256mb of and bf 1942 do not mix. -1 reply

Please wait...

TLC

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

35 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

Consider this.

"Battlefield 1942 with AXP 2100+ W/256Mb of System Ram (From a gamers perspective)

Waiting for game to load.......waiting.....come back from bathroom.....waiting......wondering if game crashed.........waiting......DONE! OK IM IN!!! OK Im looking around I can barley move the mouse its so laggy, oh Im sea sick, I cant even get the mouse horizontal. Ok Ill try movment. OH that dosent work either, feels like my guy has two broken legs and has just finished a marathon. OK this game SUX!

Battlefield 1942 with AXP 2100+ W/512Mb of System Ram (From a gamers perspective)

Waiting for game to... OK IM IN!!!! Ok Im looking around, things are smooth, I can see, and most importantly I can AIM!!! Ok Ill try movment. Wow Im a Russian Ballerina! Smooth and confident. Im going to kill now, Bye."




Dietrich

Todesengel

50 XP

18th December 2002

0 Uploads

147 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

I use to wait over a minute or more for maps to load on 256MB of Ram. I now have 512 and I am one of the first ones to load. It does make a huge difference.




apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

Hi TLC,

I have 256 Mb DDR SDRAM and my experience is nothing like your. Once the game has loaded, and yes it does take longer to load, but I am not always last to get their, I have about 10 seconds of jerkiness and then it runs fine. I have Athlin XP2000+, 256Mb DDR and GF4 MX440. You didn't mention your vid card? Or perhaps you have SDRAM? although I wouldn't expect so with a Athlon 2100.

We have two very different experiences so i must be something other than just RAM, but I do agree it is better with 512.

:cya: :cya: :cya:




derFuhrer

Don't feed the devil

50 XP

21st June 2002

0 Uploads

556 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

Gameplay with 256MB was fine, map loads took forever though. 512MB is definately the borderline for BF1942 performance. I was told 256MB DDR vs 512MB PC133 really doesn't make a whole lot of difference, I wouldn't know myself, I'm going from 512MB PC133 to 512MB DDR333 soon.




Trichord

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

25th December 2002

0 Uploads

1 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

I have 512 megs of RAM, and I load even the largest maps within 30 seconds, and have jerkyness for 1-1.5 seconds ;) BF certianly is a memory hog...




TLC

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

35 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

Originally posted by apocalypse_kid Hi TLC, I have 256 Mb DDR SDRAM and my experience is nothing like your. Once the game has loaded, and yes it does take longer to load, but I am not always last to get their, I have about 10 seconds of jerkiness and then it runs fine. I have Athlin XP2000+, 256Mb DDR and GF4 MX440. You didn't mention your vid card? Or perhaps you have SDRAM? although I wouldn't expect so with a Athlon 2100. We have two very different experiences so i must be something other than just RAM, but I do agree it is better with 512. :cya: :cya: :cya:

I just copy and paste that message from another forum,I just thought the guy expressed himself pretty funny.;)

My computer is the one in my signature,the game runs great to me.:)




apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

Sorry TLC,

Thought it was your puter you were talking about. You didn't use the quote function and I am used to ppl using that. Never mind, will see you on the killing fields.

:cya: :cya: :cya: