Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread: Delayed PC Release?

Delayed PC Release?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    19

    Delayed PC Release?

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Because of enhanced graphics.

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    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!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    19
    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

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by yobro03
    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!

    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    19
    Originally Posted by shadowmatt18
    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.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by yobro03
    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.

  10. #10
    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

    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_bat...bundle_uk.html

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    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)

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by The Hylden
    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.
    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    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...

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by The Hylden
    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
    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    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.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by The Hylden
    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.
    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

  17. #17
    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

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    trek554, again, think what you want, man. It's too tiresome to waste effort on. Really.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by The Hylden
    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?
    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    I stand by my statements, uh, "hardware enthusiast," so please, feel free to keep being cocky and trying your best ton instigate an argument.

  21. #21
    Originally Posted by The Hylden
    I stand by my statements, uh, "hardware enthusiast," so please, feel free to keep being cocky and trying your best ton instigate an argument.
    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...
    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    Man, it really bothers you that I can run this well. Amazing...

  23. #23
    Originally Posted by The Hylden
    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.

    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    7,649
    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.

  25. #25
    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.
    Windows 7 Pro 64 bit || i5 2500K || MSI P67A-G45 || Galaxy GTX570 || G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB 1600 DDR3 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 912 case || Antec Neo Eco 520 watt

Page 1 of 2 12 Last