I know we're still in alpha, and official system requirements are a long way off - but I chose to become a supporter before I realized just how intensive this game was going to be. My [best] box: 3ghz Athlon 64 dualcore on DFI LP DK 4g DDR2 Radeon HD 4850 (512mb) (my other build is an i3 w/ 8g DDR3, but no graphics card and a meager 128g SSD) Should I even bother? I'm intimidated and disheartened by what I see other people using to run this alpha. I'm starting to think my $100 contribution to the project was wasted, unless I spend another couple hundred to upgrade.
put that graphics card into the i3 box and try it? You have the game, you might as well try. It's only ~450mb small so it is quick to download and test. Also note that reports like: My super awesome gfx yields 2 fps! Do not mean that your older card will only yield 0.01 fps. In fact the alpha status pretty much means that the game has potentially a lot of bugs that kill performance for everyone and it is hard to compare different configurations as often bugs or incomplete features kick in and reduce the fps drastically on all systems alike.
thanks for the reply and encouragement. swapping the graphics card to the i3 would kill my first machine; the mb has zero onboard graphics. (swift idea, though!) it'd be swell if someone chimed in and reported success running the game with similar specs. (i haven't been able to run PA yet - trying to sort out difficulties. I'm hoping it's the underdeveloped Linux version, but also starting to wonder if the box is just severely underpowered.)
I was running the first couple of alpha builds on a machine with similar specs: i7 first gen (2,6 GHz), HD 4850, 6 GB RAM, Windows 7. While it was rather sluggish, I would say it was generally playable, and that was before the first bunch of performance boosts. I have no idea how it would've scaled up to larger/longer games though - meanwhile, I've taken the opportunity to update that 4 year old box to something beefier, and PA runs mostly perfectly smooth. Keep in mind that the game currently is still very unoptimized.
Also keep in mind that they're testing the game on everything from rigs with Titan GPUS to tablet mini-pcs with integrated graphics. So I'm fairly certain you'll be fine. Especially with a 64 bit cpu.
what anotheryeti said. Also remember that while it may be less playable now, they have a lot of performance optimization to do before the finished game. At the very least they are going to have to do something major for the 32-bit architecture, due to the lower total ram available. So as others said go ahead and download it and try it, it cannot possibly hurt. I would try on both of the machines without moving the gfx card, then move the gfx over to the I3 (which will be a better overall setup anyways)
sweet! that is encouraging. the thing is i need both computers - kids doing homework and the like. can't afford to sacrifice one box to have a great one... need 2 "OK" computers. the 3.1ghz i3 w/8g DDR3 & no discrete graphics barely handles minecraft, and that's with some stuff turned down/off. I'm not going to bother trying PA on that one!!! lol. i use my Linux box for our Minecraft server when we all play as a family & connect 4 computers and it runs smooth as butta.
I was running it on a 7 year old computer upgraded to have Windows 7 64 bit, 4 gigs of ram and a scrapped independent graphics card with 512 mb of on board memory aka otherwise crap but because it just baireky panders to PA's more nit pickey prerequets i can have games with hundreds of units fighting at once. But my brand new laptop cant even get it too run so there is no sure say on what works.
That pc is pretty decent... is what I'd say in early 2006 before core 2 duo came out. If you can afford a new PC I would get one. Otherwise, just stick to 1v1 or 2v2 on a single planet and you'll probably be fine. I had to upgrade my pc for TA (more ram) and Supcom (faster processor). I think PA is the first one I wont have to upgrade for.
I'm trying to run it, believe me. Hitting snags. It's either the Linux version (which the devs admit is the least developed of the lot... but then again I read that at least one other user was able to get it running on Mint 15 w/ Cinnamon...) or my computer isn't beefy enough to handle it. I started this thread to flesh out the possibility of it being the latter. Thanks for the specific system specs and success stories! It helps a lot.
It may largely be the linux build causing many of your issues then. The grand problem with linux, even Ubuntu, is that you cannot really guarantee the same build from person to person in the same way that windows or mac does. Sure there might be slight differences between windows installs, but fundamentally they are basically the same. Linux builds from machine to machine can potentially be radically different. The linux build on my laptop that I use for spectroscopy software is totally and completely different than what my father has for his work machine doing integrated programming on microprocessors, for example. And I understand about the needing multiple machines. However having said that, you do not have to keep the card in one. What I suggested was really more of a scientific experiment to try and see if you could slim down potential sources. You could always move the card back later. Again for example, if you move the graphics card over, properly install the drivers, and it is still responding poorly, it is highly likely that is it not the graphics. The enables you to spend more time focusing on other problems like the RAM or the processor or maybe a software thing like an improper version of X package.
You could also just buy another gfx card. My 660ti cost me $280 and runs this thing on uber @ 60-70 fps, so I don't see how a cheaper card couldn't run it. My old 430 ran BF3 on low @ 25-30, and I get around the same performance on the 660ti as PA now. 430s run around 50$ and actually have DVI, HDMI, and VGA. I don't have my 430 anymore or the :ugeek: in me would switch it out and test it for ya :mrgreen:
