Horizons: 64 bit only; DX11 only

Past configuration :
DualCore 6320 oc/ed @ 2.8Ghz / GTX 260 / 4G DDR2 / SSD : runs in 1680*1050 and windowed. lagged a bit during hyperspace jump
6320 replaced by E5450 @3.6Ghz : game runs very smooth
this PC wont run horizon

Intel G3420 / GTX 670 / 8G DDR3 / SSD : runs in fullHD, doesnt lag, very smooth game.
this PC wont run horizon

cost to upgrade CPU on 2nd computer : 180E
cost to upgrade 1stPC : a motherboard, a CPU, ram, GFX card, power supply : 700E

both are no go. bought lifetime pass, wont be able to enjoy it for xmas

now i have to explain that to the 2 future Space Pilots that earth is going to lose, explain them that a huge brain, deep motivation, cleverness, are not enough. World runs on money.

:_(
Another argument for a Linux client.

Both machines can run Horizons; it's the operating system that's the issue.

My understanding is that anyone on a machine that is incapable of playing the game can apply for a full refund for the expansions.
 
Last edited:
over clock it to 4ghz and get another 5 years out of it
I didn't quite go to 4GHz, but it has run overclocked all it's life...

Tbh I will eat my hat if my 2500k even struggles with horizons..... Not that it really matters. After nearly 5 years service it is getting time to upgrade and migrate the trusty sandybridge to my arcade. Even now tho its not my cpu holding me back but lack of sli support and too few usb3
Yup, GPU has always seemed a bit "weak" regardless of what I've put in in the past, it's a good chip and still very capable.
I'll have to upgrade my GTX460 for Horizons I guess, it was a free replacement for a blown 660Ti :/
 
I had two ED-capable machines - now I only have one. Although I can understand all the rationale and reasoning behind this decision, I am also a tiny bit dissapointed.
64bit OS - I can understand. DX-11 only? I can not. I mean Frontier sais that 99% of its customers is on 64bit OSs but does this 99% take into account 64bit and DX11? I have a gut feeling that there is a significant number of players that still have DX10 GPUs and are on 64bits. DX10 shouldn't have been dropped down IMO.
 
Another argument for a Linux client.

Both machines can run Horizons; it's the operating system that's the issue.
...
While linux client would be awesome thing to have, how do it affect system requirements?

First system has GPU that do not support DX11 and indeed will not run Horizons.
Second system will most likely run it just fine, CPU requirements did not change, in current game quad core CPU is also "required" and i7 is "recommended", while game runs fine on relatively old sandy/ivy bridge desktop pentium CPU-s.
 
DX10 shouldn't have been dropped down IMO.
DX11 (or more specifically shader model 5) is required for compute shader support. Doing geometry calculations on the GPU is the only way that Frontier have found to be able to procedurally generate the planets for Horizons in a performant manner (i.e. being able to generate it in real-time).
 
Come Tuesday/Wednesday there'll hopefully be lots of minimum spec reports from beta testers so this should give everyone an idea of what will and won't work.
 
Come Tuesday/Wednesday there'll hopefully be lots of minimum spec reports from beta testers so this should give everyone an idea of what will and won't work.

True.

For me there are 2 types of "Requirements" to run a game (or any program, really). There are "outright" and "subjective".

By "Outright" I mean requirements such as "you need a 64-bit operating system", or "Internet connection required". The code simply won't execute without it. If you launch the game, it throws an error and exits.

By "Subjective" I mean requirements such as "R9 280x or GTX 960 recommended". Which usually mean that the code will run, but whether the performance is acceptable or not is a matter of opinion and tolerance. Some people insist on nothing less that 90fps, some people are happy with 30. Some people are will to spend the extra on prettier spaceships, some people aren't.

To be honest, you can assess the outright requirements pretty easilly usually as they're binary things. DO you have a 64-bit operating system? Well, Winver will tell you yes or no.

Subjective is rather more difficult. You can fire up the Demo version (assuming one is available - and I think it should *always* be) and see what kind of performance you get. Set things to the highest detail level and start playing. If you're happy, great. If not, reduce detail level to the next lowest and try again. When you're at the lowest setting and performance isn't acceptable, you need to upgrade to play the game. If the performance is acceptable then upgrading might make the game look better, and it's a value judgement on whether it's worth it the expense.

But. What to upgrade? Is the jerkiness caused by a struggling graphics card? Running out of RAM? a Chugging hard drive? or maybe just a CPU that's not up to the task? It's often hard to tell and - whilst things like perfmon or cpuid and stuff can help - there really isn't a reliable way to know what's causing the issue other than to try stuff. The best way is to borrow proposed upgrades from a friend to try. If you can't, take your PC to your local, independant computer store who may be willing to help you try a few graphics cards and extra memory until you find a worthwhile upgrade.

If you start by uninstalling any programs you don't use, stopping services you don't need and making sure you have up-to-date drivers for everything and your options are set correctly in the BIOS (which is at the latest version) you have a slightly better chance of a favorable outcome - most especially if your PC is CPU or RAM restricted.

There is a truly amazing about of diversity in PC componentry, so it's really unlikely anyone will have the exact same PC as you, unless it's a named model (EG Dell Optiplex 780) - but, even then, they may have ticked different options to you when ordering. Therefore the only reliable, definative way to know is to try stuff. It's much easier with consoles. Everything is written to work on given hardware, so if it doesn't run acceptably on that it probably won't make a release until it's tidied up.

I don't know if a Horizons Demo will be made available. But I hope so as it's the only reliable way to make sure you can run a game before parting with you hard earned cash. Even if you have a kick-:):):):) rig, sometimes you get weirdnesses like the games "doesn't like" a particular graphics card, or something. The only way to know for sure is to try.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

While linux client would be awesome thing to have, how do it affect system requirements?.

Norralot. Except we could run the game from a seperate OS from the one we have our itunes collection, AV software and all the rest of that (expletive redacted) stuff on. Meaning the game gets sole custody of the hardware, and doesn't have to fight with all the other crud going on.

And the OS is free.

I'd like a Linux client. But it's such a fringe requirement that I doubt Frontier will bother with it, and I don't blame them. Rumour is they've dropped Mac support from Horizons, so I guess that wasn't a big seller. Linux would be an even smaller one.
 
Last edited:

Lestat

Banned
Thing is with windows 10 upgrade. It free and if it dose not work on your system you can roll it back to your current OS. So there little or no risk. My system was windows 8.1 and I went to windows 10
 
Honestly, if FD from the beginning planned ED to be in development for 10 years, it should have been 64bit from the git go. Lesson learned.
 
Be nice if you told us the about the increase before people like me bought a game we can't play. Cheers.

Should have read the thread...

FD were TRYING to keep it working under the same specs, but it wouldn't, so they had no choice if they want the software to work. DX11 in a 32 bit is a joke, always has been, that's why so many people see a decrease in performance using DX11 over DX9 in the 32 bit Window OS's. FD tried, it simply doesn't work, they JUST gave up on trying to make it work, it's not like they made the decision months ago.

David said, you pre-ordered and want a refund now, you'll get it. He also said that the core Elite Dangerous game will remain 32 bit for now, but it WILL be going to 64 bit next year.

So which part of the new specs do you fail on? RAM is cheap, DX11 support was already a requirement for Elite Dangerous so if you don't have it that is ENTIRELY on you. 64 bit OS, well, that's pretty simple to fix. Win7 and up, you can upgrade from 32 to 64 for free, already explained in this thread, which again, had you read it, you'd have known.
 
Honestly, if FD from the beginning planned ED to be in development for 10 years, it should have been 64bit from the git go. Lesson learned.

Based on the Steam hardware surveys from three years ago you'd have immediately cut out a significant % of potential customers. It's only now that Frontier can profile actual ED purchasers that it makes it a sensible decision.

Edit: I'm not saying that's what they actually did, but why wouldn't they have wanted to reach as many people as possible. In a lot of ways, ED has had low requirements from the get go, despite the 'bare minimum' of the Xbone/PS4 specs being a know quantity.
 
Last edited:
If you want to play games on the PC get use to it. Gaming PC's have always been for the "higher end" PC owner. To be honest if your Video card can not do DX 11 which goes back to a video card that is over 6 years old or is not on a 64 bit OS which has been around since 2007 then maybe you should consider switching to a console. I for one am always disappointed in a company that releases a game that is not on 64. 32 bit games are limited to using 4gb of ram, which will limit what a developer can do with it. Compromises have to be made when you try and make something for the "masses", better to make the game you want. If people want to play it... they will upgrade.
 
Last edited:
If you want to play games on the PC get use to it. Gaming PC's have always been for the "higher end" PC owner. To be honest if your Video card can not do DX 11 which goes back to a video card that is over 6 years old or is not on a 64 bit OS which has been around since 2007 then maybe you should consider switching to a console. I for one am always disappointed in a company that releases a game that is not on 64. 32 bit games are limited to using 4gb of ram, which will limit what a developer can do with it. Compromises have to be made when you try and make something for the "masses", better to make the game you want. If people want to play it... they will upgrade.


Therein lies the problem - if a game has a development cycle of three years (and that's short these days) - how the devil do you know what hardware will be commonplace by the time it's done?

There comes a point, though, where you have to decide if the amount of restrictions placed on a product to cater for a ever-decreasingly proportion of potential customers is actually worth it. In essence - do you loose more customers by producing what is - in effect - an outdated product than you gain by catering to people with outdated hardware?

Sounds as if Frontier have decided that the extra features made possible with 64-bit architecture are worth the small number of customers they'll lose because they can't run it.

Honestly. I've got on old 386DX40 somewhere. Maybe they should make their products backwards-compatible with that? It ran "Frontier" just fine, after all.....
 
If you don't have a 64bit system by now then you're pretty far behind and should really be looking at upgrading. You can easily achieve 64bit at minimal cost these days, the vast majority of computer hardware is built around the architecture and isn't expensive at all.
 
I really don't understand why anyone is still running on 32 bit.
Laziness and the costs of upgrading for a new Windows version.
Some might have bought a pre build discount PC and just upgraded the graphic card at some point
or using the os licence it came with with their new build. Microsoft really is to blame for that for just selling
various versions for no reason just to try make bigger profit with their syntheticly split home, pro, ultimate and 32 and 64 bit.
 
Microsoft really is to blame for that for just selling
various versions for no reason just to try make bigger profit with their syntheticly split home, pro, ultimate and 32 and 64 bit.

Actually, one of the reasons Microsoft does that is precisely because people say things like "I don't use remote desktop or active directory, why should I pay for those?" So they add a home version that is cheaper and doesn't include all the enterprise stuff. Similarly pro has only the enterprise stuff and not things like media center (MS needs to pay codec licensing to the various companies who own the standards, so those costs get passed down to the consumer) and ultimate is the edition with everything in it, for people with more money than sense. 32 and 64 bit have been using the same license key since Vista I think, if you buy home 32 bit you're entitled to home 64 bit as well.
 
Last edited:
...
So which part of the new specs do you fail on? RAM is cheap, DX11 support was already a requirement for Elite Dangerous so if you don't have it that is ENTIRELY on you. 64 bit OS, well, that's pretty simple to fix. Win7 and up, you can upgrade from 32 to 64 for free, already explained in this thread, which again, had you read it, you'd have known.
Not true. I have an ancient GF9600GT in my second PC and current game runs reasonably well on it. I mean it is ~40-50FPS away from stations, which IMO is perfectly playable. It does not support DX11, horizons will not run on it. There is also whole GTX2** line, and some of this cards are still reasonably fast and can run current ED reasonably good, without DX11 support. And HD4*** from AMD, from which HD4870/HD4890 definitely can run current game good enough, without DX11 support.

So i think there will be some people with reasonably good systems that can run modern games including ED but without DX11. They will have to upgrade, and there will be more such people then those with 32bit CPU, because IIRC apart from some laptop core duo variants all dual core CPU-s support 64bit, and game will not run on single core reasonably good anyway.

But i think despite of some people being forced to upgrade their old cards switching to DX11/64bit is a good thing. It means there will be no need to test ED on old systems, will free a lot of developer time so they can actually add something new to the game, instead of trying to maintain compatibility with very small amount of old systems still capable of running ED.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom