BF3 built primarly for DX11 XP and DX9 not supported!

[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Jets have no place in any BF game if you ask me. A jet, to even make it a bit fair and balanced, needs about 150kms of space. The jets in BF2 zoom around the levels faster than AA fire, can reload almost instantly, can lock onto targets across the map, and pretty much just destroy anything with no resistance. How they passed the balancing parts of QA is beyond me.

People just love jets because they can get so many kills with no threat of death.

Even in a game like ArmA a jet makes no sense. The maps aren't big enough and there are never enough threats from the ground to balance them.

The old prop planes in BF 1942 were pushing it, but at least you could shoot them down as they couldn't outrun your damn AAA fire (of which it takes 3 sams to bring a single jet down and that's if they don't deploy counter measures or go quick repair).

Wasdie

What happens in BF2 is that one jet blows the other out of the sky, then destoryes the other team. The other plane then spawns, but as he is taking off, he gets bombed by the other plane. It's completely one sided.

You want some real dog fighting play a real sim. This arcady crap that BF tries to pass off as dogfighting is just wrong and ends up breaking a whole game. You ever get into a tank when the other team is destroying with their one jet? You live 30 seconds and you're dead. No countering it. It breaks the game, makes it one sided, and shouldn't be allowed in any BF game.

The abilty for jets to zip across the levels in mere seconds and for NO anti-aircraft weapon to be a threat completely ruined BF2 for me.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="campzor"] dog fighting?campzor

What happens in BF2 is that one jet blows the other out of the sky, then destoryes the other team. The other plane then spawns, but as he is taking off, he gets bombed by the other plane. It's completely one sided.

You want some real dog fighting play a real sim. This arcady crap that BF tries to pass off as dogfighting is just wrong and ends up breaking a whole game. You ever get into a tank when the other team is destroying with their one jet? You live 30 seconds and you're dead. No countering it. It breaks the game, makes it one sided, and shouldn't be allowed in any BF game.

The abilty for jets to zip across the levels in mere seconds and for NO anti-aircraft weapon to be a threat completely ruined BF2 for me.

That's just DICE proving they don't know how to do air weapon balance. BC2 is bad, but not as bad as the crap in BF2. Go back and play BF2, you'll quickly see what I mean, that is if you can survive the horrible nade spam and crap hit detection.

[QUOTE="campzor"]there better be jets... i can understand why they werent in bfbc2 (though i wish they had them) but no excuses for bf3.mattuk69

It takes about 20 seconds in BF2 to clear a map with a jet.

[QUOTE="mattuk69"][QUOTE="campzor"]there better be jets... i can understand why they werent in bfbc2 (though i wish they had them) but no excuses for bf3.Wasdie

It takes about 20 seconds in BF2 to clear a map with a jet.

[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

What happens in BF2 is that one jet blows the other out of the sky, then destoryes the other team. The other plane then spawns, but as he is taking off, he gets bombed by the other plane. It's completely one sided.

You want some real dog fighting play a real sim. This arcady crap that BF tries to pass off as dogfighting is just wrong and ends up breaking a whole game. You ever get into a tank when the other team is destroying with their one jet? You live 30 seconds and you're dead. No countering it. It breaks the game, makes it one sided, and shouldn't be allowed in any BF game.

The abilty for jets to zip across the levels in mere seconds and for NO anti-aircraft weapon to be a threat completely ruined BF2 for me.

Wasdie

That's just DICE proving they don't know how to do air weapon balance. BC2 is bad, but not as bad as the crap in BF2. Go back and play BF2, you'll quickly see what I mean, that is if you can survive the horrible nade spam and crap hit detection.

What a lot of XP users don't realize is that Windows 7 is a total upgrade that is designed to take full advantage of the current hardware, especially the 64bit version. With XP you can only have a max of 3.5 gbs of ram and the OS isn't designed for lots of multitasking and parallel programming. Windows 7 is built to allow extreme useability with an awesome GUI and lots of stability while running tons of applications.

People always think that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista 2.0, but this isn't true at all. They rewrote many of the core functions of Windows Vista. A lot of the networking infrastructure has been change, file organization and structure, and the graphics rendering all were changed to be more efficient and more lightweight. What resulted was a smaller kernel and a faster OS. It's not as small or as fast as a Linux or Unix distro, but it supports hundreds of times the content that those two OSes support.

People with DX11 cards and like 4+ gigs of ram with a quad core processor are really bottlenecking their preformance as XP doesn't take advantage of this hardware. It's just old.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="mattuk69"] Hahah it will probably take about 10 seconds tops to clear a map in BC2 with a jet.Sandvichman

It takes about 20 seconds in BF2 to clear a map with a jet.

Ok, 25... but still I hope you all can see my point. A vehicle with the ability to traverse the entire map in under 30 seconds, pretty much immune to any sort of countermeasure, has a targeting system that any military in the world would love to get their hands on, and practically unlimited ammo, this is not a balanced gameplay device.

I haven't even played BF2 :P abuabed

Yes, jets were overpowered in BF2, especially on Clean Sweep. That map was entirely ruined by those god damned things. I do not know if there is a place for them really. You could lower the speed of them to around that of propeller planes, but there needs to be a purpose for its inclusion. And I think that space is already occupied by the choppers.

If the speed is not lowered there needs to be some measure against it. And they could not beef up the AA in BF2 because then that would also serve to make the choppers weaker. There needs to be something that's specifically efficient at taking out jets, but not other vehicles. And it needs to make sense.

Maybe the AA guns could have two firing modes that you can switch between. I don't know... Anything I can think of risks being contrived to the point of it being bothersome. Like, if a targeting system can lock onto a fast moving jet from a longer range/more quickly, then why would that not be applicable to helicopters? Because jets have a larger heat signature? Would that work? Is that intuitive enough? Could perhaps design HUD elements around that to make it easier to get. A heat meter.

Anyway, thinking out loud. I'd rather have jets in there than not, but they need to frikkin balance them properly.

Glad its also for the consoles, almost considered buying a new gaming pc for bf3. Not anymore :D

Sandvichman

[QUOTE="mattuk69"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

Glad its also for the consoles, almost considered buying a new gaming pc for bf3. Not anymore :D

Sandvichman

Personally I'm wishing for the return of the aircraft carrier. I know that it is positively futile, but...
It's just kind of sad that BF is all serious business now.

*salutes*

I at least hope they'll revert back to the chopper handling of BF2. BC2 is poop. Haven't played the PC version though, maybe that's better.

You guys played all the wrong maps in BF2. Play road to jalalabad and strike at karkand. With or without vehicles, both are awesome especially around 64 players.

I agree on the jets being annoying. It's a big reason I mostly played 2142 instead of BF2.

Anyway this is a good thing: it's time to ditch DX9 and start making the most of DX11.

You guys played all the wrong maps in BF2. Play road to jalalabad and strike at karkand. With or without vehicles, both are awesome especially around 64 players.

Vaasman

Best. Map. Ever.

There's no reason NOT to code for DX11 and DX10 only. We've had DX10 cards for 4 years now and Windows XP, as good as it is/was, is outdated. Gotta upgrade sometime to progress forward. Personally I can't wait for BF3 but I'll have Homefront to take up my time before that.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It takes about 20 seconds in BF2 to clear a map with a jet.

Wasdie

Ok, 25... but still I hope you all can see my point. A vehicle with the ability to traverse the entire map in under 30 seconds, pretty much immune to any sort of countermeasure, has a targeting system that any military in the world would love to get their hands on, and practically unlimited ammo, this is not a balanced gameplay device.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

You guys played all the wrong maps in BF2. Play road to jalalabad and strike at karkand. With or without vehicles, both are awesome especially around 64 players.

ChubbyGuy40

Best. Map. Ever.

There's no reason NOT to code for DX11 and DX10 only. We've had DX10 cards for 4 years now and Windows XP, as good as it is/was, is outdated. Gotta upgrade sometime to progress forward. Personally I can't wait for BF3 but I'll have Homefront to take up my time before that.

Except for the initial push. Grenade spammiest thing I've ever encountered. Especially on infantry only servers. But I enjoyed trying to sneak through the sides and running around behind enemy lines.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

You guys played all the wrong maps in BF2. Play road to jalalabad and strike at karkand. With or without vehicles, both are awesome especially around 64 players.

InsaneBasura

Best. Map. Ever.

There's no reason NOT to code for DX11 and DX10 only. We've had DX10 cards for 4 years now and Windows XP, as good as it is/was, is outdated. Gotta upgrade sometime to progress forward. Personally I can't wait for BF3 but I'll have Homefront to take up my time before that.

Except for the initial push. Grenade spammiest thing I've ever encountered. Especially on infantry only servers. But I enjoyed trying to sneak through the sides and running around behind enemy lines.

A map like Strike At Karkand with far less nade spam would be gold. The infantry combat in BF2 is great except for 2 things. The first being teh nade spam, it's just horrible. They kind of fixed it in BF2142 and it's kind of gone in BC2, but it's still there a bit. The other problem is the crap hit detection. Though I know frostbite fixed that.

Yes, jets were overpowered in BF2, especially on Clean Sweep. That map was entirely ruined by those god damned things. I do not know if there is a place for them really. You could lower the speed of them to around that of propeller planes, but there needs to be a purpose for its inclusion. And I think that space is already occupied by the choppers.

If the speed is not lowered there needs to be some measure against it. And they could not beef up the AA in BF2 because then that would also serve to make the choppers weaker. There needs to be something that's specifically efficient at taking out jets, but not other vehicles. And it needs to make sense.

Maybe the AA guns could have two firing modes that you can switch between. I don't know... Anything I can think of risks being contrived to the point of it being bothersome. Like, if a targeting system can lock onto a fast moving jet from a longer range/more quickly, then why would that not be applicable to helicopters? Because jets have a larger heat signature? Would that work? Is that intuitive enough? Could perhaps design HUD elements around that to make it easier to get. A heat meter.

Anyway, thinking out loud. I'd rather have jets in there than not, but they need to frikkin balance them properly.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

Well consider it again 2011 is PC graphics whore year BF3 is just one of many games going forward this year. And if BF3 ends up being a proper battlefield then PC will be the obvious choice.InsaneBasura

Personally I'm wishing for the return of the aircraft carrier. I know that it is positively futile, but...
It's just kind of sad that BF is all serious business now.

*salutes*

I at least hope they'll revert back to the chopper handling of BF2. BC2 is poop. Haven't played the PC version though, maybe that's better.

You kidding me, bf2 choppers were awful to steer unless you had a joystick.

You kidding me, bf2 choppers were awful to steer unless you had a joystick.

Sandvichman

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

You kidding me, bf2 choppers were awful to steer unless you had a joystick.

InsaneBasura

I double that disagreement. BF2 choppers were a masterpiece with mouse, they took skill, and could be brought to a new level.

BC2 on the other hand is dull noob flying.

The abilty for jets to zip across the levels in mere seconds and for NO anti-aircraft weapon to be a threat completely ruined BF2 for me.

Wasdie

Helicopters ruined the game for me; I played mostly infantry omly servers due those annoying chopters, jets were a good thing due jets = less chopters, both were equally unstoppable by infantry, but usually jets were too busy tearing chopters and land vehicles to lose time shooting infantry, and as a non vehicle user jets were positive to me.:)

BC2 didnt have jets because the map size was too small, because consoles cant handle anything bigger without major cutbacks

also to everyone who thinks XP is better than 7, this is you

HaloinventedFPS

Look at the benchmarks.

Vista was inferior to XP, and 7 is marginally superior. On some games.

Most versions of Windows are too filled with bloatware to matter as far as game performance.

DX10 was supposed to improve performance by something like 30%. Instead, performance dropped. And due to the PR/market failure of Vista, the entire industry ignored it, including game developers, which is part of why game performance suffered on DX10 and most games only had DX9 support. This is why all the leet gamers were using XP up til Windows 7 came out.

Meanwhile, you have one game that doesn't support DX9, 10 years after release. Whoopdy doo, bro.

Windows 7 is pretty good I guess so Windows XP users should upgrade sometime instead of prolonging Windows XP's lifespan ever more. Internet Explorer 6 continues to survive because of that as well to some extent, although I doubt that those who game on Windows XP are still using Internet Explorer 6, if Internet Explorer at all.Hexagon_777

The rest of them are, obviously, people exploiting old unpatched security vulnerabilities, something I'm not planning on doing with XP.

But who uses IE anyway :lol:

BC2 didnt have jets because the map size was too small, because consoles cant handle anything bigger without major cutbacks

also to everyone who thinks XP is better than 7, this is you

HaloinventedFPS

Well they could add stuff like portable AA launchers like Stinger, Strela and Igla launchers, and have jets be only ground attack VTOLs like the Harrier and F-35 (slower then regular jets) Maybe even have a commander ability like a fighter pass where a single air superiority fighter would fly over the map and engage a few aircraft if things get too crowded. Also I hope guns are faction based, atleast the basic ones, I hate it when US solders run around with Abakans and Russians with M16s :PchaplainDMK

VTOL's and a commander aid sound like potentially good ideas to me too. They could also lower the resupply/repair rates and flare reload time. I'm starting to think this might be doable.

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

BC2 didnt have jets because the map size was too small, because consoles cant handle anything bigger without major cutbacks

also to everyone who thinks XP is better than 7, this is you

mattuk69

And why is everyone ignoring Windows Me? That business was the s***.

I guess people expect "magic tricks" to make things works on older hardware/software lol. But really XP is plain old. Only reason to cling on to xp if the computer running xp is as old as xp. In this case its time to upgrade. Just find it funny how people expect some sort of magic to make games run on those systems. Just isn't possible.

I guess people expect "magic tricks" to make things works on older hardware/software lol. But really XP is plain old. Only reason to cling on to xp if the computer running xp is as old as xp. In this case its time to upgrade. Just find it funny how people expect some sort of magic to make games run on those systems. Just isn't possible.MarioJP_

Linux is perfect for computers that are not that capable by today's demand But even that if the PC is old Wouldn't spend a dime on it if the upgrade path is very limited. If its a xp machine there is a chance that the mobo might be AGP lol.

Linux is perfect for computers that are not that capable by today's demand But even that if the PC is old Wouldn't spend a dime on it if the upgrade path is very limited. If its a xp machine there is a chance that the mobo might be AGP lol.MarioJP_

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

BC2 didnt have jets because the map size was too small, because consoles cant handle anything bigger without major cutbacks

also to everyone who thinks XP is better than 7, this is you

Brownesque

Look at the benchmarks.

Vista was inferior to XP, and 7 is marginally superior. On some games.

Most versions of Windows are too filled with bloatware to matter as far as game performance.

DX10 was supposed to improve performance by something like 30%. Instead, performance dropped. And due to the PR/market failure of Vista, the entire industry ignored it, including game developers, which is part of why game performance suffered on DX10 and most games only had DX9 support. This is why all the leet gamers were using XP up til Windows 7 came out.

Meanwhile, you have one game that doesn't support DX9, 10 years after release. Whoopdy doo, bro.

Windows 7 is pretty good I guess so Windows XP users should upgrade sometime instead of prolonging Windows XP's lifespan ever more. Internet Explorer 6 continues to survive because of that as well to some extent, although I doubt that those who game on Windows XP are still using Internet Explorer 6, if Internet Explorer at all.Hexagon_777

The rest of them are, obviously, people exploiting old unpatched security vulnerabilities, something I'm not planning on doing with XP.

But who uses IE anyway :lol:

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

Look at the benchmarks.

Vista was inferior to XP, and 7 is marginally superior. On some games.

Most versions of Windows are too filled with bloatware to matter as far as game performance.

DX10 was supposed to improve performance by something like 30%. Instead, performance dropped. And due to the PR/market failure of Vista, the entire industry ignored it, including game developers, which is part of why game performance suffered on DX10 and most games only had DX9 support. This is why all the leet gamers were using XP up til Windows 7 came out.

Meanwhile, you have one game that doesn't support DX9, 10 years after release. Whoopdy doo, bro.

Windows 7 is pretty good I guess so Windows XP users should upgrade sometime instead of prolonging Windows XP's lifespan ever more. Internet Explorer 6 continues to survive because of that as well to some extent, although I doubt that those who game on Windows XP are still using Internet Explorer 6, if Internet Explorer at all.Hexagon_777

The rest of them are, obviously, people exploiting old unpatched security vulnerabilities, something I'm not planning on doing with XP.

But who uses IE anyway :lol:

It's about time, we should not be hold back.

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]Xp isn't really holding back pc gaming, dx11 could easily run on it.. for an example look at how opengl works. Consoles are holding back pc gaming not old operating systemsmayceV

I dont think XP is holding back gaming. I have XP for older games and 7 for a few newer games. I hate switching back and forth so I use XP for the most part.wooooode

#1 Reason why XP is holding back gaming

64-bit XP sucks ass. Enjoy only having 2B of RAM (or 3GB but then you give up dual channel lol)