Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Could the community please help write some updated system requirements for 0 A.D.?

The current website says: "1 GHz CPU, modern graphics card (GeForce 3 at minimum), 512 MB RAM".

I am collecting this for the new website.

Important: Please split this up to two categories:

  1. Minimum requirements
  2. Recommended requirements - The ideal situation in which to run 0 A.D., allowing for a fully usable and enjoyable experience.

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something similar to the opt-in feedback form in the main menu screen.

I'm pretty sure that (well not the form, but the statistics gathering function that is connected to it) already detects most (if not all) of these things, so it's more a matter of digesting the information :P (I don't recall if it does any performance testing though, I seem to remember it might, but I'm not sure, someone else with more knowledge on what it actually does will have to fill in with more information :) )

Afaik it's pretty much impossible to get these perfect though, especially before the game is done. So I don't think we should stress out too much about getting it perfect. Also things like the OS matters a lot too, iirc Win7 requires 2 GB of RAM just on its own for example (or it's recommended you have 2 GB of RAM or something, either way the main point is that different OSs have different requirements/resource usage :) ), so running the game on Win7 as opposed to WinXP or a light-weight Linux OS might give very different performance results on the same machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OS indeed matters. On Windows 7 my MacBook Pro of 2007 can get up to 35+ fps, with OS X it struggles to get much beyond 25 fps (usually less). This seems mostly graphics related (moving away from crowded parts of a map has a noticeable effect on fps), but at least my 128 Mb Nvidia 8600GM could be considered just enough (minimum requirement). I have to admit I may stress my system a little by playing at a resolution of 1920x1080, I don't think it was meant for that :) Anyway, performance measurement should take the resolution into account.

Perhaps it is easier to get an idea of systems that have difficulty running the system? On the other hand, my old desktop (AMD Athlon64 (single core) 2.2 Ghz, 2Gb RAM, 256 Mb Radeon X800XL) can barely run the game as it tends to be CPU heavy. When pathfinding/AI performance improves a bit it may be enough, so prematurely setting this in stone may not be the best option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Afaik it's pretty much impossible to get these perfect though, especially before the game is done.

prematurely setting this in stone may not be the best option.

Don't worry about getting it perfect and never having to change it. We'll just put up a notice that this is just a very rough estimate and we'll change it later as needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple's openGL drivers are notoriously slow. I think you may win some FPS's if you play at the native resolution, though (compared to slightly lower).

It is the native resolution of my external monitor :) (as I used it with Windows, so let's blame the drivers for the difference).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum requirement is purely from a technical point of view, as in there is a minimal set of hardware/software on which the game will run without serious errors. "Recommended" is more subjective, we should base it on the ability to run with decent frame rate, with all graphics settings enabled (no AIs since they can cause problems even on high end systems). We should break them both down by OS, since OS X users seem to think in terms of Mac version; whereas Windows and Linux users think more in terms of processor speed, RAM, video card, etc.

Just to start things off, minimum requirements:

Windows

Version: 2000

Processor: 1 GHz Intel or x86 compatible (I think 1 GHz is a decent cutoff without getting into specific processor types)

Memory: 512 MB

Graphics: card supporting OpenGL 1.3 w/ 3D hardware accelerated drivers and at least 128 MB memory; Radeon 9000, GeForce 3, or similar*

Screen resolution: 1024x768

OS X

Version: 10.5

2006 or later Intel-based Mac (http://en.wikipedia...._by_CPU_type#P6)

Screen resolution: 1024x768

Linux

Processor: 1 GHz Intel or x86 compatible

Memory: 512 MB

Graphics: card supporting OpenGL 1.3 w/ 3D hardware accelerated drivers and at least 128 MB memory; Radeon 9000, GeForce 3, or similar*

Screen resolution: 1024x768

* We can probably make a list of known graphics cards that don't work. Intel is not recommended, at least pre-Intel HD 3000, due to buggy drivers and terrible performance. Certain other brands are problematic.

Edited by historic_bruno
Feedback on Radeon card support
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that (well not the form, but the statistics gathering function that is connected to it) already detects most (if not all) of these things, so it's more a matter of digesting the information :P (I don't recall if it does any performance testing though, I seem to remember it might, but I'm not sure, someone else with more knowledge on what it actually does will have to fill in with more information :) )

I don't think it gives performance data though.
Link to post
Share on other sites

* We can probably make a list of known graphics cards that don't work

That should be a really good quality assurance exercise, one that can be done on the forum: 1. what graphics card do you have? 2. does it work? 3. if no, let's try and fix it. 4. if it still doesn't work, we'll add it to the list of cards with known issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Processor: 1 GHz Intel or x86 compatible (I think 1 GHz is a decent cutoff without getting into specific processor types)

The game can be run on a 1Ghz processor? :o I know you mean technically run, but still, that sounds like it would give like 1 FPS or something at max =)

I don't think it gives performance data though.

Maybe not. I think there might have been talk about it at least, to send a report a few seconds after a map has loaded :unsure: Either way it should be possible to add if it isn't there already :) (Though it would probably be better to set it to send say 15 minutes into playing or something :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

The game can be run on a 1Ghz processor? :o I know you mean technically run, but still, that sounds like it would give like 1 FPS or something at max =)

If you have a 4ghz cpu with 4 cores, you'll nearly get the same result because the game doesn't use multiple cores and i'm sure there are people who do this. Kinda funny that more modern cpus have worse effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a 4ghz cpu with 4 cores, you'll nearly get the same result because the game doesn't use multiple cores and i'm sure there are people who do this. Kinda funny that more modern cpus have worse effect.

Oh, I thought the GHz were per core, but I guess that would be weird :P (People can't be expected to add up the numbers themselves, can they ;):rolleyes: )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought the GHz were per core

You was right, it is frequency on which each core can work. And even with single-threaded 0 A.D. you still benefit from multiple cores, because besides 0 A.D. there are different system tasks and other applications, which can be distributed between multiple cores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Also clock speed is a really bad indicator of cpu performance these days. New cpu designs do more per clock cycle.

I know right?

It would also be nice to include a footnote or something saying that multiplayer requires Broadband Internet access. Data fees may apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

My CPU is an Intel i5-2310 2.9 GHz with 8 GB, with the GPU of the processor. Although the FPS was good, the game had some momentary freezing (of some milisecs every some seconds, nothing very annoying) on maps with many trees like the Deep Forest (which is one of the coolest, IMO), even at early game. I guess that's due to the crappy "GPU"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My CPU is an Intel i5-2310 2.9 GHz with 8 GB, with the GPU of the processor. Although the FPS was good, the game had some momentary freezing (of some milisecs every some seconds, nothing very annoying) on maps with many trees like the Deep Forest (which is one of the coolest, IMO), even at early game. I guess that's due to the crappy "GPU"...

How many players, any AIs? Use F11 to open the profiler and see what is taking the most time, if it's rendering or something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many players, any AIs? Use F11 to open the profiler and see what is taking the most time, if it's rendering or something else.

1x1, since i know the problems with many AIs. And as i thought, the problem seems to be my crappy GPU, as say the screenshots... Both taken on the Deep Forest map, in one i tried to force the lag, the other was back at my base (Not much difference, though).

screenshot0001a.png

screenshot0004.png

As i thought, the problem seems to be my crappy GPU, while trying to play the game in such a high res. I'm using windows 7, btw.

EDIT: It's me against Aegis bot.

Edited by Pedro Falcão
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...