Screen Resolutions

  dazza39 08:28 17 Nov 2005

Hi i have the following set up:-

2.6ghz Athlon Processor
FX5200 Graphics card 128Meg
1 Gig RAM
Windows XP Home

Should i be setting this to 16 bit as oppose to 32bit??,reason i ask is because i recently bought the game X3-Reunion and recommended specs are for a HIgh end PC,but i meet the minimum requirement anyway,but game won't play properly,game is "jerky",mouse control has mind of its own.have downloaded latest patch,still no joy.However i have other games on my PC that run no problem.

  Diodorus Siculus 08:35 17 Nov 2005

Could be your graphics card letting you down.

Try at 16 bit and also on a lower resolution.

  dazza39 08:59 17 Nov 2005


Thanks will try that,but if i have the the minimum requirements for a game then it should work.

  gudgulf 09:21 17 Nov 2005

Minimum requirements are just that..........the game will run.

But only at the lowest resolution and detail settings.

Make sure that the game doesn't apply anisotrophic filtration as standard and check that any advanced settings such as dynamic lighting and soft shadows for example (I'm not familiar with the game so I don't know whats there) are switched off.

The problem is that the game makes heavy use of DirectX 9 effects which your graphics card is just not powerful enough to handle.

  dazza39 09:30 17 Nov 2005

Ummm,thanks for that will try,ironically i did have a better graphics card in a 256K Geforce 6200 AGP and still had problems with game,had to change card as it conflicted with Media Player and DVD playback,lol.

  dazza39 09:40 17 Nov 2005

And yet i have the following games installed with no problems playing.

Battlefield 2
Civ IV
Guild Wars
City of Villians
Dungeonseige 2

  ACOLYTE 10:09 17 Nov 2005

I havent played x3 yet but i did play x2 the threat with the same card you have now and it was a real struggle to play,esspecially when there was a lot of action on the screen,i assume the x3 also has the auto set button for the graffix?,same as x2 if it has try turning all those off,and running at 800/600, it should make it a bit better,but as said the card has limited capability so a better card wold get you better results,i got a FX5700 and that ran the x2 game smooth as anything,x2 was also ram hungry so i expect x3 to be as well,try closing all background tasks you dont need before you start the game.

  gudgulf 10:20 17 Nov 2005

It suggests to me that somewhere in the game settings you have one or more details set too high or something such as antialiasing or anisotrophic filtration switched on.

I know it's a pain going through every setting, but it might be an idea to download FRAPS click here so you can display the framerate on screen as you play.

You can then change the settings for the game and see which ones have the greatest effect on your fps.

There will almost certainly be a configuration that will play smoothly.I suggest you set everything as low as possible and switch off as many effects as you can to start with.Use the lowest resolution possible and 16bit colour.Under those setting the game should run easily.

If it does then start icreasing the settings until you get the best balance of appearance/performance.

If on the lowest settings the game is still running poorly then it looks like there is some other problem on your pc.

I have to go out for a couple of hours now,but I'll see if I can find a tweak guide or any specific issues with your card and this game when I get back.

  ACOLYTE 10:40 17 Nov 2005

I have read some reviews for this game and most seem to think the game is buggy and was released to early,with the 1.2 patch released before the game was on the shelf,and the 1.3 patch bieng released later.

"You will need a REALLY FAST computer for this game. To get the most enjoyment your computer should EXCEED the recommended (not the minimum) system requirements. This game also uses STARFORCE protection. If your computer has had issues with this driver, you may wish to skip this one".

That is just one review

I really like Spacesims and have played most of them incl. X and X2. I had a hard time with those games, mainly because there were no real storyline and the controls were kind of unstable. X3 is disappointing in that respect. The story sucks and control of the game is unstable still. The worst thing is, that eventhough the graphics is awesome, so is the hardware requirement. My PC runs FEAR and HL2-Lost Coast on MAX and does it smoothly, but X3 really lags. If you use the time compression (you will wanna do this a lot), it's like running a fast paced slideshow. Maybe I should have been alarmed by the fact that egosoft were putting out the first patch (1.2) before the game hit the shelves and that they in that patch informs us the the next patch (1.3) will come out mid november and solve some of the other problems the game has. This game has come out too early. Back to the drawing board, Egosoft.

Seems its agood game that was put on sale to early.

  dazza39 13:30 17 Nov 2005

Thanks all,i think the game did come out to early and not enough testing was done,thing is i did have a better card installed and it was still buggy even with that,so the issue must be with game itself.I played X2 no problem at all ,so why have Egosoft designed this game the way they have,knowing a lot of people won't have high spec PC's,they should have catered for Mid-range as well,yes i'm dissapointed i paid for this game now,as i can't play properly unless i spend lots of money upgrading.Like i said above with other games above,they run no problems with my current card,i also have latest drivers installed.

  dazza39 14:05 17 Nov 2005

Just been looking on the Forum of X3,seems i'm not the only complaining of the gameplay.With people with similar to mine,so dosen't seem to be a PC issue.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

AMD Radeon Adrenalin release date, new features, compatible graphics cards

Inside the iMac Pro - Apple's most powerful Mac yet

iMac Pro release date, UK price & specs

Football : comment regarder la Ligue 1 en direct ?