belfong on 19/12/2008 at 04:01
Quote Posted by SD
I miss the insane stunt bonuses though.
There are about 50 stunts that you can discover. I have only discover one near Bohan.. 49 to go :D
Matthew on 19/12/2008 at 09:36
Quote Posted by belfong
Thank you Matthew.. this is before VAT?
I would think that it includes VAT; the second price certainly does.
Judith on 19/12/2008 at 16:01
I've been playing this game for a few days now, and I'm surprised that it relies on CPU so heavily. Anyone with dual-core CPU below 2.8 GHz (or not being able to overclock it to such value) should refrain from purchase until they make some kind of a patch (or you change the CPU ;) ).
Maybe it's this Euphoria physics eating up resources so much :confused: Why they didn't program GF 8 cards and newer to handle the physics, just like Nvidia did with PhysX then?
SD on 19/12/2008 at 16:43
Quote Posted by belfong
There are about 50 stunts that you can discover. I have only discover one near Bohan.. 49 to go :D
Yeah, no, I know that, but while there were always pre-set stunts for you to discover, you used to be able to do stunts pretty much anywhere and also get $$$ bonuses for it.
EvaUnit02 on 19/12/2008 at 16:57
Quote Posted by Judith
Maybe it's this Euphoria physics eating up resources so much :confused: Why they didn't program GF 8 cards and newer to handle the physics, just like Nvidia did with PhysX then?
Rockstar would have to recode the physics with an entirely different GPGPU-capable middleware (Nvidia PhysX is more or less the only one), more likely than not from scratch.
Else the developer of Euphoria could code their technology to work on Nvidia CUDA and ATI Stream. But one high profile developer isn't going to convince them to do that without at least co-funding the development. Let's face it, the PC market isn't lucrative enough for a publisher to make that investment.
Judith on 19/12/2008 at 18:29
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Rockstar would have to recode the physics with an entirely different GPGPU-capable middleware (Nvidia PhysX is more or less the only one), more likely than not from scratch.
Else the developer of Euphoria could code their technology to work on Nvidia CUDA and ATI Stream. But one high profile developer isn't going to convince them to do that without at least co-funding the development. Let's face it, the PC market isn't lucrative enough for a publisher to make that investment.
So, it looks like buying the 3 GHz CPU is the only option... Fortunately, they're not that expensive these days.
belfong on 22/12/2008 at 02:26
I have a Core 2 Quad and while the game is smooth for me, I am not entirely convinced that it used beyond 2 cores. I think my other 2 cores are untapped.. I don't have facts to support this - just an odd feeling. How can I tell for sure?
gunsmoke on 22/12/2008 at 03:00
um, windows task manager?
EvaUnit02 on 23/12/2008 at 04:08
(
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43929.html?type=) GTA4: PC vs 360 video comparison
The framerate of the PC version looked shocking at times, they really did a bad job optimising it. A PC with those specs would eat Crysis for dinner.
Thirith on 23/12/2008 at 08:55
Not wanting to defend Rockstar's port too much, but I get the impression from forum posts that relatively small changes in your hardware (e.g. Nvidia instead of ATI) can already make a huge difference.
It's running well on my E8400/GTX 260 setup and I didn't pay that much for the upgrade, all things considered. But it really seems to be a crap shoot...
