BETA First Impressions

Are you saying that with a quad core @ 4 Ghz / 8 GB RAM and a NVidia GTX 670 is not playable ?

well why don't you do this :
Upload a Dxdiag.txt
to do this hit ÿ
then "dxdiag", ↩
let the program run, allow the progress bar to finish
hit "Save All Information..."

basically "pics or it didn't happen!"

THIS.

wtf??? uber is for titan only.

Ok, I need a titan now to see tanks and trees that have less polygons than minecraft.

I can play BattleField 4 at 60fps with everything in ULTRA.

no, you need to turn your graphics the f uck down. then you'll see the game isn't laggy.

still waiting on that dxdiag btw.

so can a netbook, the game's lighter and more optimized than it's predecessor and BF3 wasn't even half as glutton in GPU power as PA is.

Ok, so lets add some graphics settings that will never work so people can make mistakes and actually try to use it.

people like you, I guess. what do top-end graphics card exist for if they give you access to the same as some guy's laptop?

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if it's alpha or beta or what definition you give those terms. The game is in the public eye now since anyone can buy and download it on Steam. First impressions matter more for computer games than almost anything I've ever seen. Now that people can get it, they will pass judgement and it will be final. There are no second chances for games, there is no beta in the public eye.

It was a mistake to open the game up to such wide scrutiny when I believe we can all agree that the game does not feel done.

I played TA, SupCom, Forged Alliance, etc. I'm a huge fan of these games and I can see the potential of where this game is going. I feel that my money was well spent and I'm looking forward to playing the polished version. However, I also remember the very rocky launch of SupCom, and how many people took one look and never turned back.

hey I'm fine with all you say above, but I'm just giving you guys a wakeup call: crysis 2 3 beta wern't beta, cod mw2 and 3 betas wern't beta, battlefield 3 and 4's betas were most certainly not a beta, and "Ultra" video settings in BF3 translate in English to "mildly high" and in BF4 to "mild".

they're fukin with you a gtx 650 ti really tops out on what you can get out of BF3, after that it's just overkill. whereas PA is authentically murdering our graphic cards. how many units do you have in your game? I mean all the units all teams included.

a thousand? no probably 10 thousand. could be more? how many polies does that make?

minecraft probably never has more than 5 000 polies on the screen considering its huge limits to draw distance even in it's furthest-reaching view.

I just played a single player match, I got most of the time below 20fps even at startup where I had almost no units, and even a single click had almost 1 second lag, probably because of server issues.

So additional to the graphics details, now there is the internet/connectivity problem... in a single player game.

Definately not as smooth as youd excptect a finished game to run on. But look, it isnt finished. Its in development.
Tried a much OCed 920 (dont remember exactly what I had it on) with 30 GB RAM and various GPUs up to 6990 and its always at a shockingly low number of fps.
Friends 7970LCS (at 1300) doesnt do any better. Runs a 2600k at 4,8 and more RAM than whats considered sane.

Currently Im on a 2600k too, but its a bad one only making it up to 4,5 or 4,6. 6970 as GPU, still bad fps for the looks. I mean, its somewhat playable at Uber settings but theres loads of room for improvement.
Clean Windows install, nothing but Steam and PA on it. Most recent beta drivers on all systems.

Didnt try a Titan but I plan to get one or two 290X.
But then, PLEASE keep in mind this is a beta. You absolutely must accept that its not fully optimized and performance can and WILL increase. For the state the game is in, performance is ok.

Based on the looks, the fully optimized version has to run on a smartphone if Netbooks really make BF4 ultra on stable 60fps these days. Im not into net/note/whatever books so I dont know exactly what kind of hardware they stuff them with now.

My judgement will be based on the version that comes out as release. And the public, I dont care about it.

First impressions during alpha were, for me, great. Later on it got a bit weired.

Well, thats because it isnt done .
Relatively closed "betas"/demos are mostly good for tricking people into buying a broken game. BF3,4,D3,... all had much less open betas. All had hideous releases and didnt get much love afterwards.

Since everything is played on a remote server, single or multiplayer matches, thats not surprising.

You need to be connected until release to play. 'tis part of the deal.

In anycase add the planets into the equation (I mean a fukin planet! common! what other game loads a planet, nay, planets!?), make sure you stay on small sizes.

and also of course the internet badwidth, you really wanna doctor it and steer clear from wifi. check in taskman how much it's consuming.

Seriously though, I play it on low settings and you should see my rig.

the rig that birthed some of the things you see in the planet scale contest thread.

Out of interest, what do you have and how much fps does it get you on low and uber?.

I use a R9 270x and it is smooth at 1080p uber settings. A Titan would be even better but $200 bucks is a more sane price for great performance. The CPU is an i7 6-core with 16GB ram.

Graphically speaking (i know it's on last stage):
I'd like to see the great metallic look showed on the concept screenshots:



I also found the units to be too much blocky, with too much sharp edges, and that's not a problem of polys as FA's units were roughly the same poly number with a much more pleasant look.
(the metallic light effect on the screenshot seems to smooth that a little)

There is also a lack of light effects/explosions/fire/etc.

And off course a proper scale.