Recommended Posts

I just really want the damn beta already :rofl: , because I am curious to what visuals/performance I can expect on my 6850. I am doubting I can get the visual fidelity shown in gameplay videos so far lol.

I found out that 6850 is actually a capable card, it's and overclocking beast! (Extreme OC of 6850 comes very close in performance to a GTX560)

I asked a guy from DICE about this when MoH first came out (BazaJayTee), he told me that you can only play the Beta on whatever platform your brought MoH for.

The beta itself will be an added menu to MoH's main menu itself, so the download launcher is launched from the game, so you'll also need the MoH disc to take part.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I seem to recall seeing a BF3 beta menu in Medal of Honor.

Anyway, some new screenshots: http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/images

a 6850 will be more than enough to run this in high detail. i think a lot of people are thinking this is Frostbite 3.0 when it's actually an upgraded Bad Company 2/Frostbite 2.0+ game. i'm not saying it won't look awesome, but it won't need a monster PC to run nicely.

a 6850 will be more than enough to run this in high detail. i think a lot of people are thinking this is Frostbite 3.0 when it's actually an upgraded Bad Company 2/Frostbite 2.0+ game. i'm not saying it won't look awesome, but it won't need a monster PC to run nicely.

Won't run well with it on high, even my 6870 struggled in the alpha on high. You don't need a monster pc, just a great video card

I found out that 6850 is actually a capable card, it's and overclocking beast! (Extreme OC of 6850 comes very close in performance to a GTX560)

Yeah, I have mine OC'd to 845/1100 effortlessly. My card has one of those nice dual fan coolers too and never even goes above 65 degrees under stress.

Won't run well with it on high, even my 6870 struggled in the alpha on high. You don't need a monster pc, just a great video card

My 6850 ran the alpha fine on high at 1680x1050 at around 40 fps. But the graphics in the alpha are significantly less than what we've seen in other videos, which is why I am curious as to how the actual game will run.

My 6850 ran the alpha fine on high at 1680x1050 at around 40 fps. But the graphics in the alpha are significantly less than what we've seen in other videos, which is why I am curious as to how the actual game will run.

Around 40 fps for online is not acceptable to me, not sure how it is for you. I need at least over 50 fps. It was better in the metro area but at the beginning in the vegetation area is where it hurt the most. Keep in mind that was only rush, not 64 player conquest

Yeah, I have mine OC'd to 845/1100 effortlessly. My card has one of those nice dual fan coolers too and never even goes above 65 degrees under stress.

My 6850 ran the alpha fine on high at 1680x1050 at around 40 fps. But the graphics in the alpha are significantly less than what we've seen in other videos, which is why I am curious as to how the actual game will run.

Just refreshed the gaming rig with some new hardware...core i5 2500k, 6gb ddr3 1600, and a sapphire 6950 2gb toxic...think im all set

I happen to have a 6850 aswell, OC to 830/1050 paired with a X6 @ 3.5 Ghz, I will be running the game at a very modest 1440x900 resolution, also the alpha wasn't optimized either, albeit the better in graphics in beta/final release, I am expecting it to run much better and smoother than alpha.

I expect it to run maxxed out in that resolution @ 50-60 FPS.

I wasn't that impressed with the 360 footage.

The particular scene with the explosion going off in that building with the window blowing out looked significantly weaker than the pc version.

It looked like just a puff of smoke where as the pc had an immense flash/debris as well.

I doubt it will be. I don't think the Battlefield series appeals to the younger masses that buy the new cod games.

ea has already stated they are not trying to compete with mwf3.....makes good sense since 10 year old squeakers outnumber mature players 10 to 1...glad these games appeal to 2 different types of people because sometime i like to hop on and just throw out a few frags without all the ear pain.

I am having an odd feeling that this just might outsell MW3, I am saying this because, all of my friends who are die hard CoD fans are thinking of skipping modern warefare 3 and picking up BF3 for 360 instead, their reasoning being that battlefield 3 has jets, looks more fun, once I showed them game play videos of battlefield 3...

P.S. I said might not will, so I may be wrong.

I wasn't that impressed with the 360 footage.

The particular scene with the explosion going off in that building with the window blowing out looked significantly weaker than the pc version.

It looked like just a puff of smoke where as the pc had an immense flash/debris as well.

Well it bloody aught to look significantly weaker than the PC version.

I mean, you can't seriously have expected much more from the such old hardware.

It looks pretty damn good to me.

Around 40 fps for online is not acceptable to me, not sure how it is for you. I need at least over 50 fps. It was better in the metro area but at the beginning in the vegetation area is where it hurt the most. Keep in mind that was only rush, not 64 player conquest

Ditto. If i am on the PC and playing an FirstPersonShooter I personally go no lower than 60 FPS, and I prefer higher if possible. Back in the BF2 days I specifically purchased a nvidia 6800 ultra to play it at around 90 FPS. And I purposely set settings like shadows to low to get that number. I'm fairly certain I'll be picking up a 580 soon.

A pretty good selection of game modes they have there, though at the end of the day, my heart belongs to Conquest :).

And in my humble opinion, the 360 version looks just fine. Not as nice as the PC version, but that's to be expected. It certainly destroys the 360 version of MW3 in terms of graphics (hell, every version of MW3 for that matter).

I mean, you can't seriously have expected much more from the such old hardware.

Actually, Yea. I did expect a little more than just a puff of smoke.

I'd take the flash off a fire-cracker over that.

Overall it's wasn't a bad showing. That one scene was just the most noticeable for me.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!