Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Valid points guys. I agree with the epic story of mw2.

I just found out my brother has already pre-ordered bf3 so I'll be giving it a go on his pc. He at least has a 2600 i7 so it should run awesome.

After comparing, I'll give my two cents and provide an update.

  • 2 weeks later...

BF has always been better, you can blow shit up, collect dog-tag ....etc.

I agree battlefield has always been better

but with your other points up until bad company battlefield had only very limited blowing shit up and was limited to a few explosive barrels

and with dog tags they were only introduced in 2142 and all BF games before that never had them

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/beta

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/09/19/battlefield-3-open-beta-dates-announced.aspx

We are happy to announce that the eagerly awaited Battlefield 3 Open Beta starts Thursday, September 29th!

Running until October 10th, the Battlefield 3 Open Beta is your chance to play the game early, try out our free social platform Battlelog, and help us make the game even better by sending us your valuable feedback.

If you pre-order Battlefield 3 (PC digital download version) on Origin before September 25th, or if you have bought Medal of Honor: Limited Edition/Tier 1 Edition, you will get 48 hours early access to the Beta, meaning you can start playing Tuesday, September 27th. The full details on how you will be granted early acess is available on our new Beta section.

For Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, the Open Beta will be visible on the consoles' digital marketplaces under Battlefield 3. For PC, you need to install Origin and download the Open Beta from within the Origin application.

For all your Open Beta questions and answers, head to our new Beta section at the official Battlefield 3 site. Enjoy the Beta, and let us know what you think!

BF3 looks jawdroppingly awesome...

What will the graphics on consoles look like?

Never played fps on pc before.

Might need a keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor, graphics card, etc, etc upgrade.

And i don't mind the look of the MW3 sunnies...

Will have to get MW2 so i know the storyline.

Don't ask me how but I fluked getting early access to the beta.

Graphics are great, everything is much more 'solid' looking.

Taxes the shit out of my GFX card though.. indoors I was getting 70-80fps on 1920x1200, outdoors it was dropping to around 40-45.

The first gun on assault class can be tricky, a fair amount of recoil but it only takes one or two blips to take down a guy. I just unlocked the rocket launcher but didn't get a chance to use it before the game ended.

I don't like the browser interface but perhaps I'll get used to it.

Slightly overwhelming jumping into a 32 man match, but still I came 2nd on my team first go

Seriously though, this game is win.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...