Elite system requirements - personal findings from Alpha

bbwonder

bbwonder
Hi all,

Thought this may be of interest to a few out there;

I'm an Alpha backer, have had chance to play the Alpha for a few hours now - and on a couple of different PCs.

I was incredibly worried that my machine would struggle, so much so I upgraded my CPU & motherboard.

It was probably a good move in the long term, but I don't think people should worry unduly.

I have two PCs, and here is a brief report of their performance when running Elite Dangerous Alpha;

Laptop - Dell XPS L501x (Dual core 2.4ghz, 4gb Ram, Nvidia GT420M 1GB)
To my amazement, this setup works to a satisfactory standard - running between 20-30 fps with high detail, I am thrilled my gaming laptop will not be left on the shelf, the Alpha is definitely playable & enjoyable with this level of hardware.

Perhaps when the more complex scenarios come to the Alpha it will change the experience, but for now I am very pleased.​

Custom Built PC (Athlon 4.1ghz Quad, 4gb DDR3, AMD 6770 XT 1GB)
This is my primary gaming PC, and is slowly upgraded over the years, hence it's reasonable but medium-spec components.

Elite Dangerous runs easily on this hardware, apparently running along at very comfortable frame rates - I'm guessing around 40/50+ on high detail, at 1280x1024.

I'm really impressed at Frontier's progress so far, the game engine looks and feels very polished, and the subtle effects & cockpit HUD look stunning.

​


My only gripe with the Alpha build so far is the flight controls, I only use Keyboard/Mouse, and this is definitely an area that could be improved, feels pretty awkward - but nothing that couldn't be ironed out - or something I need to master.

Ok, that's my mini-report done for now, I really hope this is useful to someone.

I hope to make some short Youtube videos of my exploits, but having seen videos made by the likes of Scott Manley, I'll probably just leave this to the professionals!

:smilie:
 
Last edited:

bbwonder

bbwonder
I couldnt take screenshots, so just quickly took photo... sorry for size / quality... :eek:


Custom settings;

XsHCqbEh.jpg



General settings;

ZGvv41mh.jpg
 

Squicker

S
bbwonder said:
It is the highest manual setting, but you can delve in and modify advanced graphic settings. I'll try and get a screen shot now - brb
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that, what other AA options are there please?
 

Mephane

Mephane
noodle said:
When people refer to "high detail", is this the highest setting, or is there an "ultra"?
Click to expand...

While we are at it, I hate those "very high", "extra high", "ultra high" settings seen in many games. It gets especially annoying when the maximum is not consistent within a game, like shadows going from "low" to "ultra" while textures going from "low" to "high" only etc. And sometimes it also goes the other way round to below "low".

If there is a setting with more than the three values "low", "medium", "high", I think it should just be a slider with no words attached, but merely numbers. Makes it easier to refer to and immediately obvious what the possible values for each setting is.
 

noodle

noodle
Thanks for posting those screenies. Really useful. My rig's quite similar to yours, but a bit more juicy, so that's very reassuring! :D
 

bbwonder

bbwonder
Mephane said:
While we are at it, I hate those "very high", "extra high", "ultra high" settings seen in many games. It gets especially annoying when the maximum is not consistent within a game, like shadows going from "low" to "ultra" while textures going from "low" to "high" only etc. And sometimes it also goes the other way round to below "low".

If there is a setting with more than the three values "low", "medium", "high", I think it should just be a slider with no words attached, but merely numbers. Makes it easier to refer to and immediately obvious what the possible values for each setting is.
Click to expand...

Just like clothes isnt it! I always buy XL T-Shirts and jumpers, but they are never the same size?! :)

Definitely better to have 3 basic settings, then just sliding scales for advanced use.

That's pretty much what Elite offers, so you will be happy.
 

bbwonder

bbwonder
noodle said:
Thanks for posting those screenies. Really useful. My rig's quite similar to yours, but a bit more juicy, so that's very reassuring! :D
Click to expand...

No problem!

I really need faster ram, I'm running at DDR3-667mhz, and an Nvidia GTX GPU would be nice too... but my wife would say otherwise.

:(
 

Im_Lost

I
Eww, FXAA. The king of ugly blurryness and a performance hit to match. Oh well, at least it's not forced on like some games :p

Are there better options, like SMAA maybe?
 
Last edited:

Squicker

S
Nasher said:
Eww, FXAA. The king of ugly blurryness and a performance hit to match. Oh well, at least it's not forced on like some games :p

Are there better options, like SMAA maybe?
Click to expand...

Use an injector or setup multisample in the driver is an option.
 

KING5TON

KING5TON
I applaud the fact that the game can be run on lower hardware, means the bar of entry is set low enough that it allows a larger number of gamers to be able to play the game without upgrading their machines.

I personally want to run the game at max settings at 60fps at 1080p and think anyone that's looking forward to the game as least as much as I am that can afford an upgrade to their PCs but isn't going to as they can run it "OK" are a bit odd.

Especially anyone that's dropped a lot of money to back the game. It's like paying to drive on the nurburgring and turning up in a Fiat Punto (first car that came to me, I've nothing against Punto's per say)
 

bbwonder

bbwonder
KING5TON said:
Especially anyone that's dropped a lot of money to back the game. It's like paying to drive on the nurburgring and turning up in a Fiat Punto (first car that came to me, I've nothing against Punto's per say)
Click to expand...

I'm lucky enough to have done that. Not in a Punto though. :)

After spending hundreds to make sure Elite happened, I am a little short for PC specs... but by the time it launches I may have saved enough for a decent GPU.
 

The Space Pirate

The Space Pirate
Upgrade imminent, but probably not before the beta so with that in mind, do any alpha testers have a system similar to mine; if so, how does it perform?
 

nats

Banned
nats
The alpha is no indication of how well the final game will perform, its very limited processing wise. Once all the other ongoing background tasks get added in like trading, politics, moving planets, etc they will all take a slice of available processing power and RAM. And space games have never been very taxing on graphics cards space being black generally. Wait until the dockings/landings are brought in to see how the game will ultimately perform graphics-wise (moving ships, people, vehicles, clouds, smoke, lights, structures, etc). And even then it wont be a true reflection of how the game will perform after a few years of development.

Kerbal Space Program used to be really slick a year ago, but now further down the line with bits and pieces added to it it is starting to run like a dead dog.

My advice is wait until the game is released in its final form before upgrading, and then upgrade to have a bit of capacity spare to allow for the planetary landings and added game complexity.
 
Last edited:

SzaryWilk

SzaryWilk
Now, on alpha tests, requirements for computer are greater but when the game comes out will be more optimized. So the hardware requirements will be smaller.
 

resonic

resonic
My guess is that we end up with a mid-range to low-end system requirement to run the game smooth with graphics set to low.

Multicores CPU and 8GB of memory should be enough to simulate the space and the background tasks forming and running the galaxy. The graphics itself wont need much GPU power i guess.
 

RobFisher

RobFisher
My system might be described as mid-range, but it's a bit odd as it's an oldish but upgraded machine:

Intel Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
Quad core
12GB RAM (some odd chipset with triple channel so 3x4GB)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 4GB
1920x1080
All settings to max

I get solid 60FPS with VSync on, except in the last scenario with dozens of ships when it drops to 20-30. I get the distinct impression I am CPU bound here, but I expect nearly everyone is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom