This stops the idea of transforming the list into a playability list into something dead in it's tracks. This means that if we do indeed go through with this transition, we'd have to have a separate list for each processor model. This would only work effectively if we had a database like information where we could sort information by model and clock speed and the like. Maybe that could be implemented in the new site? A database? Probably not. What to do...
It's a pretty impossible feat to list every processor because some processors are more common than others so the more common processors will have fuller support, and even then, there are different amounts of RAM installed on computers as you mentioned... The second best thing we could do is provide recommended hardware specifications based upon our own conclusion. However, in the world of support, you can't always support everyone which brings up the issue of whether or not we should try to spread ourselves thin trying to support everyone, but trying to meet a middle ground or even just simply providing the best we can provide which is posting our hardware set-ups along side FPS statistics and the like to provide the sense that a game might operate worse if the machine doesn't even meet the test machine's hardware specifications while on the other hand, people can somewhat expect a higher frame rate if people have a better machine than the test machine the game was run on. This means that someone would have to write an additional page detailing the significance of each component and then we have to bring up whether or not the end-user would want to go through so much trouble to run a game. Which means that we'd have to make a casual user friendly page with shorter descriptions and easier to understand explanations. tl;dr for last paragraph: We could post our test machine specifications along side the test result to help provide a grasp on whether or not the game will run. A page will be created to help users understand the significance of each specification, and how much of an impact it has on you between running it smoother or choppier than the test machine. The last idea is that 9xxSsf gets an office building and we provide in- store assistance and become some sort of a service. But that's completely out of the question. On Feb 4, 7:13 am, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: > tha lack of x3100 is users, is my fault cause since i started to > construct the 9xxSsf i always had in mind the 945, becuase although i > also have a 965 i thugh it was powerful enough, and that there was > nothing to do for that chipset, but new days have come and with the > release of the Sigma series i hop we could recruit many x3100 users as > possible to continue with the legacy of 9xxSsf. > > the problem of transforming compatibility to playability the game list > is that it will be attached to subjetive valuations, simply cause in > the chipsets world 0.5ghz is a lot of performance, 2 or 3 GB ram more > is a big increase, so we dont have an standar, so it could good for > some, and bad for others, the idea is to show the avarage FPS qith > the specs of the machine to get our own conclusions > > Dont worry you dont have to make a poll, suggest it to me... > thats what we did, THIS place cant change, because i dont have many > options (except for colors) to change the site, this is the CORE of > the revolution, and will always be the headquarter of 9xxSsf, the > other sites are for backup, we had a cool site in moonfruit but as > admin i lost the control of the site and couldnt upsate it anymore, > and i asked the Bravo team to rebuild a site..... > > Its clear that some changes have to be done in the Bravo Team, we are > not aiming to the same target. -- INTEL 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
