http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/03/battlefield-3-open-beta-update-2.aspx

If you're thinking "why is the beta so old?" It's been said over and over that it takes months for companies to submit a demo / beta to be uploaded to Xbox live.

So stop your hating haters.

Mines back up.

I woke up this morning and my xbox says it can connect to the internet but not the Xbox LIve servers. Is this a common problem right now?

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I don't buy that a 1.3 GB demo would look the same as a 2 GB demo. I know enough about computers to know that's total horse ****

KC_Hokie

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

Then you sir don't understnad what i'm saying. As I was saying, the 2.2 gig PC beta looks much better then the 1.3 gig beta on the Xbox.

So which one should I rely on? One is telling me temps critical and one is saying, yeah it's hot but it could be hotter.

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Are you seriously suggesting the graphics couldn't have improved had they released a demo with 700mb more of content? Are you kidding? Some Xbox 360 demos are 700mb!

And, again, this demo is smaller than the last two EA demos and signiificantly smaller then the NCAA demo. It's 200mb smallter then the original BC demo that came out three years ago.

KC_Hokie

First of all i'm a game design major so let me say I KNOW what i'm talking about even if you don't.

Second you obviously didn't read this guys post because he does KNOW what he's talking about and you don't. Just because a game put out a demo that was 700 megabites (a small amount of data in the gaming world) Doesn't mean that Battlefield could have used that amount of data. The physics are jack down 2 fold because the full engine would be way too big. You DO KNOW that the gold edition of the game will be released on TWO DVDS. Take the amount of a dvd then double it and you'll quickly see why a single beta had to be so compressed.

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

[QUOTE="AWolfoftheCalla"]

adding higher resolution textures.... or full physics... would probably increase the file size a hell of a lot more than 700mb. the features are a package, and adding them probably would increase it beyond the size limit. you cant add 90% of a texture file and have it display properly/at all....or have 90% of a physics engine. its all or nothing. your conclusion is wrong.

KC_Hokie

And, again, this demo is smaller than the last two EA demos and signiificantly smaller then the NCAA demo. It's 200mb smallter then the original BC demo that came out three years ago.

First of all i'm a game design major so let me say I KNOW what i'm talking about even if you don't.

Second you obviously didn't read this guys post because he does KNOW what he's talking about and you don't. Just because a game put out a demo that was 700 megabites (a small amount of data in the gaming world) Doesn't mean that Battlefield could have used that amount of data. The physics are jack down 2 fold because the full engine would be way too big. You DO KNOW that the gold edition of the game will be released on TWO DVDS. Take the amount of a dvd then double it and you'll quickly see why a single beta had to be so compressed.

Something is definately fishy. I installed Lubbos fan control today. It says my CPU runs at 86C -89C for Battlefield with fans running at 6000rpm s.

At the same time core temp says 96c. One of them is wrong.

The only thing that would work for my macbook would be a thermapak since I don't have vents on the bottom. Will that do much for the heat?

I'm running it on my AMD Radeon HD 6750m. When I bought it I didn't know how well It would do but playing while running GPU-Z next to it this card is a champ. It runs at about 70c, 20-40% useage and 50% fans at 40 fps for the Beta. If I could just get my cpu temp down then i'm in perfect ville