That's ENOUGH!(Xbox and Halo 2 Vista)

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:05 pm

cryticfarm wrote:Also, Havok is an physics engine, if it's so sucky why do you see it in 3d studio max? And what does havok have to do with making custom bsp's?

cuz we cant recalculate the coll and phmo. and its not sucky. bungies version of it had many bugs.

Cryticfarm · Post by **Cryticfarm** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:08 pm

Maybe some how make some SUPER MODDING APP so you can do all that recalculating ****.

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:10 pm

cryticfarm wrote:Maybe some how make some SUPER MODDING APP so you can do all that recalculating ****.

we dont know how to recalculate it though.. so we cant.

EDIT: Also to Detox, i roughly understand how Havok works. and thats why i thought you were right about the physics meta thing. cuz everywere an object with collsion meets another, there is a VERY small line of non collision. so i figured when you posted that a long time ago that it made perfect sense. you fall, a glitch pushes you into that small line... and the force of the objects pushing together forced you into the air.

warlord · Post by **warlord** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:54 pm

AFuzySquirrel wrote:
cryticfarm wrote:Also, Havok is an physics engine, if it's so sucky why do you see it in 3d studio max? And what does havok have to do with making custom bsp's?
cuz we cant recalculate the coll and phmo. and its not sucky. bungies version of it had many bugs.

It isnt even bungies....they paid for a licence to use the physics engine the only halo game with their custom physics is in halo 1.

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:58 pm

warlord wrote:
AFuzySquirrel wrote:
cryticfarm wrote:Also, Havok is an physics engine, if it's so sucky why do you see it in 3d studio max? And what does havok have to do with making custom bsp's?
cuz we cant recalculate the coll and phmo. and its not sucky. bungies version of it had many bugs.
It isnt even bungies....they paid for a licence to use the physics engine the only halo game with their custom physics is in halo 1.

but they extremely edited it. so it had a few bugs.

Prey · Post by **Prey** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:35 pm

Havok do Physics. That's it. They are a huge company, dedicated to making the most realistic physics possible, for use in games across all platforms. But just because they have it all down in one engine, doesn't mean you can just slot that engine in somewhere in code and blam it works... No, each game follows it's own/a format, and so the physics engine must be tailored to fit with that design.

Obviously somewhere along the line something was missed/overlooked and we got 'superbounces'. It wasn't necessarily Bungie's fault, we already know they were stretched for time...and it's not like Havok don't help you implement the physics anyway >_>

And crytic your making no sense at all, you don't 'see it in 3d studio max', you see just the model. As for making a 'SUPER MODDING APP so you can do all that recalculating ****', do you think it is that easy? These things have to be programmed you know <_<

kornman00 · Post by **kornman00** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:48 pm

AFuzySquirrel wrote: but they extremely edited it. so it had a few bugs.

What the hell, they didn't barely touch the actual Havok codebase. Its called IMPLEMENTING and its what you do with 3rd party SDKs with your company's engine.

And nothing is ever going to be bug freaking free in the game world. Bungie can't view the entire Havok source tree to try and fix any problems that may be caused on Havok's part. Havok does provide you with a great deal of the actual source upon request, but not ALL of it.

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:02 pm

i still dont see why this argument is still going on... the guy asked why h2v needs so much power

and i said its basically cause the port had fixes and they didnt need to make it so it was based on a single platform. thats why it takes power.

im not the genious on havok. nor am i claiming i am... alll i did was give a possible explanantion as i said before.

it seems as this thread has turned into pointless bashing. im not saying anybody is an idiot im not saying im the smartest guy in the world. i just tried to help this guy understand in which we got way off topic.

Cryticfarm · Post by **Cryticfarm** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:27 pm

Meh, they hsoul dhave sticked to there custom physics engine, were they're any super bounces in halo 1? I don't think so.

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:45 pm

cryticfarm wrote:Meh, they hsoul dhave sticked to there custom physics engine, were they're any super bounces in halo 1? I don't think so.

isnt that kind of pointless to say now? its 4 years after the game.

Pakundo · Post by **Pakundo** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:06 pm

You know what?
I've became smarter by your arguments, and exactly THEM
bring me to another question:

Do you know about that Wow Loader?
Do you know it's virtually letting you play the Campaign
on XP?
Then, if we use it, we won't need AS much as RAM that we would have needed in Vista.

And to tell you the truth, I hardly belive fixing the Physics require any
MORE better computing processor, and I hardly belive that bigger bitmaps UPTO 2 times size(and by the way there are FEW of them)should require an IMMENSLY more powerful graphical card to run it as efficently as the Xbox did.

My conclusions are: Microsoft, NO DOUBT, FORCE us into buying some of there most new products if we "really" are Halo fans, but just don't have an Xbox or 360.

You know what else?
I'm... SURE if they made an exact port of H2...Vista, then:
1. the Xbox couldn't even run the main menu,
2. the 360 would run like: frame..........frame...............frame...........
and so on...

I belive MY point in this matter has been cleared.

warlord · Post by **warlord** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:06 am

You still don't get it do you?
Windows Vista has alot more things going on in the background processes than windows XP Therefore It will drain more RAM the higher the bitmap resolution the higher the bitmap file size therefore increasing the need for higher specification computers.

Pakundo · Post by **Pakundo** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:58 am

warlord wrote:You still don't get it do you?
Windows Vista has alot more things going on in the background processes than windows XP Therefore It will drain more RAM the higher the bitmap resolution the higher the bitmap file size therefore increasing the need for higher specification computers.

OK! I DO get it.
did you skip the part where I mentioned the Wow loader?

Pakundo · Post by **Pakundo** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:59 am

Pakundo wrote:You know what?
I've became smarter by your arguments, and exactly THEM
bring me to another question:

Do you know about that Wow Loader?
Do you know it's virtually letting you play the Campaign
on XP?
Then, if we use it, we won't need AS much as RAM that we would have needed in Vista.
And to tell you the truth, I hardly belive fixing the Physics require any
MORE better computing processor, and I hardly belive that bigger bitmaps UPTO 2 times size(and by the way there are FEW of them)should require an IMMENSLY more powerful graphical card to run it as efficently as the Xbox did.

My conclusions are: Microsoft, NO DOUBT, FORCE us into buying some of there most new products if we "really" are Halo fans, but just don't have an Xbox or 360.

You know what else?
I'm... SURE if they made an exact port of H2...Vista, then:
1. the Xbox couldn't even run the main menu,
2. the 360 would run like: frame..........frame...............frame...........
and so on...

I belive MY point in this matter has been cleared.

kornman00 · Post by **kornman00** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:19 am

That is where your wrong. Your assuming the Wow loader and its dependents don't have any impact on system resources when used, which is wrong.

The graphics card on the xbox is optimized just for that set of hardware. Its going to be able to do the things it does better compared to say a Geforce 3 plugged into a desktop. Couple that hardware optimization with the optimizations that the compiler can make on a game for the xbox, and of course its going to run pretty fucking smooth on the box, compared to some PC.

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:34 am

Your also wrong about fixing things... im not just talking about physics either.

its because they changd the game a lot, if they didnt make any changes then it would probrably be a direct port game just like halo 1. but when they were making all these changes they didnt have to optimize any code for specicfic hardware so they didnt. Also (correct me if im wrong) i believe that the header sizes were changed, so maybe other major things we dont know about yet?

and yes it does use less ram in the wow loader because vista has much more running in the background, 512mb of ram is always going to be used primalily for the OS

My conclusions are: Microsoft, NO DOUBT, FORCE us into buying some of there most new products if we "really" are Halo fans, but just don't have an Xbox or 360.

now i do agree with you there. and honestly. if your were a big enough halo fan (like me) you'd get both for xbox and vista.

EDIT: and bitmap sizes do affect ram. try playing at a higher resolution setting. its technically the same effect.

Patrickssj6 · Post by **Patrickssj6** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:09 am

This topic is basically senseless...so many people have no idea what they are talking about and make assumptions, Korn or Xbox7887 have to correct in the end.

Also, a Core2Duo or any other Dual Core is not high-end anymore. If I buy today a Computer for 500 Euros, Dual Core and 1.5-2GB RAM are standard.

Take it or leave it. It's that easy.

Pakundo · Post by **Pakundo** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:21 am

First of all, I KNOW the Wow loader has an impact, and that it isn't working as perfect replacement, and STILL, it still wouldn't need just as much as RAM as it would have needed in Vista...

AFuzySquirrel wrote: If your were a big enough halo fan (like me) you'd get both for Xbox and Vista.

Assuming I'd be 18+ and had the money to buy them...
But let's not get into that.

I UNDERSTAND that this game is far from a direct port.
I already knew that.

The thing that bothers me, ASIDE from the fact Halo 2 Vista SHOULD have been made to work with XP JUST as Vista, like some other games, even Bioshock(That by the way has close requirements and it has an Xbox 360 version, UNLIKE Halo 2 which was originally made for the ORIGINAL Xbox), is that EVEN though bigger bitmaps would require more RAM and possible a better graphical card, I STILL find it hard(at least for me)to belive that more than 1 GB RAM(assuming it runs on XP) and an nVidia 6100 is necessery.

the idea that in Consoles the games are 100% optimized to the consoles is clear to me, and still there are many games out there for the PC, written well and do not require so much...

You know what?
Take for an example FarCry.
Originally a PC game, it's Xbox counterpart is basicly almost identical, and the requirements AREN'T gicantic, infact, they're reasnoble.

AFuzySquirrel · Post by **AFuzySquirrel** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:31 am

well the ram is for the most part because of th evista enviornment... vistas minimum ram is 512mb.

and no im not 18 having both games. im 15. why its not vista compatible? obviously because everyone has a problem with vista so they made it so you have to get it ne ways.

really i dont see the big deal of this post.. h2v's requirements arent that bad. an everyday machine has them. newer machines ne ways.

physics changes = more cpu power
bitmaps = more graphics + ram
halo 2 xbox runs at 640x480 wile h2v runs 800x600 minimum
vista uses 512mb of ram just to run.

all together it makes sense to me

Also Core2Duo is WAY different than i dual core x86 processor. they are complete different architectures. Core2 = x64 Dual Core = x86

a CoreDuo is standard. not Core2Duo. and my processor is model QX6700 which is Core2Extreme. Technically its a Core2Duo but with better specs.

Patrickssj6 · Post by **Patrickssj6** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:13 pm

You guys got to be fucking kidding me...

Stats on my bro's comp:

WinXP SP 2 (WoW Loader)
1Ghz AMD Sempron
~750 MB RAM
GeForce 6200

I played it on high and it IS playable...I don't know how it will play on my X2 3800+ 2GB 8600GT but neither system are up-to-date.

Once again....take it or leave it.

Core2 = x64 Dual Core = x86

Sorry? I didn't know my X2 3800+ uses the x86 architecture...obviously my 3800+ runs also on 64-bit....