Ground_Zero5 Posted April 2, 2002 Share Posted April 2, 2002 Is a Geforce 2 on a Athlon XP CPU with 256 ddr ram good enough??? What do you think the worst CPU you could use and still run Jedi outcast at full??? Post your opinion below:lsduel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi-redemption Posted April 2, 2002 Share Posted April 2, 2002 ive got a...................... pentium celeron 256mb ram 8mb intell summin graphics accelerator will i be able to run it ? i can run mohaa and quake 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoned Player Posted April 2, 2002 Share Posted April 2, 2002 I have 2 computers that i run Jedi on .. my 1st one is a 1700 athlon 512 ram Geforce 3 graphics card on Windows XP. my 2nd is the same but its a 1800 athlon. Both run fuk sweet!! i also have a 1000mhz Pent with 256 MB ram and a Voodoo 5 graphics card in it... it does not run as smooth as my other computers but still looks sweet. I also have a Cable modem for my connection The Stoned Player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 Well good for u asswipe! ! ! ! ! You have a high end system. . .. oohhh but so do most of the people in this forum ! ! ! ! the thread is asking a question and in no way does it ask for your specs! ! ! stop being such a jerkoff ! ! ! ! To answer the two questions, a definite yes to the first dude and yes to the second although everything would have to be at low res and detail would be either medium or below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LSF_Brasidus Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 Well, I run fine at full blast. My specs: Athlon Thunderbird 850 Ge-Force 2 MX 32 meg 512 megs pc133 SDRAM SB 128 pci Hope that helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoWarrior Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 Originally posted by Aim Well good for u asswipe! ! ! ! ! You have a high end system. . .. oohhh but so do most of the people in this forum ! ! ! ! the thread is asking a question and in no way does it ask for your specs! ! ! stop being such a jerkoff ! ! ! ! To answer the two questions, a definite yes to the first dude and yes to the second although everything would have to be at low res and detail would be either medium or below. There is no need to be belligerent. Anyway, to answer your question. I would have to say that you probly couldn't run it full blast without slow down. You could try but there would probly be slow down. Actually, I run it on the medium settings and it still looks sweet. Mine could probly handle the high end but I see know need for it since you can hardly notice the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 I have win xp running on an athalon xp1800, geforce 2 gts and 512 SDRAM. I can run JK2 with texture detail on high, shadows on simple and resolution @ 1024*768*32 with slowdown ONLY at certain parts in the swamp level. However I switched to medium textures on that level alone so that it never slowed down and got me killed. ARGH i want a new video card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrobes Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 PIII 800 Mhz 384 meg RAM 64 meg GeForce 2 GTS Win98SE DirectX 8.1 and 12.90 drivers I have absolutely everything on max, and play at 1024x768 resolution. I get framerates of about 40, and it's pretty damn smooth. As with many others, I get the crazy shadow thing with the volumetric shadows where they jump all over the place and show through walls, etc. No biggie. With a room of 7-8+ people shooting at me, it does slow down a bit. Truly though, pleasantly surprised at how well it runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 It would seem that the game likes 64 meg of video memory. Im worried because in an interview someone at Raven said that the specs for SOF2 would be even higher!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrobes Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 If you can get 64 meg on your graphics card, go for it. Not sure if that's entirely related to some of the issues that have appeared, but I definitely think it helps a lot, say in comparison to a processor speed increase instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPVIP Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 According to Raven, you need a nitrogen cooled Cray with 16GB of RAM with the game loaded on a fibre SCSI storage RAID array in order to get the game to load a level in under two minutes. I'm not bashing or wanting to spread the cancer of the long load thread here, but buyer beware. A LOT of people's monster boxes including mine are falling victim to long level load times. It's to the point where I do not even have the patience to wait for it to load anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayGlow Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 Are you playing with 'very high textures'? Think about it if the textures take up a good size of memory, then of course it will take a while to load them initially from the HD. I don't know the size of the textures at that detail level, but if you see the chart on the load times going from 'very high' to 'high' halves the time to load the level. That should say something about the size of the textures. COLINMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.