type in: Doom3.exe +map em1dm1.map
on my system (which my brother has nicked) from a COLD boot-up not a preloaded one, it will takes 45seconds to load the menu system & game, it will then flick to the console and preload/cache textures which will take a further 15-20seconds and finally load that level up which will take around a minute.
I'm not saying the loading times are bad, far far from it.
What I'm talking about are people claiming these optimisations work wonders, when really they don't.
Getting into the game from a cold start for Doom3 in under 3minutes is impressive as hell considering your talking about loading almost 740MB of data (Ultra Settings)
Moving from one area to another is almost identical loading times to Half-Life was on the power houses of it's day. The game is already pretty damn well optimised... and all the tricks in the world don't help much.
You want a game that loads painfully slowely play Max Payne 2 on the PS2; I was waiting what, 6-7minutes for each area.
I got so damn bored, especially considering it's a console title.
Quote: "Oh do shutup you know nvidia is best at opengl whereas ati are best at directx so stop your moaning."
Actually it wasn't a dig at the speed difference, from what I've seen the 6-Series keeps within 3-7fps of the equivilent Radeon X-Series (keyword *equivilent*).
What it is a dig as it the fact that the Image Quality is VERY noticeably different, i mean you'd have to be blind to see there being no difference between the cards.
With the FX-Series alright running in DirectX8.1 mode is acceptable, but the 6-Series... sorry but that is taking the f**king biscuit.
I don't give a damn if a Radeon user has a slight faster gameplay at 1600x1024x32, what i do danm well care about is the card i've just spent £350 on which has next generation technology being forced to run in a render-pipeline that lowers the Image Quality.
That just ain't right!
