bhlaab said:I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.
dragonfk said:bhlaab said:I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.
Proof that's not hardware related. Is it a clean install of win xp?
Stop being stupid. 20 is "Still playable. Somewhat.".DraQ said:20 is decent FPS
oops, my mistake, that was another userbhlaab said:I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.
15 is, you bourgeois faggot.Gerrard said:Stop being stupid. 20 is "Still playable. Somewhat.".DraQ said:20 is decent FPS
If you're playing a turn based game.DraQ said:15 is, you bourgeois faggot.Gerrard said:Stop being stupid. 20 is "Still playable. Somewhat.".DraQ said:20 is decent FPS
Then you should know what a pain in the ass it is.DraQ said:I have played first person shooters at 12, sonny.
Yes, 15 is minimum for a game to be fully playable.Gerrard said:Then you should know what a pain in the ass it is.DraQ said:I have played first person shooters at 12, sonny.
No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.Gerrard said:You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?
The game does not use the Aurora Engine anymore.
Kinda, but at least the Aurora Engine was a known quantity.Darth Roxor said:
DraQ said:No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.Gerrard said:You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?
Fuck you. I like playing games, not fucking slideshows.DraQ said:No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.Gerrard said:You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?
FPS whore.1eyedking said:Fuck you. I like playing games, not fucking slideshows.DraQ said:No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.Gerrard said:You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?
They like totally didn't rewritten Aurora so it worked properly.treave said:I wonder if their team have had any prior experience in developing one.
Lesifoere said:I maintain that it can be no worse than Aurora.
WhiskeyWolf said:They like totally didn't rewritten Aurora so it worked properly.
treave said:Were the improvements just graphical or did they, like, totally rework almost everything in the engine until only the name was left, or, should I, like, just go check out those old developer diaries instead of sitting here like the fat scum that I am waiting for people to feed me answers?