would one gig extra really make it playabout 20 plus fps ? if so ill go get it and see how the game is in a few weeks.....iam not that opposed to the game some things need alot of help but ill take and extra gig of ram anyday...dont think it will improve it to what i need
Yes with your system 1 gig would drive it home. You have a better card and cpu than me but I have 2 gigs of ram. I can play on highest quality and get a respectable 18fps at the least. It looks amazing! Morts Game Tweaks will also help give you tons of FPS, use them after you get the ram and you can play it perfectly.
I am currently running a single core processor with an ati 1950 pro and 2 gigs of ram and I run the game just fine. highest quality while exploring and high quality in town.
I also used a program called diskeeper which did a great job on defraggin my harddrive, my much better than that POS microsoft one which made a difference of at least 15 extra fps.
So in all I dont think it is absolutely perative that you have dual core processor to play this game but might want to look into getting one soon.
So only people with high end machines will be able to play VG? That doesnt bide well for the game population.
Games that require low/mid end PCs are much more succesful. And that is a plain fact
thats the current state of the game, to be honest, its even worse, right now its the TOP of the high end machine that run this game "out of the box" the current high end machines still have to tweak ini files, rollback drivers, add more RAM, run on 1024 (rofl) with low quality setting to even get more then 10fps with 10 people in the zone.
it is THAT bad atm yes, and its too bad because i was looking forward to it.
So only people with high end machines will be able to play VG? That doesnt bide well for the game population.
Games that require low/mid end PCs are much more succesful. And that is a plain fact
thats the current state of the game, to be honest, its even worse, right now its the TOP of the high end machine that run this game "out of the box" the current high end machines still have to tweak ini files, rollback drivers, add more RAM, run on 1024 (rofl) with low quality setting to even get more then 10fps with 10 people in the zone.
it is THAT bad atm yes, and its too bad because i was looking forward to it.
What like a 8800gtx with 2 gigs of ram and a quad core processor? I wish ppl wouldn't exagerate so much to get their point across. The performance is bad but spreading misinformation like that is wrong.
Still for a game coming out if they want to get subscribers you would hope it would run on a PC that is 12 months old. ASsuming everyone who wants to play your game has upgraded in the last 6 months is dumb. I mean if people upgrade on say a 2 year cycle then at any point in time only 25% of people would be running latest generation hardware.
In 2 years time fine, everyone will have a core 2 duo or better, but at the moment not everyone does.
On the flip-side I never play a game on minimum requirements - those are just dumb - as how can the developer/publisher decide what I will think is reasonable performance. Minimum requirements to me mean the game will run with all settings turned down and I can walk around really slowly.
Well to be honest I cant comment on the gameplay, bugs or anything just on the graphics ...
I created my char and just ran a bit around to watch around at highest settings, now first off let me tell you I hate the graphics from EQ2, they r just bad but I think Vanguard has even worse graphics lol and that really has to say something ....
I mean wtf ? The graphic is utterly shit (Iam shocked, really) but still needs a monster machine, pls for what ?? All new games Iam playing, or even older ones have ALOT, A TONS better graphcis than Vanguard, seriously no kidding here and they run perfectly at max. settings.
After looking around for 10 min. I just couldnt stand the graphics anymore, anyone who is saying Vanguard has good graphics need to get a clue and maybe some glasses ...
but if you have fun with the game, good for you, more power to you :P have fun Iam done with the game. (Yes I care alot about graphics)
Runs like a champ with moderate settings average around 25 fps. Drops to teens in cities until loading is complete. have had long averages of 30+ in wilderness hunting unless tons of spell effects going off. Overall I'm very pleased with performance.
So only people with high end machines will be able to play VG? That doesnt bide well for the game population.
Games that require low/mid end PCs are much more succesful. And that is a plain fact
thats the current state of the game, to be honest, its even worse, right now its the TOP of the high end machine that run this game "out of the box" the current high end machines still have to tweak ini files, rollback drivers, add more RAM, run on 1024 (rofl) with low quality setting to even get more then 10fps with 10 people in the zone.
it is THAT bad atm yes, and its too bad because i was looking forward to it.
What total nonsense! There are plenty of people who are playing with less than the "top of the high end machine". You need a decent machine with solid components. It doesn't have to be an Alienware 10K special at all. Like the other guy said, some people will say anything to get their invalid point across.
I have to chime in here. I'm sorry, but whoever says that the op has a HORRIBLE system and he NEEDS to upgrade, don't be ignorant.
THere is no need to go out every year and spend $400 on a new peice of equipment for your computer. I have a Pent. 4 3.0-ghz, Geforce 7600GT and 1 gig ram. I can run ANY game that is out today with awsome-decent framrates with the bells and whistles. Vanguard, simpily is a horribly coded game and that is a huge problem.
SO whoever says that you need a x1900 or a geforce 8800 to play a game, need to jump off a bridge, maybe in a year or two they will need one of those, but right now, no.
btw, I can run VG with 20-40 fps on my "horrible" system, on High.
/played-mmorpgs
Total time played:9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
Well, everybody who says, that he cant get a good enough framerate, is just wrong. The only thing, you have to do, is finding the right graphic options. Maybe Vanguard doesn't look that great after adjusting everything and maybe you're a bit dissapointed, since you've expected more, but you can run it at least with about 30 fps, that is imho good enough for a mmorpg.
Why do I know this?
Because I've tested Vanguard with a computer, that is a bit lower than the minimum requirements.
Here's my test rig:
Athlon XP 2000 underclocked to 1466 Mhz (that would be a XP 1700)
512 MB DDR II RAM
a 6 year old motherboard, that doesn't support fsb 133 (only 120 or so)
a Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB
At first, I didnt expect anything, but I get about 30 to 35 fps with the lowest settings ( I don't think, that I can expect more^^). Of course there are some fps drops to about 6 or 7 fps for about 2 seconds, when new content is loaded to RAM. Maybe I'm testing, what settings I can increase without much sacrifice of performance.
BTW, I'm not playing on that system, it was just for finding out, if Vanguard runs on it.
Well, everybody who says, that he cant get a good enough framerate, is just wrong. The only thing, you have to do, is finding the right graphic options. Maybe Vanguard doesn't look that great after adjusting everything and maybe you're a bit dissapointed, since you've expected more, but you can run it at least with about 30 fps, that is imho good enough for a mmorpg. Why do I know this? Because I've tested Vanguard with a computer, that is a bit lower than the minimum requirements. Here's my test rig:
Athlon XP 2000 underclocked to 1466 Mhz (that would be a XP 1700) 512 MB DDR II RAM a 6 year old motherboard, that doesn't support fsb 133 (only 120 or so) a Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB
At first, I didnt expect anything, but I get about 30 to 35 fps with the lowest settings ( I don't think, that I can expect more^^). Of course there are some fps drops to about 6 or 7 fps for about 2 seconds, when new content is loaded to RAM. Maybe I'm testing, what settings I can increase without much sacrifice of performance. BTW, I'm not playing on that system, it was just for finding out, if Vanguard runs on it.
How long did you test it out? did you travel much? Where were you when you got it to 30fps. Details... Details.. Its all very well saying "yeah it runs fine" but when you dont actually play on those specs you may as well be talking out your arse.
I started at a starter area and did the first 4 or 5 quests and went to the next village (that has some trainers). I dont know the names, I've played a raki. I was playing for about 1 and a halve hours.
"It's too early to announce Vanguard's hardware, memory, or storage requirements, but our current guess at a 'min' spec is a machine with a 2.4 ghz processor, a graphics card with 128M of RAM, and between 512megs and 1 gig of system memory. Higher end systems will be able to take advantage of certain graphics and display options, but it is very important to us that Vanguard be a game that can be played and enjoyed on an 'average' gaming machine."
So I guess when they're done with debugging and such, fps should go up and the game be playable even with 1gig ram. BUT if they can't make it work in less than 3 weeks it will not do good for player numbers right after launch.
It also doesn't help that WoW expansion is still fresh and Spellborn, G&H and bunch of other MMORPGs are also coming out Q1. And then there is Conan Q2...
I started at a starter area and did the first 4 or 5 quests and went to the next village (that has some trainers). I dont know the names, I've played a raki. I was playing for about 1 and a halve hours.
Not sure about the raki starter area, it must be pretty sparse then. Plus take into consideration DDR2 is worth the same as 1gb DDR.
It ran for me, but the FPS at its best was 45 and at its worst it dropped to 17... I have 1gb ram.
OK here it goes.. i waited 5 months for the game was so ready for this thing to get released bout the pre order box and everything. Game play is the same nothing new from what ive seen or heard. I know its beta and not done the crashes i dont mind the bugs are expected but in 3 weeks they can never fix it to the point i would be interested in paying the other 40 bucks.
MY COMPUTER ISSUES
ok waiting for this game i upgraded my rig. As is stands i got
p4 3.2 gig
1 gig ram
150 gig HD
nvidia 7800 gs 512 video card
with that and settings at 1000x800...whatever the exact number is tree detail on low no shadows no reflective no long distance sight grass off and everything else i could tweak iam getting......get ready.........8fps.....god forbid i get in a group and go in a cave iam at a .5 fps and die...waste of my time and money...i more then meet the specs
This game will never fly witht eh general public....few die hards will last a few months and by june everyone will be back on another game....now the long wait and see if war hammer lets me down. Q4 07 here i come.
ok w/o pulling punches here. this is a next gen, very shader heavy game.
your cpu is pretty weak, come back w/ at least 1 more cpu core. multi core is the future, both intel and amd are quad core now, amd will be octo core by the end of this year.
come back w/ 3 more gigs of ram
my freaking imac i bought last year shipped w/ both a bigger hard drive, and ram than your machine. a freaking imac.
weakest link in the chain is that vid card. this engine is very very shader heavy the shaders in your card arent robust at all.
best advice. 8800 series video card from nvidia. most bang for the buck on your system.
Games i'm playing right now...
"In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea" - Raph Koster talking about NGE on his blog at raphkoster.com
Don't worry man I get shitty fps too and I have a brand spanking new EVGA 8800 GTS. I generally get about 30ish with the high settings on. Thats ok, I can deal with the fps. The thing that really pisses me off is every couple of steps or so the game has about a half sec lag. This drives me insane I can't handle that.
please no suggestions like latest GFX from NVidia or quad duo extreme processor wit 16GB ram im not going to throw that much money at a new system for just one game, but mabey a bit more ram or another (affordable) GFX card, (i wont necessarily be running maxed out graphics just after the big jump lik on EQ2 once you put it past medium it suddenly looks nice but if you dare for whatever reason put it below it looks like a sack of crap).
i personally am not annoyed about the 30th of Jan release date, i want to get in there even if it is still 'beta' but i dont think it has had a good impact on the community and they need to play this one right it needs to be populated.
EQ2 player Ex - EVE Online addict played - SWG, EQ2, Vanguard, Planetside, Second Life, EVE-O and a few randoms
Comments
Yes with your system 1 gig would drive it home. You have a better card and cpu than me but I have 2 gigs of ram. I can play on highest quality and get a respectable 18fps at the least. It looks amazing! Morts Game Tweaks will also help give you tons of FPS, use them after you get the ram and you can play it perfectly.
I am currently running a single core processor with an ati 1950 pro and 2 gigs of ram and I run the game just fine. highest quality while exploring and high quality in town.
I also used a program called diskeeper which did a great job on defraggin my harddrive, my much better than that POS microsoft one which made a difference of at least 15 extra fps.
So in all I dont think it is absolutely perative that you have dual core processor to play this game but might want to look into getting one soon.
*drops 2 cents on table
thats the current state of the game, to be honest, its even worse, right now its the TOP of the high end machine that run this game "out of the box" the current high end machines still have to tweak ini files, rollback drivers, add more RAM, run on 1024 (rofl) with low quality setting to even get more then 10fps with 10 people in the zone.
it is THAT bad atm yes, and its too bad because i was looking forward to it.
thats the current state of the game, to be honest, its even worse, right now its the TOP of the high end machine that run this game "out of the box" the current high end machines still have to tweak ini files, rollback drivers, add more RAM, run on 1024 (rofl) with low quality setting to even get more then 10fps with 10 people in the zone.
it is THAT bad atm yes, and its too bad because i was looking forward to it.
What like a 8800gtx with 2 gigs of ram and a quad core processor? I wish ppl wouldn't exagerate so much to get their point across.There is not excuse for developing software with those requirements, other than pure 100% lazyness.
Still for a game coming out if they want to get subscribers you would hope it would run on a PC that is 12 months old. ASsuming everyone who wants to play your game has upgraded in the last 6 months is dumb. I mean if people upgrade on say a 2 year cycle then at any point in time only 25% of people would be running latest generation hardware.
In 2 years time fine, everyone will have a core 2 duo or better, but at the moment not everyone does.
On the flip-side I never play a game on minimum requirements - those are just dumb - as how can the developer/publisher decide what I will think is reasonable performance. Minimum requirements to me mean the game will run with all settings turned down and I can walk around really slowly.
I created my char and just ran a bit around to watch around at highest settings, now first off let me tell you I hate the graphics from EQ2, they r just bad but I think Vanguard has even worse graphics lol
I mean wtf ? The graphic is utterly shit (Iam shocked, really) but still needs a monster machine, pls for what ?? All new games Iam playing, or even older ones have ALOT, A TONS better graphcis than Vanguard, seriously no kidding here and they run perfectly at max. settings.
After looking around for 10 min. I just couldnt stand the graphics anymore, anyone who is saying Vanguard has good graphics need to get a clue and maybe some glasses ...
but if you have fun with the game, good for you, more power to you :P have fun Iam done with the game. (Yes I care alot about graphics)
2 gigs RAM
Radeon x1950 Pro 256meg video
Runs like a champ with moderate settings average around 25 fps. Drops to teens in cities until loading is complete. have had long averages of 30+ in wilderness hunting unless tons of spell effects going off. Overall I'm very pleased with performance.
thats the current state of the game, to be honest, its even worse, right now its the TOP of the high end machine that run this game "out of the box" the current high end machines still have to tweak ini files, rollback drivers, add more RAM, run on 1024 (rofl) with low quality setting to even get more then 10fps with 10 people in the zone.
it is THAT bad atm yes, and its too bad because i was looking forward to it.
What total nonsense! There are plenty of people who are playing with less than the "top of the high end machine". You need a decent machine with solid components. It doesn't have to be an Alienware 10K special at all. Like the other guy said, some people will say anything to get their invalid point across.
1280x1024, slightly turned up balanced settings. High quality in control panel.
THere is no need to go out every year and spend $400 on a new peice of equipment for your computer. I have a Pent. 4 3.0-ghz, Geforce 7600GT and 1 gig ram. I can run ANY game that is out today with awsome-decent framrates with the bells and whistles. Vanguard, simpily is a horribly coded game and that is a huge problem.
SO whoever says that you need a x1900 or a geforce 8800 to play a game, need to jump off a bridge, maybe in a year or two they will need one of those, but right now, no.
btw, I can run VG with 20-40 fps on my "horrible" system, on High.
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
Well, everybody who says, that he cant get a good enough framerate, is just wrong. The only thing, you have to do, is finding the right graphic options. Maybe Vanguard doesn't look that great after adjusting everything and maybe you're a bit dissapointed, since you've expected more, but you can run it at least with about 30 fps, that is imho good enough for a mmorpg.
Why do I know this?
Because I've tested Vanguard with a computer, that is a bit lower than the minimum requirements.
Here's my test rig:
At first, I didnt expect anything, but I get about 30 to 35 fps with the lowest settings ( I don't think, that I can expect more^^). Of course there are some fps drops to about 6 or 7 fps for about 2 seconds, when new content is loaded to RAM. Maybe I'm testing, what settings I can increase without much sacrifice of performance.
BTW, I'm not playing on that system, it was just for finding out, if Vanguard runs on it.
---
"It's too early to announce Vanguard's hardware, memory, or storage requirements, but our current guess at a 'min' spec is a machine with a 2.4 ghz processor, a graphics card with 128M of RAM, and between 512megs and 1 gig of system memory. Higher end systems will be able to take advantage of certain graphics and display options, but it is very important to us that Vanguard be a game that can be played and enjoyed on an 'average' gaming machine."
So I guess when they're done with debugging and such, fps should go up and the game be playable even with 1gig ram. BUT if they can't make it work in less than 3 weeks it will not do good for player numbers right after launch.
It also doesn't help that WoW expansion is still fresh and Spellborn, G&H and bunch of other MMORPGs are also coming out Q1. And then there is Conan Q2...
Oh i know it s the team who made Everquest II.
I recommand to pass your way in this game.
I dont know how some company have the courage to put their game in the market with a bit lag game...pssssssssss
It ran for me, but the FPS at its best was 45 and at its worst it dropped to 17... I have 1gb ram.
---
ok w/o pulling punches here. this is a next gen, very shader heavy game.
your cpu is pretty weak, come back w/ at least 1 more cpu core. multi core is the future, both intel and amd are quad core now, amd will be octo core by the end of this year.
come back w/ 3 more gigs of ram
my freaking imac i bought last year shipped w/ both a bigger hard drive, and ram than your machine. a freaking imac.
weakest link in the chain is that vid card. this engine is very very shader heavy the shaders in your card arent robust at all.
best advice. 8800 series video card from nvidia. most bang for the buck on your system.
Games i'm playing right now...
"In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea" - Raph Koster talking about NGE on his blog at raphkoster.com
i have 2 gig of ram ddr2
2.4 duo
7950 1gb
i run highest quality very smoothly, but the game still have some lag problems, cous when i put it on highest preformance, i still get some lag
This game goes retail in 2 weeks. YOU'RE statement in not valid becuase this is what you'll get then.
will i get away with...
intell E6300 core duo processor
1/2GB ddr2 ram @ 533Mhz
1066FSB
7,200 SATA 200HD
X1300 radion (512 edition i know its not great)
please no suggestions like latest GFX from NVidia or quad duo extreme processor wit 16GB ram im not going to throw that much money at a new system for just one game, but mabey a bit more ram or another (affordable) GFX card, (i wont necessarily be running maxed out graphics just after the big jump lik on EQ2 once you put it past medium it suddenly looks nice but if you dare for whatever reason put it below it looks like a sack of crap).
i personally am not annoyed about the 30th of Jan release date, i want to get in there even if it is still 'beta' but i dont think it has had a good impact on the community and they need to play this one right it needs to be populated.
EQ2 player
Ex - EVE Online addict
played -
SWG, EQ2, Vanguard, Planetside, Second Life, EVE-O and a few randoms