Jump to content


BF1942 First Impressions


  • Please log in to reply
230 replies to this topic

#41 lancemoody

lancemoody

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 03 July 2004 - 09:43 PM

I'm losing the cursor sometimes in the spawn select map and can't get it back and thus can't play.


Lance

#42 tito p.

tito p.

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Location:Des Moines, IA

Posted 03 July 2004 - 10:05 PM

Quote

where'd ya pick up a copy of the game? both my local compUSA, Fry's and Apple Store don't have it yet. i can't beleive i'm so impatient to get my hands on this game. I'm down in southern CA and saw that you too live in Ahnuldland.  

I can't think of any other place that sells mac games.  

Thanks,

jack

Strange.  I live in Iowa and I bought my copy from CompUSA yesterday.

*ADDED*

With the crap performance told about on 867 machines, I'm suprised about how well it runs on my 1ghz iMac, with resolution up and details cranked up.  Online is great and really fun, but I need a joystick for the planes.  I have a *slight* problem with the aim moving back, but only a little.  Overall, a great port, IMO.

#43 MacFly

MacFly

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts
  • Location:Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 03 July 2004 - 10:57 PM

"ack, why are people comparing CoD and BF1942?? the only similarity they share is the setting!!"

Excuse me, but gamers have been comparing first person shooters for a long time now. I did not mean to offend. I personally like the feel of COD's infantry better than Battlefield's infantry. On the other hand, Battlefields game play, with control points, is brilliant. Plus all the cool vehicles at your disposal. Except for the lack of joystick support (as of right now) this is an outstanding title.

MacFly

#44 Khral

Khral

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 01:35 AM

Quote

I'm losing the cursor sometimes in the spawn select map and can't get it back and thus can't play.

Lance

I may have a solution to this. Do the following:

1. Start up Battlefield 1942.
2. Select your profile.
3. Go to the Options menu and select Video.
4. Check Alternative Spawn Interface.
5. Now try it and see if the problem persists.

What this does is it turns off background rendering when you're in the spawn selection menu. In other words you won't see the game environment playing in the background while you're selecting your player class and spawn point.

It's not very useful anyway. It's more of an eye candy feature than a necessary part of the game. So you might as well keep it off. With that out of the way you may run into fewer problems like the one you're describing. Give it a shot.

#45 No One

No One

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1233 posts
  • Location:Hilbert's Hotel

Posted 04 July 2004 - 03:49 AM

I just got a chance to play online. It was absolutely amazing! Playing against the bots is nothing like real humans. I think what made it feel so different is how large and complicated the fights felt. It was very neat to succeed in taking down a fighter plane only to have the pilot bail out and attack me on foot.

#46 dcardenas

dcardenas

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 07:42 AM

I am running it on an 867 with 1GB of RAM.  So far, so good.  It's pretty fluid on the Low setting.  I haven't worked up the nerve to try and increase the graphics settings yet.

#47 TC2000

TC2000

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Maine

Posted 04 July 2004 - 08:01 AM

I'll admit I had been too hasty on reporting how bad BF1942 ran on my 867Mhz PB. After being at a LAN party the other night I played with 12 other people and the performance was quite good, even on desert combat. However I have noticed that when you're on a map containing lots of buildings, the FPS drop quite a bit, for example I normally get about 12-30fps and inside buildings I would get anywhere from 3-10fps (This was using the fps statistics in the game). For some strange reason I also noticed that having lighting and mipmapping on actually increased the FPS which was weird. I did this test a number of times at various locations and it did increase by at least 1-1.5fps.

Anyway Kudos to ASPYR for getting this product to the Mac. You wouldn't believe how many PC users came over to me at the LAN party and commented on the fact BF1942 was not only running on a laptop, but a Mac laptop :)

#48 Junkman

Junkman

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 08:59 AM

I have a 933 G4 with a Geforce 4MX 64mb and 512 ram.  has anyone with simillar specs tried playing this game?  have you run into anyproblems?

#49 J@ffa

J@ffa

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Location:behind you ;)

Posted 04 July 2004 - 09:49 AM

I have an 800MHz G4 iMac with 1GB RAM and a GeForce 2MX - I know this isn't great, but CoD runs pretty well with lowish settings, so I'm hoping BF1942 will do the same. Any ideas?

#50 carl

carl

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Location:london uk

Posted 04 July 2004 - 09:58 AM

Quote

I have a 933 G4 with a Geforce 4MX 64mb and 512 ram.  has anyone with simillar specs tried playing this game?  have you run into anyproblems?
...........................................................................................................    i have a power mac g4  1ghz mdd   with 512meg,  and nvidia geforce4 mx 64 mb card ,i have this game on order so i will let you know how well it plays on my mac.  :-D

#51 Atticus

Atticus

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • Location:Sternum's Ribcage

Posted 04 July 2004 - 10:40 AM

So, I finally installed it on my dual 2 G5. Not surprisingly, no performance issues with all the eye candy turned up, but then again, I've played only a few maps.

My experiences inlcuded dying immediately and repeatedly on the Omaha beach map after getting stuck in the Higgins boat (Hit the "E" key again, moron!); flying Hellcats in a drunken manner with my mouse (feats include steering right into the carrier tower and diving into the drink), downing a couple of Zeroes with the carrier AA gun, killing one Japanese with my BAR; ugly crash to the deskop; and finally, telling everyone on my team I has just bought the game and didn't know what I was doing, which resulted in someone voting to kick me (I wasn't).

Good times!

I agree the textures aren't very good, but that's to be expected from an older MMO.

I /could/ grow to love this game, but it'll take a) joystick and B) much more practice.

As I'm a n00b, the game consists of long bouts of tedium (dying, respawning, figuring out what the heck to do while trying not to die) interrupted by occasional moments of "Cool!"

Atticus

#52 mpatton

mpatton

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 11:36 AM

Game is running fine on my Quicksilver 733 (32mb geforce2mx, 768mb ram), despite it being under the requirements.  Gameplay is usually between 15-30 fps running at 1024x768, with most of the other settings turned down  (strangely enough, it seems to work better at 1024 than 800x600).  One basic thing I did to help out performance was to quit Finder before playing; I don't know about anyone else, but for me Finder is constantly taking up 20-40% of the CPU, according to the top command in the Terminal.  You can use Tinkertools or Onyx to add the quit menu to finder, and just quit before playing...seemed to work for me.

#53 JackSparks

JackSparks

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 01:01 PM

So my local Comp put it on the shelves sat instead of fri. who knew. So I picked it up and here's the skinny.  I've on a Quicksilver dual 1Ghz stock model (64meg GMX card and I gig of ram). I've got it set on the lowest setting and it doesn't blow but still pretty chunky as opposed to other games. Seems like i'm starting to hit the wall with gaming and my setup. Still at the low setting it's playable if not smooth.  
I'm wondering if a better video card would help here, or am I limited by the processor?

Still awsome game. So glad that it made it to the mac side. DC mod installed like silk thanks to CannonFodders intall dmg. DC plays about the same.  

Going to try on a pals G5 to see the difference.

thanks all ,


jack.

#54 Ganoen

Ganoen

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Eastern US

Posted 04 July 2004 - 01:21 PM

I downloaded the Galactic Conquest Star Wars mod. It didn't really blow me away; the game has a serious case of the jaggies. Desert Combat has a much more finished and polished feel to it.

#55 Khral

Khral

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 02:33 PM

Has anyone tried Eve of Destruction for the Mac? I noticed there's only one installer for the Mac listed here. However, the official EoD website has a 0.31 update in the download section. So does the Mac installer include the updated version, or is it just version 0.3?

EDIT: Nevermind. The file name has 0.31 in it, so it's safe to assume it's the latest version.

#56 jedimacfan

jedimacfan

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 02:54 PM

Anyone try BF 1942 on a PowerBook yet?  I would like to play it but a PB is all I have.  I hate running games with the lowest textures at 640 x 480.  I prefer 1024 x 768 with medium or higher if possible.  My system is:

15"
1.5 GHz
128 ATI Radeon 9700 Mobility
1.5 GB RAM

Think this is enough over the minimum requirements to run it and have it look at least a little pretty? Can the game be run at 1280 x 854? Thoughts?  Opinions?

Thanks!

#57 CannonFodder

CannonFodder

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 03:44 PM

Definitely a better video card than the stock GF4 MX will make things much better for all games.  I had a GF4 Ti in my Quicksilver Dual 1 Ghz and had no issues when playing games at highest quality. One of the newer Radeons or a GF4 Ti at the very least might do you some good.

Glad to hear you had no problems with the installer, though I didn't expect any after the testing it went through :)

As far as EoD goes, I made a DMG installer for that one as well, which includes the latest patches, but it hasn't shown up in as many places as it should have yet...

#58 Tycho Celchu

Tycho Celchu

    Godlike

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2470 posts
  • Location:On my butt.

Posted 04 July 2004 - 05:28 PM

The DC .dmg had said it "could not complete installation", so I ended up downloading the .zip. That worked fine though.
"To be great is to be misunderstood" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

#59 CannonFodder

CannonFodder

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 05:35 PM

Where did you get the dmg file from? and it at least started to install?

#60 Mattg

Mattg

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 05:44 PM

Quote

Definitely a better video card than the stock GF4 MX will make things much better for all games.  I had a GF4 Ti in my Quicksilver Dual 1 Ghz and had no issues when playing games at highest quality. One of the newer Radeons or a GF4 Ti at the very least might do you some good.

That's not nessasarily true. I've got two systems:
an Athlon 64 3000+ /9800 pro and a G4 933 /9800 pro.

Here's the skinny. Sure the Athlon is faster. It's to be expected becase it's newer. But when i first got my 9800 for the G4 I suspected that my performance over the stock 4MX was almost identical. I never "formally" tested it, but the simple benchmarking I did showed that performance in games where i ran the resolution under 1280X1024 was indeed, almost the same.

Point is we're severely CPU bound. The 9800 pro will give you 8X FSAA and 16X AF without thinking twice. What it won't do is raise you minimum framerates a bit. For example, I just played the CoD demo again, and the starting point where you run through the field was running at an average of 22 fps. My Athlon never drops below 60. Translation, a Radeon 9800 in a G4 gets to be one hell of a slouch.

That's the Quake engine. UT2003 exhibits the same difference with the PC performing 2 - 4 x better, averaging 100 fps with 12+ bots, compaired to my 933's 25.

Lat's just say that I'm glad i didn't buy the G4's 9800 for gaming reasons.

So if I were you I'd save the money, unless:
You need to run higher than 1280 X 1024
You need to have FSAA and AF

Wait and get a G5. Even they'll hold up the 9800 in most modern games, but not as bad, making thier cost justifiable.

PS, No, I DO NOT recommend a PC. Virus laden shi* boxes they are, all of em!