Highly unscientific BF1942 benchmarks

[oingoboingo]

I picked up a copy of the Mac edition of Battlefield 1942 during the week, and I've had a little bit of time to get some very raw and incomplete performance figures (although I figure something is better than nothing). I won't say anything about the game itself, since as far as I can tell it is a 100% faithful port of the PC version. If you want a gameplay review, there were many good reviews written of the PC game when it was first released.

My system is a 1.6GHz G5, with a 64MB Radeon 9600 Pro, and 1.25GB RAM. I also have a Rev C 12" PowerBook and I'll be testing that system soon, but this limited set of data is for the G5 only. OK...as far as I can tell there isn't a benchmarking script for BF1942, so I've had to rely on the unscientific method of getting the FPS counter up on screen and watching how that behaves out of the corner of my eye while I play the game. You can get the FPS counter and onscreen graph to display by hitting '`' to bring up the console, then typing 'fps 1' (both without the quotes).

Settings for all benchmarks were sound quality at 22KHz and all other sound settings as per defaults, single-player map 'Battleaxe', with AI set to 'Hard'. Video quality settings were all set to 'High'...basically all video quality settings were maxed out I only varied resolution.

- For 1600x1200x32, FPS seemed to vary from around 8 FPS up to around 20 FPS, with the average looking to be around 14 FPS.

- For 1280x1024x32, much the same story.

- And finally, for 1024x768x32...almost the same story.

Well that was fun :) Looks like the game, at the settings I used at least, is CPU limited. Even when cutting the resolution fromn 1600x1200 down to 1024x768, there didn't seem to be a great speedup...average FPS (as determined by my highly scientific eyeballs) seemed to stay around the 14 to 16 FPS range, no matter what the resolution setting.

Anyway, as I mentioned, these are obviously very incomplete, very unscientific tests, but I thought I'd give people an idea how the game plays on the bottom-rung of the G5 family at least. More benchmarks to come, and I'll try out the 12" PowerBook too.

If anyone knows of an automated benchmarking method for BF1942 I'd like to try that out also...simply monitoring the FPS counter by eye isn't a really great way to benchmark.

[bousozoku]

That's too bad. It sounds like pretty sloppy coding and that they probably didn't take advantage of AltiVec either.

Still, it might improve a lot with the first patch.

Hope you enjoy it anyway.

[oingoboingo]

That's too bad. It sounds like pretty sloppy coding and that they probably didn't take advantage of AltiVec either.

Still, it might improve a lot with the first patch.

Hope you enjoy it anyway.

I've just been playing around with the texture detail settings and shadows, and it looks like dropping texture detail down a notch or two and turning shadows off makes a big difference. It might take a bit of experimentation to find a combination of video quality, video resolution and computer AI settings which result in smooth gameplay. Kind of dreading what the benchmarks will look like on the PowerBook though...

[FasterSoonerNow]

I've just been playing around with the texture detail settings and shadows, and it looks like dropping texture detail down a notch or two and turning shadows off makes a big difference. It might take a bit of experimentation to find a combination of video quality, video resolution and computer AI settings which result in smooth gameplay. Kind of dreading what the benchmarks will look like on the PowerBook though...

Why would you try it out on a 12" PB anyway?

I don't think the main reason behind a purchase of that model is gaming.

Give it a go on a 15" or 17" with the faster (5400rpm) hard drive, and the upgraded VRAM (128 ghz) and it'll probably run beautifully.

[oingoboingo]

Why would you try it out on a 12" PB anyway?

I don't think the main reason behind a purchase of that model is gaming.

Give it a go on a 15" or 17" with the faster (5400rpm) hard drive, and the upgraded VRAM (128 ghz) and it'll probably run beautifully.

Because I already own a 12" PowerBook and I'd like to know how the game I've just purchased runs on it? ;)

I see your point though. I didn't buy the 12" PowerBook as a gaming rig...it's the machine that goes to university and my part-time job with me for regular MS Office and coding type stuff, and relaxes on the couch with me for some wireless web surfing and e-mail writing. If I'm going to play games on a Mac, then the G5 is used, and there's an Xbox stuck under the TV for drunken bouts of Midtown Madness and co-op Halo with friends. If I was after a gaming notebook and wanted to stay with Apple, yes, I would have bought a 15" or 17" system.

But the point remains...I do own both a 1.33GHz 12" PowerBook, and a new copy of Battlefield 1942. Why not mix the two together and see how it goes? I'm sure there will be people interested.

[zakee00]

that is really terrible. its not the developers faults, at least not aspyr's. they do a good job of porting games. the original game didnt work as well as it should have on the pc. it is the fault of apple and IBM. that 1.6 GHz G5 will blow though photoshop and FC, but it cant play BF1942 decently. If you tried playing that game on the new dual 2.5GHz powermacs with that same 9600, it would probably run WAYYY better (obviously). it isnt the 9600 either, otherwise lowering the res would have caused a dramatic fps increase. i have a 9600 pro 128mb in my pc, which is an 800MHz PIII (384mb of RAM). i run battlefield on all highest, 1280x1024 and it runs alright, better than ur rig is going. that is sad. in my rig it is also processor (and memory) limited, lowering the graphics dosnt improve the fps very much. anyway, i WISH that apple and ibm would hurry up and put faster G5's (2.8,3GHZ) in theyre computers(powermac AND iMac)...because in the gaming world, more MHz=more proformance sadly :(
and im not anti mac at all, i LOVE my powerbook and ipod :D when my PB gets back from being repaired, BF1942 will be waiting, i hope it works alright :o

[bousozoku]

that is really terrible. its not the developers faults, at least not aspyr's. they do a good job of porting games. the original game didnt work as well as it should have on the pc. it is the fault of apple and IBM. that 1.6 GHz G5 will blow though photoshop and FC, but it cant play BF1942 decently.
...


It is the original development team's fault that they're so sloppy. Apple has little control over poor coding. Their work with gcc to automatically vectorise code (AltiVec-enable) should help. It may help, but I doubt it's going to make up for pathetic or mediocre code. Hopefully, patches from Aspyr will streamline the code.

[Ninja_Turtle]

all you can hope for is an update for the game...most of these things are fixed, so just wait... :)

[ddtlm]

bousozoku:

It sounds like pretty sloppy coding and that they probably didn't take advantage of AltiVec either.
It may help, but I doubt it's going to make up for pathetic or mediocre code.
99% of the code is likely not changed from the PC version. The G5 is a processor that should require no hand-holding at all, and if it does, then IBM and/or Apple have some explaining to do. Mega superscalar, out-of-order executing, pretty high clocking, super bandwidth...

Anyway I'd be interested to hear about realistic online play scenarios... 1024x768, 30+ real players, etc.

[hvfsl]

Try turning off sound, I bet you will see a big increase in fps. Macs don't have hardware sound cards, so all the sound work has to be done on the cpu.

[Jigglelicious]

It is the original development team's fault that they're so sloppy. Apple has little control over poor coding. Their work with gcc to automatically vectorise code (AltiVec-enable) should help. It may help, but I doubt it's going to make up for pathetic or mediocre code. Hopefully, patches from Aspyr will streamline the code.

AltiVec has nothing to do with games. 3d games are 100% FPU, and so a vector unit would have nothing to do in that case. Battlefield was actually coded very well, at least for its original incarnation. I'm not sure what differences were made when ported to the Mac, but you shouldn't blame the original developer for a mac port that they did not make.

[bousozoku]

AltiVec has nothing to do with games. 3d games are 100% FPU, and so a vector unit would have nothing to do in that case. Battlefield was actually coded very well, at least for its original incarnation. I'm not sure what differences were made when ported to the Mac, but you shouldn't blame the original developer for a mac port that they did not make.

Tell id Software that AltiVec has nothing to do with games. They seem to take advantage of it and dual processors just fine.

There seem to be differing views on whether it worked well or not originally. Perhaps, it doesn't run too well on 2 GHz x86 machines either.

ddtim:

99 percent of sloppy coding is still sloppy coding. A 3 GHz clockspeed can soak up quite a lot more slop than a 1.6 - 2.0 can. The PPC970 is a capable processor, but even the best isn't going to do its best with poor code.

[yamabushi]

ddtim:
99 percent of sloppy coding is still sloppy coding. A 3 GHz clockspeed can soak up quite a lot more slop than a 1.6 - 2.0 can. The PPC970 is a capable processor, but even the best isn't going to do its best with poor code.
A dual 2.5 +NV6800 would be a brute force solution. It should be about three times as powerful as this test system. A lot of money just play games, though.

[applekid]

Try turning off sound, I bet you will see a big increase in fps. Macs don't have hardware sound cards, so all the sound work has to be done on the cpu.

I've read sound doesn't take up that much processing power. UT2K4 is a different story, but it usually is supposed to take up only about 2%.

I would recommend turning off shadows. I would also recommend just using the default settings. The game should automatically match up to your system's configuration. Also, lower the amount of bots. Those bots will eat up your processor for sure. Play it online, the preferred way.

BF1942 is definitely a processor intensive game. Check the minimum system requirements. You need at least a 867 MHz G4. Much higher than the old 500 MHz or 800 MHz we used to be getting. Apple needs to pick up the pace with newer Macs, preferably the iMac. We are getting dangerously close to having slow processors and fast processors that are expensive.

I believe BF1942 was coded well and this was a decent port. People seem to be not having much trouble. I think the higher resolutions are also murdering performance. And the amount of bots you're playing with seems to have a very big effect.

[bousozoku]

A dual 2.5 +NV6800 would be a brute force solution. It should be about three times as powerful as this test system. A lot of money just play games, though.

People pay a lot of money to have the biggest, fastest rig. Of course, they have to ride their bike to their job because they can't afford a car. :D

[kuyu]

I am interested in the 12" pbook rev C. How's the game look/play on your powerbook? How's the FPS? Is the game playable, or too choppy? How about on the web? FPS on the internet?

Thx
:)

[oingoboingo]

I am interested in the 12" pbook rev C. How's the game look/play on your powerbook? How's the FPS? Is the game playable, or too choppy? How about on the web? FPS on the internet?

Thx
:)

Sorry, been too busy with other stuff...will get some 12" PB benchmarks done soon. :)

[aswitcher]

Sorry, been too busy with other stuff...will get some 12" PB benchmarks done soon. :)

Would love to see specs on how it runs on the latest 17" PB with HDD and VRAM upgrades...

[yamabushi]

Try turning off sound, I bet you will see a big increase in fps. Macs don't have hardware sound cards, so all the sound work has to be done on the cpu.
You can buy a hardware sound card if you like. I suggest the M-Audio Revolution 7.1 (http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=products.main&ID=0ed0405324041d8025a955aa6ae2db1c).

[aldo]

bousozoku:



99% of the code is likely not changed from the PC version. The G5 is a processor that should require no hand-holding at all, and if it does, then IBM and/or Apple have some explaining to do. Mega superscalar, out-of-order executing, pretty high clocking, super bandwidth...

Anyway I'd be interested to hear about realistic online play scenarios... 1024x768, 30+ real players, etc.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The reason games take so long is because there is SO much code that needs changed. It has to go from directX to openGL. It's a huge project.

This is also why mac gaming sucks, and is going to get worse and worse. Games are getting more DirectX-ified every day and that means to port them takes more and more and more work for worse and worse results.

I'm sure in the future we will see Mac gaming slowly die, like it is now. The userbase is there but the technology is not. Apple has never really supported game developers (unlike Microsoft - give them their due, they have added so many great things for game developers) like they should, and could have. It's all too late now, though.

[Coolvirus007]

what? pc games like half-life and cs run way better on OpenGL.

[Timelessblur]

I might like to part of his problems is his graphic card. It a very poor graphic card for gaming. You need pretty much doulbe it mem up to 128. There is a notic diffence when you make that jump

[applekid]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The reason games take so long is because there is SO much code that needs changed. It has to go from directX to openGL. It's a huge project.

This is also why mac gaming sucks, and is going to get worse and worse. Games are getting more DirectX-ified every day and that means to port them takes more and more and more work for worse and worse results.

I'm sure in the future we will see Mac gaming slowly die, like it is now. The userbase is there but the technology is not. Apple has never really supported game developers (unlike Microsoft - give them their due, they have added so many great things for game developers) like they should, and could have. It's all too late now, though.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!, as one would say it.

We had a nice conversation on IMG with a few developers at porting companies about how much time is taken for ports and what takes the longest time, etc. Here's the conversation: http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16158

In a nutshell, not that much time is taken for turning DirectX calls to OpenGL calls for most games. It's usually stomping bugs and making the game compatible across many systems that takes time.

It's still not too late for Apple to push game developers. It still isn't really in their interest to push game developers anyway. Microsoft has a game studio, so of course it wants to push it hard and make it easy to develop a game. A-rate games don't sell that much in the Mac market. It's only in the tens of thousands. Not very high when it can sell a million on the PC. The Mac game market still has room to grow. Sales of games on the Mac are steadily rising, not dropping.

The hardware is still not here at an affordable amount. You really want a G5 if you want to do any serious gaming on the Mac. You hear too many people complain about a game not working when their system is the minimum requirements. Well, duh, it's not going to play great.

The Mac gaming market will die when the PC gaming market dies. PC games are not selling as well as they used to. Consoles own the gaming market.

[kuyu]

The whole mac gaming argument comes down to price. I great gaming mac is $2500. A great gaming pc is $1500.

Mac's are better at EVERYTHING but games. It costs too much to get a good gaming mac, where a pc is affordable, even with new tech.

I recommend both. A mac is your computer, email, web, word proc, photo, video, and audio rig. A pc is for games and viruses.

I was going to buy a powerbook, but my emac 700 does everything I need a computer for except games. So there really isn't a reason for me to get a new mac. I'd take a decent pc running winblows + an HDTV over a G5.

However, I'm a gamer (have all three consoles) and mac's aren't good for that. From the "gamer" perspective, it's great to have both. Play games on the pc, do everything else on a 2 year old mac.

[shortyjj]

I'm another new 12" owner who's interested to see how this game plays. Please post some numbers before I drop $50 and end up regretting it.

(Even Neverwinter Nights, with low system reqs, can run REALLY slow)

[WALoeIII]

Don't get me wrong - I love my PB just as much as the next guy. But gaming on the Mac is a joke. There are no games and what games there are are just poor ports.

For 700 you can build an Athon 2600-M and OC to ~ 3400+ speeds (2.6-2.7 Ghz). With 1GB of Low Latency DDR RAM and a 9800 Pro you have yourself a gaming box that can run BF1942 at max res and quality.

[gorman]

On my Powerbook Ti 15" 1Ghz/1GB RAM/Mobility 9000, I get 30FPS with everything on the highest level of detail at 800x600. If I bump stuff down, I could probably hit 1024x768 fairly well. I wish it ran at the display's native resolution, but I didn't expect that given my CPU and video card.

The game is amazing though, and worth every cent. Awesome work to Aspyr, as this is a quality port. It's very fast loading (given my configuration), hasn't crashed, and is fully compatible with PC-based servers. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some planes to parachute out of ;)

[oingoboingo]

Next set of benchmarks, still on my G5 system. Still on single-player mode, on the Battleaxe map. This time though I've made sure the number of bots was set at 100%, and the computer was set to only spend the default amount of time on AI (20%). All graphics detail settings were set to 'Low', or turned off completely. Scores are:

1600x1200x32: ~ 30 fps
1280x1024x32: ~ 30-35 fps
1024x768x32: ~ 40-45 fps

So, much improved scores by dropping the number of bots (previous tests were done with 200% number of bots, I realised), and stripping back all the graphical detail. More scores to come...I will re-do the original scores so that the bot count is even with what I have used in this set of tests. Remember that the FPS counts are very raw...I'm just running around taking pot-shots at bots, while keeping an eye on the FPS counter and keeping a kind of mental running average. Your mileage may vary.

[kuyu]

I just ordered a gaming pc. I wanted a mac, but my emac does everything I need except games. So, I had to go with a pc and winblows (eck).

Anyway here's my setup.

Midtower w/ clear side, sound reactive neon, 400 W PWS
MSI k8t "neo" board w/ VIA chipset
Athlon 64-bit 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
1 GB PC3200
ATI X800 w/ 256 Mb GDDR3 (better than nvidia 6800 and HD!!!)
80 GB Seagate barracuda (intend to RAID)
8x DVD+/-RW
19" flat CRT
XP Pro

all this for $1,500 ($1,600 after RAID). Not bad at all (except for XP). My old pc has XP and it's frustrating to no end. Ah well, far cry will be cool.

[Foxer]

I just ordered a gaming pc. I wanted a mac, but my emac does everything I need except games. So, I had to go with a pc and winblows (eck).

Anyway here's my setup.

Midtower w/ clear side, sound reactive neon, 400 W PWS
MSI k8t "neo" board w/ VIA chipset
Athlon 64-bit 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
1 GB PC3200
ATI X800 w/ 256 Mb GDDR3 (better than nvidia 6800 and HD!!!)
80 GB Seagate barracuda (intend to RAID)
8x DVD+/-RW
19" flat CRT
XP Pro

all this for $1,500 ($1,600 after RAID). Not bad at all (except for XP). My old pc has XP and it's frustrating to no end. Ah well, far cry will be cool.

I've often thought of building a gaming PC. How much would this cost without the fancy case and DVD writer? What if I wanted to hook up to my airport network.

[applekid]

Next set of benchmarks, still on my G5 system. Still on single-player mode, on the Battleaxe map. This time though I've made sure the number of bots was set at 100%, and the computer was set to only spend the default amount of time on AI (20%). All graphics detail settings were set to 'Low', or turned off completely. Scores are:

1600x1200x32: ~ 30 fps
1280x1024x32: ~ 30-35 fps
1024x768x32: ~ 40-45 fps

So, much improved scores by dropping the number of bots (previous tests were done with 200% number of bots, I realised), and stripping back all the graphical detail. More scores to come...I will re-do the original scores so that the bot count is even with what I have used in this set of tests. Remember that the FPS counts are very raw...I'm just running around taking pot-shots at bots, while keeping an eye on the FPS counter and keeping a kind of mental running average. Your mileage may vary.

Try bringing the graphics details up now. I really think the CPU was lagging because of the number of bots and caused the whole game to be choppy. It's not very graphics intensive, IMHO.

[shortyjj]

I've often thought of building a gaming PC. How much would this cost without the fancy case and DVD writer? What if I wanted to hook up to my airport network.

Perhaps start this as a different thread, in which is discussed different options, pricing and such?

[kuyu]

For great prices and fast shipping on anything that uses electricity, try www.newegg.com.

I saved about $300 on my system through them. :)

[Timelessblur]

I think part of the problem on the bad graphic is the graphic card. 64 meg graphic card = bad for games. I think people are forgeting about that. The processor can only make up so much for a very weak graphic card. (a 9600XT 128meg would impove it a noticible amount)

[yamabushi]

Try bringing the graphics details up now. I really think the CPU was lagging because of the number of bots and caused the whole game to be choppy. It's not very graphics intensive, IMHO.
Since frame rates are reduced signifcantly at higher resolutions the graphics card is part of the problem. I think around 60fps at max quality should be the ultimate goal. When frame rates are around 30-45fps at modest resolutions and detail settings you have no choice but to make trade offs and live with them or upgrade your hardware.

I think part of the problem on the bad graphic is the graphic card. 64 meg graphic card = bad for games. I think people are forgeting about that. The processor can only make up so much for a very weak graphic card. (a 9600XT 128meg would impove it a noticible amount)
I think a Radeon 9800 of some kind (such as the special edition 256MB) would produce a more noticeable improvement. It probably isn't worth it to go with a NV6800 in a single 1.6 G5 since the game would still be very cpu limited at that point.

[oingoboingo]

I think a Radeon 9800 of some kind (such as the special edition 256MB) would produce a more noticeable improvement. It probably isn't worth it to go with a NV6800 in a single 1.6 G5 since the game would still be very cpu limited at that point.

Great idea! I'll be taking donations through my PayPal account to replace my Radeon 9600 with a GeForce FX 6800. It's only AU $1099!!!

By the way, if anyone is interested I posted a set of benchmarks for the 1.33GHz 12" PowerBook in another thread in the gaming forum.

[ddtlm]

Timelessblur:

I think part of the problem on the bad graphic is the graphic card. 64 meg graphic card = bad for games. I think people are forgeting about that. The processor can only make up so much for a very weak graphic card. (a 9600XT 128meg would impove it a noticible amount)
You don't realize what a weak graphics card is, apparently. For months I played BF1942 on a laptop with a 2.2ghz P4 and Radeon 7500, 32MB. Played alright most of the time, though sometimes it got so hot I could hardly keep my left hand on it. I sold that thing, learned a lesson, I did! :D

From experience, 64MB is plenty for BF1942, and so are Athlons at least down to 1.4ghz, on nothing more than single-channel DDR-266.

[Timelessblur]

I've often thought of building a gaming PC. How much would this cost without the fancy case and DVD writer? What if I wanted to hook up to my airport network.


You can build one for 1grand with everythign you need for gaming. well make it 1100 since i adding in the extra 100 for a wireless G card.

[kuyu]

You can build one for 1grand with everythign you need for gaming. well make it 1100 since i adding in the extra 100 for a wireless G card.

Yep, it's cheap. The only reason mine cost 1500 is the $450 video card. I want to play half-life 2 though.

[CmdrLaForge]

Hi,

is there any chance that the game is fun with the min requirements ? I have a iBook G3 900MHz and I am interested in the game.

The min specs are:

* Mac OS X 10.2.8
* PowerPC G3/G4/G5 with min. 700 MHz
* 256 MB RAM
* 1.6 GB hard drive
* 3D-Grafikkarte with 32 MB (ATI Radeon 7500, nVidia GeForce 2 or better)
* DVD-drive

Anyone with experience ?

Cheers
CmdrLaForge

[applekid]

Stay away, unless you want to play at the lowest settings and have only the minimum number of bots. (It's like 2 bots on your team and 4 for opponents).

I don't know how it'll be online (since there where the fun is), but I highly doubt it will be enjoyable.

[dpaste]

It's a real bummer about the preformance of BF1942. I've got a G4 Dual 500 with Radeon 8500 and a 1.5 gigs of ram and the game is basically unplayable compared to my PC experience on some cheesy Sony laptop. I'm mostly bummed for dedicated Mac users because I dont think they'll ever know what fun BF1942 and Desert Combat are to play online.

Do you guys think the new 2.5 G5's will be powerful enough to run Virtual PC and still play games like Half-Life 2 and Battlefiled 2? I doubt it but I ask because I'm about to buy a new machine and I might also be forced into buying a PC gamming machine to serve my time wasting needs since my G4 is still very capable for doing the serious stuff.

Also, has anyone else who's played FPS on a PC and MAC noticed a strange lack of mouse accuracy in the MAC version of their game? When I play on the MAC, with the same mouse and settings, my crosshairs almost seem to snap from one spot to the next like they're on a Photoshop grid or something. It's a very subtle difference but when long distance aiming/accuracy comes into play it's a critical detail I quickly notice.

[applekid]

It's a real bummer about the preformance of BF1942. I've got a G4 Dual 500 with Radeon 8500 and a 1.5 gigs of ram and the game is basically unplayable compared to my PC experience on some cheesy Sony laptop. I'm mostly bummed for dedicated Mac users because I dont think they'll ever know what fun BF1942 and Desert Combat are to play online.

Do you guys think the new 2.5 G5's will be powerful enough to run Virtual PC and still play games like Half-Life 2 and Battlefiled 2? I doubt it but I ask because I'm about to buy a new machine and I might also be forced into buying a PC gamming machine to serve my time wasting needs since my G4 is still very capable for doing the serious stuff.

Also, has anyone else who's played FPS on a PC and MAC noticed a strange lack of mouse accuracy in the MAC version of their game? When I play on the MAC, with the same mouse and settings, my crosshairs almost seem to snap from one spot to the next like they're on a Photoshop grid or something. It's a very subtle difference but when long distance aiming/accuracy comes into play it's a critical detail I quickly notice.

That CPU is definitely not going to be able to handle BF1942. I don't think it's multiple processor aware anyway. Remember, Dual 500 MHz does not equal 1 GHz.

I'd say no about VPC. DirectX support is just utter crap in VPC. There's no way to go directly to the graphics card and treat it as PC hardware which is murder. Unless, by some miracle, MS makes it near-perfect to a real PC, I doubt VPC will ever be that good. Too much is emulated making it too slow.

I'm pretty sure your frame rates on the PC are somewhere way above 30 FPS (say at least 60) and on the Mac, it's below 30 FPS. Choppy frame rates make choppy cursor movement.

[ddtlm]

dpaste:

Do you guys think the new 2.5 G5's will be powerful enough to run Virtual PC and still play games like Half-Life 2 and Battlefiled 2?
No chance. Not only is your graphics driver not going to work too well but you'd be running non-native code... people bitch about the speed of ports to Mac, imagine running code that hasn't been ported. ;)

[aussiemac86]

Im fairly ignorant about this stuff, but i am about to get a dual 2.5 and probably BF1942, so anyway:

In BF1942 when playing online can mac users play against PC users?, ie are there seperate mac servers?

[oingoboingo]

Im fairly ignorant about this stuff, but i am about to get a dual 2.5 and probably BF1942, so anyway:

In BF1942 when playing online can mac users play against PC users?, ie are there seperate mac servers?

There is no problem playing against PC users. BF1942 is platform agnostic when it comes to network play.

[aussiemac86]

There is no problem playing against PC users. BF1942 is platform agnostic when it comes to network play.


Sounds good, so i take it that means more servers for us here down under? lower ping rates etc?

[brap]

Battlefield was actually coded very well, at least for its original incarnation.
No.

No, no, no.
The original (PC) incarnation has been patched, patched, patched and patched some more to try and get rid of some of the horrible bugs. I bought it the week it came out (thanks to the demo) and was in a community screaming at Dice for version 1.1, 1.2... they still didn't fix all the sound bugs with patch 1.3. Smacks of sloppy coding to me.

[oingoboingo]

Sounds good, so i take it that means more servers for us here down under? lower ping rates etc?

Yep, I've played BF1942 on Telstra, iHug and Xtra servers (I think Xtra might be in NZ...I used to play MOH:AA on their servers when I had a PC a while back and pings were always good), and you get decent pings on all of them (I'm on Swiftel ADSL, in NSW).

Apply the Desert Combat mods (I think it works on the Mac version too) and there will be even more local servers to play on.