Battlefield 2

Post by **Grudge** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:47 pm

every other server is no timelimit now

EDIT: at least here in scandinavia (where I get good ping)

Post by **SOAPboy** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:47 pm

Grudge wrote:every other server is no timelimit now

Guess ill be logging in again soon..

does ASE support the demo yet?

Post by **Grudge** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:48 pm

not last time I checked

Post by **Foo** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:48 pm

SOAPboy wrote:
Foo wrote:Bitorrent is much less efficient that HTTP downloading when there's only 1 peer and 1 seed. So for the thousands and thousands of individual files that FilePlanet has archived, that would represent a very large overhead on their servers, all the time.

Even with 1 seed, 0 peers, the seed has to talk to the tracker periodically.

Perhaps if Fileplanet had a tracker for brand new files, that would be viable.
How so? Lets assume that same pipe thast used on HTTP is pushing it via BT, people have to share SOMEWHAT, even if its 3k.. thats MORE bandwidth for everyone..

same as http, just with more bandwidth..

It works like this (for idle server):

On a HTTP server, the files just sit there until requested. There's no processor overhead per file when noone's downloading them.

When someone connects and requests the file, the web server finds the file and streams it down to them.

With bittorrent, You have your tracker and, in order for fileplanet to be serving a file, you have to have a 'seed server' as well. This seed server communicates with the tracker periodically as the tracker asks it 'are you still there?', 'yes. Any peers for me yet?','no'

That happens for each file being seeded. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of individual packages offered at Fileplanet, and that amounts to big overhead.

Now, for a bittorrent server with 1 peer 1 seed, you actually have 3 components: Seed, Tracker and Client. 2 of those are being operated by Fileplanet. So that's extra processing overhead (HTTP servers are very mature now, and consume little processing power) Considering Bitorrent trackers/clients are fairly new, they're almost certainly less efficient. Then also consider that a tracker requires a web server to run in the first place. So standard downloading is just 1 HTTP server. To run a BT system you need HTTP Server + Tracker + 1 Client. Automatically more processor intensive for a single download.

Post by **SOAPboy** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:51 pm

Foo wrote:
SOAPboy wrote:
Foo wrote:Bitorrent is much less efficient that HTTP downloading when there's only 1 peer and 1 seed. So for the thousands and thousands of individual files that FilePlanet has archived, that would represent a very large overhead on their servers, all the time.

Even with 1 seed, 0 peers, the seed has to talk to the tracker periodically.

Perhaps if Fileplanet had a tracker for brand new files, that would be viable.
How so? Lets assume that same pipe thast used on HTTP is pushing it via BT, people have to share SOMEWHAT, even if its 3k.. thats MORE bandwidth for everyone..

same as http, just with more bandwidth..
It works like this:

On a HTTP server, the files just sit there until requested. There's no processor overhead per file when noone's downloading them.

When someone connects and requests the file, the web server finds the file and streams it down to them.

With bittorrent, You have your tracker and, in order for fileplanet to be serving a file, you have to have a 'seed server' as well. This seed server communicates with the tracker periodically as the tracker asks it 'are you still there?', 'yes. Any peers for me yet?','no'

That happens for each file being seeded. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of individual packages offered at Fileplanet, and that amounts to big overhead.

Trackers arnt exactly a huge deal.. once a person "connects" per say, they are connected to whoever is there until they leave, even if the tracker goes down..

hell trackers dont even use THAT much bandwidth anyways.

Post by **SOAPboy** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:52 pm

Grudge wrote:not last time I checked

Damn..

Gamespy prolly does tho huh..

Post by **xer0s** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:53 pm

The game seems badass so far. I love how I loaded it up for the first time and set everything on high settings and set the resolution on the highest and it ran as smooth as can be. Damn my parents computer is one bad motha (makes me want to come home more often). I'll just quote the specs for shits and giggles (and obvious bragging purposes).

P4
3.40 GHz
1.00 GB RAM
Radeon X800 XT
The Works

BF2 looks sweet. I'd hate to see it on my shit box.

Post by **SOAPboy** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:03 pm

anyone have a Geforce 4 Ti4600 and tried this demo yet? Friend has one, but yeah its not "supported" but i figure it SHOULD work seeing as the radeon 8500 is supported..

Post by **PhoeniX** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:05 pm

SOAPboy wrote:anyone have a Geforce 4 Ti4600 and tried this demo yet? Friend has one, but yeah its not "supported" but i figure it SHOULD work seeing as the radeon 8500 is supported..

Look at the top of this page. It doesn't work for me.

Post by **bork[e]** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:40 pm

ALLiED wrote:sigh:

SP:
10 minute round time limit

MP:
12 minute round time limit

at 68% complete I killed it. Compaines that do that shit piss me off, it's not that fucking hard to create a cutom map to let people piss around in online and maybe a short level with some features for the single player... you can't get a good feel for the game in 10 damn minutes...

Post by **shadd_.** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:49 pm

SOAPboy wrote:anyone have a Geforce 4 Ti4600 and tried this demo yet? Friend has one, but yeah its not "supported" but i figure it SHOULD work seeing as the radeon 8500 is supported..

gf4=shader model 1.3

ati 8500= shader model 1.4

there is a big jump between those two. more so than sm2.0b > sm3.0.

Post by **shaft** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:27 pm

http://www.tweakguides.com/BF2_1.html

Post by **SOAPboy** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:29 pm

shadd_. wrote:
SOAPboy wrote:anyone have a Geforce 4 Ti4600 and tried this demo yet? Friend has one, but yeah its not "supported" but i figure it SHOULD work seeing as the radeon 8500 is supported..
gf4=shader model 1.3

ati 8500= shader model 1.4

there is a big jump between those two. more so than sm2.0b > sm3.0.

ahhh gotcha

Post by **SOAPboy** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:29 pm

bork[e] wrote:
ALLiED wrote:sigh:

SP:
10 minute round time limit

MP:
12 minute round time limit

at 68% complete I killed it. Compaines that do that shit piss me off, it's not that fucking hard to create a cutom map to let people piss around in online and maybe a short level with some features for the single player... you can't get a good feel for the game in 10 damn minutes...

First off, at the end of that 12-10 min, it restarts the map..

Second, alot of servers have the timelimit turned off..

Third, you can turn it off yourself..

Post by **phantasmagoria** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:02 am

Just had my proper game, I did a grand job of trundling over team mate's mines and crashing my bellepopper laden with allies into the ocean repeatedly, think I ended up with -12 at the end of it, i killed about 5 people though *dances*. I remember when I was first getting into 1942, took me ages to get remotely good at it.

was getting 40fps @ 1024x768 with everything on high which I'm supremely happy about.

Is there any way to increase the view distance? I've got it on 100% and when flying planes you can't see very far at all.

Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:59 am

Fuck this. I installed those modded Audigy drivers, but the game still locks with a repeating sound loop. Pisses me the hell off, too as I really want to play it.
I was able to play long enough to see that with everything maxed that the game looks GORGEOUS. I saw a sniper ride by on a Humvee, and the ghillie suit looked killer.
Maybe I'll go back to my old vid drivers. *sigh*

Post by **netrex** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:09 am

See someone having problems with refresh stuff and ATi cards. No need for third party programs to fix the refresh rates. Just go to the driver and set what you want in the Displays tab. I do that and run it at 1024x768 @ 120Hz.

Post by **shadd_.** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:35 am

Nightshade wrote:Fuck this. I installed those modded Audigy drivers, but the game still locks with a repeating sound loop. Pisses me the hell off, too as I really want to play it.
I was able to play long enough to see that with everything maxed that the game looks GORGEOUS. I saw a sniper ride by on a Humvee, and the ghillie suit looked killer.
Maybe I'll go back to my old vid drivers. *sigh*

i have to set my audio to hardware/low quality or i get problems.

like you said, the game looks and plays awesome but the demo is buggy as fuck. i read somewhere that the demo is an old build and the retail is supposed to be somewhat better.

Post by **dzjepp** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:05 am

phantasmagoria wrote:Just had my proper game, I did a grand job of trundling over team mate's mines and crashing my bellepopper laden with allies into the ocean repeatedly, think I ended up with -12 at the end of it, i killed about 5 people though *dances*. I remember when I was first getting into 1942, took me ages to get remotely good at it.

was getting 40fps @ 1024x768 with everything on high which I'm supremely happy about.

Is there any way to increase the view distance? I've got it on 100% and when flying planes you can't see very far at all.

Does the view distance look the same in single player for you? Online servers control what the client sees. So I'm betting most servers are running it at the default 75% (or whatever it is). I haven't tried 100% yet myself for framage++ :icon32: