Yep, that and VR. This holiday i'm upgrading from my gtx 770 (still a great card), to two gtx 970's. My goal is to be ready for the VR experience. I think they've made enough downgrades in this game already that affect those with fast systems. When I see someone with a dual core athlon and 2 gigs of ram running on Ultra...something isn't right there. Hopefully moving forward with the tech will enable them to do more and improve the PC experience.
Horizons: 64 bit only; DX11 only
- Thread starter Ganos_Lal
- Start date
Yep, that and VR. This holiday i'm upgrading from my gtx 770 (still a great card), to two gtx 970's. My goal is to be ready for the VR experience. I think they've made enough downgrades in this game already that affect those with fast systems. When I see someone with a dual core athlon and 2 gigs of ram running on Ultra...something isn't right there. Hopefully moving forward with the tech will enable them to do more and improve the PC experience.
Don't want to get into real discussion, but i'd suggest you to get one 980Ti instead of two 970, cause not all the games are good optimized to use SLI, and frankly you'll get ~30% performance boost with second 970, same as with one 980Ti
Last edited:
Yea, Star Citizen is going to require a pretty beefy machine to process all those visuals. Glad the 980Ti's and AMD Fury's are out since those seem to be up for the task. Honestly, I'm surprised many games even support 32-bit anymore. The memory utilization alone in 64-bit processing is reason enough to ditch 32-bit programming. DX11 for the visuals and modern resource handling is also a no-brainer.
Let's hope Star Citizen makes it to the point people start upgrading their rigs. I'm not a backer or anything but 1, the more space games the better, 2, I really like Star Citizen's kinda space games a lot too. I hope to get into it as soon as it releases.
Last edited:
Agreed Cynaqq. I'm a pretty big backer and it's getting pretty exciting. While the combat/dogfighting module has been out for a while, they're just now bringing to availability to the backers essentially what Elite Dangerous Alpha was. The first "load in region" with open missions. Essentially the first star-system you can load into, bring up your ship, take missions and fly to do them. It's a "v0.0" of the persistent universe and right now buggy as heck (they "just" released it to limited backers last Friday) but it's essentially the game-core complete enough to start building all the lore-activities off of, like mining, salvage, trading, combat missions, etc...
I play Elite Dangerous for the "realistic" space. I consider speeds less than 10c "slow" for getting around star systems. I chuckle because the supercruise speed if Star Citizen is claimed to be 0.2c... and I'm like "see you at Earth in an hour!", but Star Citizen isn't the kind of "realistic" space Elite is, it's more "sci-fi/Space Opera" space. It's the "space" where you stand on an alien planet and look up and see a dozen large, colorful, impossibly close moons in the night sky. In my opinion, just as fun of a universe to get absorbed and lost in.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Come on guys. There is a star Citizen thread for those discussions here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57576
Please use it
Please use it
Oh people will upgrade to DX11, but not for Elite, rather for Star Citizen >
You know, if my 360 could brew me a cup of coffee I wouldn't ever need my kitchen.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Agreed. There are design decisions at the heart of Star Citizen that rule me out as a customer, but competition is good for everyone. I truly hope that my assessment of SC as "DNF in Space" is wrong.
Funny thing, that 16% on Steam using DX10, they also use Vista, so they are NOT going to be buying Elite anyway, not a single lost sale!
Oh, the Linux client, that wouldn't be any better off, as Linux still doesn't have DX11 support. Code Weaver was SUPPOSED to have it done for Cross Over, a pay-for piece of software, and then Code Weaver would turn around and open source the DX11 for 'Nix. Only they aren't doing that, Cross Over will get DX11(sometime in the future!), but there won't be an open source DX11 port from that, you gotta pay to get Cross Over if you want DX11 in 'Nix! Totally bogus move by them, so much for being supporters of Open Source...
Vulkan looks to be amazing, IF the lack of support doesn't kill it off, Apple and MS are both not going to support it, which doesn't bode well for it's future really. I HOPE it takes off, it's really something else, although I think Khronos 'we'll be able to port DX12 easily' is a flat out dumb thing to say, they haven't been able to port DX9 full, 11 at all...'yeah guys, that calf kicked our butts, but don't worry, we'll be take that bull easy!'...
DX11 calls are being committed to WINE. I can't comment on Crossover's choices, as that's the first I've heard of them. My understanding was that they pushed changes upstream to WINE, but with WINE it's down to the user to get stuff working.
I'd prefer a native port using OpenGL/Vulkan rather than the excecutables running in a wrapper. That's as likely as an OSX version at the moment.
You say generous, I say legal requirement to offer refunds in the EU.
Would they really be required to offer refunds to people unable to play if they decided to raise min specs mid season, like 5 months into Horizons? I don't think so. What I call generous is not the fact they are issuing refunds. It is the fact that they came clean about it right away, offering refunds to whomever likes to have it instead of obscuring stuff and hide it in legalese.
That bar is going to be raised again, wait until season 3 - 4, the GPU requirements will be higher for sure. They better just start on the estimation now, and get the word out
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
That bar is going to be raised again, wait until season 3 - 4, the GPU requirements will be higher for sure. They better just start on the estimation now, and get the word out
i dunno... the minimum spec may not change much now, and indeed it could be that some people with their dual core rigs will get a pleasant surprise when firing into the beta that all works ok.
with 64bit and dx 11 now considered essential, and the minimum memory spec actually being quite high i think FD may have already specced for the future.
if they plan on bringing all content on the XB1, dont forget the base spec of that is not going to change, so I think the minimum spec for horizons may stay that way for some time.
The important thing is that FD allow the game to scale well, so those of us with the rigs to push it are not hampered too much with poor LOD levels at close range and limited lighting/particle effects and just general low detail models even on ultra.
I find it is quite normal for games DLC to often push my rig more than the base game....... even tho the minimum spec does not usually change. its just what was playable in the core game sometimes runs like a bag of spanners in the DLC without lowering the settings in lower end rigs.
Last edited:
This made me think of something, as I was commenting on another thread about a similar topic.
We know already that MS is working on running entire games on server clusters and streaming to clients. They are something like industry leaders R&D wise in that department according to what I heard from a few friends working on such stuff.
Could it be possible do you think, somewhere in the life of ED in the next ten years that we'll get an affordable version of this?
If you think about it, with serverside running of the entire simulation, it would be possible to have one persistent galaxy without instancing. This technology would overcome all the limitations of current ED single handed.
May be this is why MS and Xb1 is so important to FD because, what better way for FD to make the best space game of all time, and what better way for MS to showcase the capabilities of their flagship gaming platform. I personally can't think of a better pair.
Last edited:
One of the issues with running game server-side and streaming it to clients is latency. You will not be able to play game if delay between your input and action on screen is measured in hundreds of milliseconds. And getting low enough latency when server and client are in different parts of the world is as impossible as building frameshift drive... so you inevitably need servers all over the world... seems improbable to me that it will be possible to make such system working in global scale in near future..
Last edited:
Maybe not, but that's a different scenario than the current one. There's nothing generous about putting system requirements out. If they tried to 'hide' it, they would again be hit by legal requirements.
Last edited:
My computer has an Nvidia 460GTX graphic card, with 1gb of Vram.
Compatible directx 11.
But the minimum specs say that i need a 470 gtx, which has only .25 vram more than my card !
Should I still change it ? I really hope not, I dont have the budget right now.
Nobody to stop you from trying.
Minimum requirements are usually set higher than necessary....call it a safety margin.
Of course, with your setup, you can't expect graphical glory and high performance, but you're close enough to the minimum specs to give it a go.
I suspect you might be able to run the game, and then you can save up for the needed upgrades.
Last edited:
Running games on server clusters and streaming to the clients isn't new by any means, that's been going on for over a decade. WoW, EQ, UE, hell most MMOs and quite a few FPS games on the PC, all serverside games. MOST console games however are P2P, as Sony and MS didn't feel like paying for server farms to run the games on, but that's getting looked at again with a different view, it's more secure to have server farms for starters, and it provides better gaming experiences, so they are looking into that now, but since I was getting paid to admin and maintain server farms for PC games in the late 90s by hosting companies, it's not a remotely new concept or technology