

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 07:24
Man, it really bothers you that I can run this well. Amazing...

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 07:30
Man, it really bothers you that I can run this well. Amazing...no it bothers me that you think it can...

my 8600gt numbers are right in front of you copy and pasted from the FRAPS benchmark log. those are facts not silly claims. also if you want to think that your 8600gt and single core cpu is within 10fps of the pc in my sig then please give me some of that pixie dust.


here is a pic just for kicks with very high settings and high physx on the 8600gt 4200 X2 pc. at just 1024x768 Im getting 14fps basically doing nothing and into the single digits at times during some fighting. just so you dont question anything the 803 being shown for memory on the 8600gt is really 1606 effective.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7380/39666472.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/39666472.jpg/)

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 08:11
Ok, I'm going to try this once, and once only...

I ran FRAPS, just because I hate listening to people that think they know what I know they don't.

If you believe this, or not, this is my final attempt. FRAPS, minus the rendered movies that run at a smooth 30 fps, which I am not counting, nor the minor hiccup that was occurring when a new area was entered probably due to FRAPS running in the first place, ran the demo at anywhere from 5 to 18 FPS. 10-12 was the average, with spikes to 18, when in a non-combat area, usually not facing a screen with video running -- like the Joker on the monitor, or Gordon, etc. -- and away from the volumetric fog coming down from the first gate. In combat, it was 5-10 FPS, with around 7 FPS being the average. The finishing moves where everything slows up anyway turned it down to about 5 FPS, most of the time. The game, itself, was probably running about 1 FPS less with FRAPS on than the previous time I just ran it, so adjust a little for non-FRAPS usage. But, those are the real numbers. It's still playable, and slow only in areas where it's already meant to be slow, so it's not bothering me. However, this is, mind you, all of the way up on everything. If I have Batman kicking foes' buts in 10 FPS, 5 in slow-mo shots, I am fine with it. It's not 2 FPS, and it's not bad at all. If in most face-to-face cut scenes, it's running at 15-18 FPS, then that's absolutely find with me as well. And the pre-rendered stuff is running fine at 30 FPS, so there's nothing to complain about. If this were a more precise jumping game, or timing game for rapid-fire hits, then it might be a concern, but it's not thus far.

Ok? Is that satisfying you that this can run at the above speed? Can you accept that? Or am I making this all up still in your all-knowing eyes?

Last try, again. You've wasted enough of my time.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 08:20
FRAPS doesnt really have any effect on framerate when its not being used for movies. and yes now you admit that you are getting the framerate that I said you should be getting the whole time. those framerates are hideous and you have a very poor concept of playable if 15fps average with dips down to 5fps is okay with you. the pre rendered scenes are just that so everybody is getting 30 fps in those. anyway thanks for being honest and posting some real numbers.

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 08:27
Good grief... So, 2 FPS now equals the same as 15?? Done, absolutely done with you.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 08:31
Good grief... So, 2 FPS now equals the same as 15?? Done, absolutely done with you.what? I averaged 16-17 fps with ONE dip to 2fps. you said several different numbers so I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying 15fps was your average. you actually said you averaged 10-12fps with a spike to 18 so whats your prob with that? you probably do hit 2 fps at some point within the game or maybe that was only a one time anomaly in my run. after all you did say that you saw 5fps on the screen so its very possible that during an actual benchmark you could hit 2fps just like I did.



Ok, I'm going to try this once, and once only...

I ran FRAPS, just because I hate listening to people that think they know what I know they don't.

If you believe this, or not, this is my final attempt. FRAPS, minus the rendered movies that run at a smooth 30 fps, which I am not counting, nor the minor hiccup that was occurring when a new area was entered probably due to FRAPS running in the first place, ran the demo at anywhere from 5 to 18 FPS. 10-12 was the average, with spikes to 18, when in a non-combat area, usually not facing a screen with video running -- like the Joker on the monitor, or Gordon, etc. -- and away from the volumetric fog coming down from the first gate. In combat, it was 5-10 FPS, with around 7 FPS being the average. The finishing moves where everything slows up anyway turned it down to about 5 FPS, most of the time. The game, itself, was probably running about 1 FPS less with FRAPS on than the previous time I just ran it, so adjust a little for non-FRAPS usage. But, those are the real numbers. It's still playable, and slow only in areas where it's already meant to be slow, so it's not bothering me. However, this is, mind you, all of the way up on everything. If I have Batman kicking foes' buts in 10 FPS, 5 in slow-mo shots, I am fine with it. It's not 2 FPS, and it's not bad at all. If in most face-to-face cut scenes, it's running at 15-18 FPS, then that's absolutely find with me as well. And the pre-rendered stuff is running fine at 30 FPS, so there's nothing to complain about. If this were a more precise jumping game, or timing game for rapid-fire hits, then it might be a concern, but it's not thus far.

Ok? Is that satisfying you that this can run at the above speed? Can you accept that? Or am I making this all up still in your all-knowing eyes?

Last try, again. You've wasted enough of my time.


so much for your original claim of 20-30fps as you dont even hit 20 much less average more than that. so now you finally posted realistic numbers that completely back what I said yet you get an attitude with me? I was correct the whole time and nobody in their right mind would consider your atrocious framerates playable.

yobro03
28th Aug 2009, 10:01
what? I averaged 16-17 fps with ONE dip to 2fps. you said several different numbers so I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying 15fps was your average. you actually said you averaged 10-12fps with a spike to 18 so whats your prob with that? you probably do hit 2 fps at some point within the game or maybe that was only a one time anomaly in my run. after all you did say that you saw 5fps on the screen so its very possible that during an actual benchmark you could hit 2fps just like I did.





so much for your original claim of 20-30fps as you dont even hit 20 much less average more than that. so now you finally posted realistic numbers that completely back what I said yet you get an attitude with me? I was correct the whole time and nobody in their right mind would consider your atrocious framerates playable.

Ok Lets not all get caught up with this stuff. Everyones PCs run differently especially when your trying to tackle something installed on vista. I recently upgraded my pc but stayed with XP and god i love how games like this and crysis look on it. Its not a super mega watercooled 8 gig ram bad boy but it runs this maxed quite easily i might add.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 10:13
Ok Lets not all get caught up with this stuff. Everyones PCs run differently especially when your trying to tackle something installed on vista. I recently upgraded my pc but stayed with XP and god i love how games like this and crysis look on it. Its not a super mega watercooled 8 gig ram bad boy but it runs this maxed quite easily i might add.
its over and I have no hard feelings and I hope he sees my point now. claiming your hardware can do something outrageous helps no one and only confuses people that are looking for advice. I certainly appreciate him finally posting those real numbers and as you can see they are about what I said he would be getting the whole time. he has an odd opinion of what is playable though as most people would find an average below 15fps with dips in the single digits completely unacceptable. :eek:

yobro03
28th Aug 2009, 10:18
its over and I have no hard feelings and I hope he sees my point now. claiming your hardware can do something outrageous helps no one and only confuses people that are looking for advice. I certainly appreciate him finally posting those real numbers and as you can see they are about what I said he would be getting the whole time. he has an odd opinion of what is playable though as most people would find an average below 15fps with dips in the single digits completely unacceptable. :eek:

I see what you mean. But there are other threads to talk about PC specs and stuff, just a thought

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 10:32
I see what you mean. But there are other threads to talk about PC specs and stuff, just a thought yeah I guess whenever I see somebody claim their pc can do something it clearly cant I tend to overreact. I spend a lot of time testing hardware and games and I like giving out sound advice. as you can see my advice was certainly right on. anyway its all good now. :cool:

The_Hylden
28th Aug 2009, 15:20
Was not boasting anything. My "claim" was meant to reflect the high setting with PhysX on normal. It does dip when PhysX is on High and the graphics are turned up to Very High more than I initially realized, but not enough to warrant your posts. My initial statement actually was this:


Well, I have a hyper-threaded Pentium IV, 3.33 GHtz, 4 GB ram, and an 8600 GTS, and I still can run it at high with PhysX to normal. My PC's still hangin' in there, haha. (knock on wood)

That wasn't boasting anything that's not true. My PC can handle it at that level and is hanging in there, knock on wood... I only turned it up further because I wanted to see it in High Rez and if it could be playable and it still is, to me. I certainly enjoy the atmosphere and the flow of things all of the way up because visually it makes a better impact of immersion on me. But this last part of why is irrelevant. The point is, on simply High, my PC handles it just fine. I was happy to let people know, due to the fact their higher rigs are going to love this game. Why you suddenly leapt into the thread to denounce that it couldn't is beyond me. And it's absolute rubbish that it's because I was claiming my PC could do more than it was, and you simply can't stand that. To that, I will state the same “yeah right...” I got when simply making a comment on my own experience that was, and still is, true. The rest of the back and forth that took up an entire page on here is simply ridiculous. Learn to live in a world where you aren't completely right all of the time and do not need to continue to comment on everyone to show them how right you are until they conform, and you'll live a much happier life – as those like me and all else around will not look on your actions with disdain.

Hopefully, this topic gets back onto track, whatever track that was...