Anything above 30 is fine with me, doesn't hinder my abilities, it's only in the really chaotic stuff that it dives down a bit.

10/26/2011 5:57:24 AM

My Q9550 @3.55ghz, 8GB OCZ Reaper DDR2 @1005mhz and GTX 480 @850/1760/4000 never drops below 45 fps or so at all Ultra DX11 @ 1920x1200 16xAF 2xAA w/ 2x NVIDIA Supersampling. The game seems to have a small difference between min FPS and avg FPS, that is unless you go over your VRAM limit.


Since it was the last post one page back here is a link to see some screenshots at those settings above (most are Co-Op because a friend wanted to play it first). I'll be posting multiplayer screenshots today and those are the biggest VRAM hogs, you can even see it in the file size.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/NCSUZoSo/screenshots/?tab=&showdate=1&filter=shortcut_70775

My favorite is when I caught a RPG in midair while zoomed in with a thermal scope:

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/613840910950792505/52847BC25B8732231491A1F9E6A6E9FD5AC6F3EE/


However, before I had the new WHQL driver I did drop lower to about 35 fps and it was an obvious difference in smoothness of gameplay. Now some games like GTA IV do not seem much different between 30 fps and 50 fps, but this is not one of them. As with most first person shooters you want to be as close to or higher than 60 fps, but this game is a resource hog. I was playing that map with the huge tunnel connecting the two bases (the one with the huge bulldozers) and my Video RAM usage actually went above 1.5Gb. To me that is insane, even at 1920x1200p, no other game I own gets above 1Gb except simulators and maybe two others. This makes me understand why people are going to believe 30 fps is "smooth", but it's not as smooth as 60 fps. I still haven't played all the maps yet so I may have to play with a couple settings to keep it below 1536mb (the 480 VRAM limit) because after you pass that the FPS takes a huge hit.

So guys watch your VRAM if you know how, right now I can't get MSI Afterburner to show the OSD. I have to monitor VRAM usage with my G15 Heads Up Display w/ MSI Afterburner and everyone obviously doesn't have that. You can make any programs based off RivaTuner (and others) to log info like VRAM usage into a txt file and check it out after you get done playing. If anyone figures out how to get the RivaTuner OSD to display through MSI Afterburner please let me know or if it just works like it does on all games.


I was even doing the Co-Op and hit 1.2Gb which to me is crazy, considering the small first 2 maps I've played so far. Basically like I've been saying, the game is all GPU and NVIDIA did release a new WHQL (285.62). It claims it was released on October 24th, but I sure as hell did not see it when I checked multiple times that day. I did pass out early the night because I didn't want to use a VPN and risk a ban like DICE said (links one page back), so I guess it is possible it did come out before the launch of BF3.






[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 8:21 AM. Reason : _]

10/26/2011 8:09:54 AM

30fps is playable, shit anything 24fps+ is playable as its the slowest frame rate that allows our perception to depict moving from still images with smoothness from our visual sensory input...

And I'm pretty surprised a gts 250 is able to hit 20-30fps in this game. That's essentially a rebadged 9800. Plus they are like $30 cards now days.

10/26/2011 8:21:07 AM

it all depends on the game; 24 fps applies to video not to games.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Quote :

" How many frames per second can the human eye see? This is a tricky question. And much confusion about it is related to the fact, that this question is NOT the same as: How many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid? And it's not the same as How many frames per second makes the movie stop flickering? And it's not the same as What is the shortest frame a human eye would notice? The fact is that the human eye perceives the typical cinema film motion as being fluid at about 18fps, because of its blurring. Just think of modern games: Have you ever played Quake with 18fps? There is no motion blur in those games, thus you need a lot of frames per second more. However, you see the spots and the dirt of single frames in a cinema film, don't you? And those movies are played at 24fps. So there is a difference between seeing motions fluid and seeing that there's something (dirt) at all. Imagine you look at a shining white wall. Now this wall turns totally black for 1/25th of a second. Would you notice it? You surely would. 1/50th of a second, well maybe harder. 1/100th of a second? Very difficult. Think of your 100Hz TV sets. They are called flickerfree, because at flicker rates of 100 times per second you stop to notice the blackness of the TV screen, though the TV screen isn't shining all the time, but pulsating 100 times per second. Brightness eats darkness. Take again "Test 1: Smoothness of motion". You have a fluid film with 24 fps. The film roll has to roll thru the projector. To not see it rolling you have to make the picture black while the film rolls on. You would have to blacken the screen 24 times per second. But 24 black moments are too visible. Thus you have smooth motions but flicker. The solution is: Show each frame 3 times and make the screen black 3 times per frame. This makes the black moments shorter and more frequent: "Triple the refresh rate". So you see about 72fps in the cinema, where 3 consecutive frames are the same. Strange solution? Solution of an analog world. And an example how "Brightness eats darkness". "

Obviously this info is old due to talking about playing Quake and older Analog Cinemas (which are still around), but the human eyes have not changed and neither has their perception of games.







[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 8:36 AM. Reason : _]

10/26/2011 8:26:59 AM

^^^Looks like you need a better computer! And there's no such thing as "1200p." P refers to progressive scan for broadcast. If you feel the need to comment your resolution on every page then just say WUXGA or 1920 by 1200. 1200p sounds silly.

And I can tell a definite difference between 60fps and 90fps.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 8:50 AM. Reason : Although the jump from 30 to 60 is much more noticeable than 60 to 90]

10/26/2011 8:46:13 AM

I have only been getting 30 or less FPS with SLI 560Ti 's on ultra.

On high, it v-syncs at 60.

Is this normal?

10/26/2011 8:58:27 AM

There's still issues with SLI but I get above 30fps with 2 460's in SLI on Ultra at 1080p.

10/26/2011 9:02:00 AM

1200p is a hell of a lot shorter to say and games are "broadcasts" in a progressive scan; it is like you saying 1080p was silly before "HD" existed if you had a CRT 1080p screen. Progressive scan has nothing to do with broadcasts, it is simply a way to display images/video. Not to mention most TV Broadcasts are in 1080i if you are using Cable TV.

God how many tech lessons does TDub need today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

Quote :

"Progressive scanning (alternatively referred to as noninterlaced scanning) is a way of displaying, storing, or transmitting moving images in which all the lines of each frame are drawn in sequence. This is in contrast to interlaced video used in traditional analog television systems where only the odd lines, then the even lines of each frame (each image called a video field) are drawn alternately. The system was originally known as "sequential scanning" (a more technically correct description) when it was used in the Baird 240 line television transmissions from Alexandra Palace, United Kingdom in 1936. It was also used in Baird's experimental transmissions using 30 lines in the 1920s. Advantages of progressive scan Absence of visual artifacts associated with interlaced video of the same line rate, such as interline twitter. No necessity in intentional blurring (sometimes referred to as anti-aliasing) of video to reduce interline twitter and eye strain. In the case of most media such as DVD movies and video games, the video is blurred during the authoring process itself to subdue interline twitter when played back on interlace displays. As a consequence, recovering the sharpness of the original video is impossible when the video is viewed progressively. A user-intuitive solution to this is when display hardware and video games come equipped with options to blur the video at will, or to keep it at its original sharpness. This allows the viewer to achieve the desired image sharpness with both interlaced and progressive displays. An example of a video game with this feature is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, where a "Deflicker" option exists.[1] Ideally, "Deflicker" would be turned on when played on an interlaced display to reduce interline twitter, and off when played on a progressive display for maximum image clarity. "

I guess you also don't believe 768p, 800p, 900p, 960p, 1050p, 1600p, 2048p, etc exist either.

It's ok you don't have a 1200p monitor, but progressive scan has nothing to do with broadcasting; it is simply a technology.

If you think 1200p sounds silly, then laugh.



Here is more on your newly discovered technology: http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/progressive_scan.htm






[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 9:20 AM. Reason : lol]

10/26/2011 9:07:53 AM

I know what progressive scan is. You missed my point. I'm not saying it's not technically correct I'm saying you don't really say "1200p". Appending "P" to the end of a resolution is typically associated with HDTVs not monitor resolutions. I'm simply saying it's not common verbiage. No, games are not considered "broadcasts". I really don't want to start a debate but your terminology is off.

Quote :

" CRT 1080p screen"

And please tell me where you can find a progressive scan CRT?

My college laptop from 2004 had a "1200p" display. I have 2 "1200p" Dell IPS U2410's. I game on my third 1080p monitor because it runs at 120hz and I don't miss the 120 lines.

Although admittedly when I was new to TWW years back I tried saying "1200p" just like you are and got attacked for the same reason so I stopped using it.

10/26/2011 9:20:58 AM

get this shit out of my thread

10/26/2011 9:21:02 AM

Actually nevermind. More game talk ITT though and less computer talk.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 9:37 AM. Reason : s]

10/26/2011 9:28:31 AM

so back to karkand is not out....i thought it was a preorder bonus but supposedly it comes later

10/26/2011 9:40:03 AM

Attention BlackDog,

Thanks for linking shit we all have read before and know... pretty common knowledge shit.



Fyi, no one cares for your stupid generic screen caps.

10/26/2011 10:17:04 AM

Real talk with JBaz.

10/26/2011 11:42:39 AM

Oh HELL yes. The A-10 in a Rush game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaGEOPden6o

10/26/2011 12:21:14 PM

The battlelog page is the most idiotic idea ever. What ever happened to in-game menus?

10/26/2011 12:25:34 PM

Quote :

"Actually nevermind. More game talk ITT though and less computer talk. "

Thank you for those reading the thread.

Anyway, played a few hours the other day and it seemed I could only connect to team deathmatch games and all the city levels with a bunch of nondestructable cover objects along with the random spawn for team DM were disappointing.. it took all the things BF is good at(teamwork, vehicles, destructable cover) and threw it away. hopefully I will be able to get into some objective games on the more open/vehicle levels.

I did laugh a bit reading all the comments on facebook when the servers were down. my favorite (non server down bitching) is "Where is hardcore mode?" I am starting to agree with some of the comments that the COD dumbasses need to move on so there is less stress on the servers. people going for K/D ignoring everything else is annoying, not helping anyone, and not fun to play with.

10/26/2011 12:27:17 PM

There has been computer talk since page 1 and game talk. The console guys made their own thread, so I don't see the harm. Plus I've posted videos and screenshots on countless pages including this one.

10/26/2011 12:49:42 PM

dammit man... post videos! not pictures!

10/26/2011 1:05:42 PM

I played some co-op last night, does anyone know how to decide who gets to be the pilot vs gunner in the first helo mission?

We tried about 15 times and I was the pilot each time except once, and it won't let you swap out in the mission at all

10/26/2011 1:22:30 PM

Anyone got any joystick recommendations? It seems that if I want to fly a jet I'll definitely need one.

10/26/2011 1:31:49 PM

can someone whose opinion I trust from CoD please give me your review on this game and whether you think i'd like it or not? it LOOKS great but BF2 gameplay was so annoying that i couldn't put up with it for too long.

i like to get to know maps, know which direction (preferably have choke points on maps designed for combats to take place there) the enemy is going to come from at the start of a round, don't have to rely on having a good squad to play with because most gamers are fucktards and I don't have the time to put into finding a squad and practicing with them etc. right now. and i like people to die after 2-3 seconds of shooting them MAX, not have invincible health like TF2 and the like.

10/26/2011 2:53:16 PM

^ from playing both Battlefield and CoD series from their inception, I think you should wait for MW3.

10/26/2011 3:53:25 PM

^^ yeah in my experience and from playing with you on MW2 you will enjoy COD more than battlefield. I have the same qualms about Battlefield....you cant play alone with any success (because the maps are big you get killed quickly running alone) and you cant run around and kill people (because it takes too long to kill someone).

10/26/2011 4:22:42 PM

Has anyone tried the single player yet? I think i will give that a try tonight.

10/26/2011 5:33:32 PM

Single-player BF3 = Call of Duty = Heavily scripted

I heard Co-op was cool though.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2011 5:37:58 PM

Quote :

"And I'm pretty surprised a gts 250 is able to hit 20-30fps in this game. That's essentially a rebadged 9800. Plus they are like $30 cards now days."

Don't forget I'm churning this bitch at 1280x800 lol, and it is the 1 GB version. And I got it a year ago at about $180 (emergency at Best Buy) when my 8800GTS burned up and died. It still is running for around $100 on Amazon.

^^Yeah, it is pretty much just like Call of Duty single player so far, although I'm sure vehicles will be introduced eventually. It gets pretty tough on Hard, and the story so far feels like a sane Black Ops with an interrogation and flashbacks all the time.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2011 5:46:32 PM

Quote :

"Has anyone tried the single player yet? I think i will give that a try tonight."

SP feels much more linear than MW SP. I ran into a lot of things that quickly brought me out of the game and made me think of how the developers wanting me to complete the level, vs the obvious

Co-Op is a lot of fun, but still very linear feeling

10/26/2011 5:47:31 PM

Quote :

"What they’re doing visually in the PC version of Battlefield 3 often, often borders on ridiculous. I will sometimes just shake my head the screen, the nearly silent “oh, fuck you” tucked below Ventrilo’s voice threshold."

Quote :

"Here’s what I do care about: people are still, in 2011, driving a troop transport out of the base without actually transporting any troops. You’re spawning in and being killed in less than a second, and there’s the sometimes vague, not entirely satisfying gunplay. I imagine that the on the ground experience of warfare is vague and not entirely satisfying, so maybe this is a nod toward authenticity. All of the things that have made it so frustrating since the game was first compressed into an executable are still present, and they’re are (almost without exception) the ramifications of the absolute freedom the game offers. The yawning width of possibilities at any given second are intoxicating; I accept their bargain."

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : http://www.penny-arcade.com]

10/26/2011 7:21:45 PM

40 seconds of sitting there looking at the roster screen between maps? WTF, why can't I even type junk to the other team like I've been able to since Quake? And wtf do I need 40 seconds for?

10/26/2011 7:33:55 PM

Quote :

"40 seconds of sitting there looking at the roster screen between maps?"

its a server setting, the admin can reduce it.

Quote :

"you cant play alone with any success (because the maps are big you get killed quickly running alone)"

I play alone just fine. Even on big maps, although a lot of boring running, but none the less. I can run, gun and cap flags alone just as easy as in a squad/team. I usually play support class with c4 so I can take out tanks and have unlimited ammo.

Quote :

"you cant run around and kill people (because it takes too long to kill someone)"

play in hardcore... a bit more realistic since it doesn't take half a clip to kill someone, but you die pretty easy too. I like HC.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2011 9:42:53 PM

Quote :

"SP feels much more linear than MW SP. I ran into a lot of things that quickly brought me out of the game and made me think of how the developers wanting me to complete the level, vs the obvious Co-Op is a lot of fun, but still very linear feeling"

I haven't even finished Co-Op, but when in COD do you fly helicopters to support ground troops? I can't see how an open map to fly in is linear in any sense. Not to mention this is the first time a true BF game has ever even had a SP/Co-Op Campaign, most guys I know aren't even playing it.

Also the GTS 250 is not even a re-bagged 9800 series, it's just a die shrink on the 8800 GTS 512 (G92 vs G92b) However my old 8800 GTS 512 won an OCing competition against 9800GTX+ (identical to the GTS 250) guys and everyone was using aftermarket cooling. I won my BioStar TPower i45 in that OCing competition. It was on GPU core only due to the newer VRAM on the 9800 series. This was because it was called the G92 OCing Competition, not the newest revision of VRAM competition.


Anyone complaining about they can't play alone needs more practice and how in the hell have you learned all the maps? Learning the maps (choke points, where not to go, prime sniper bait territory, etc) is half the battle in a game like BF3. Also the reason the BF series has lasted so long and done so well is vehicles, if you aren't using them it is like you aren't using scopes. You might not be a pilot, but any retard can drive a ground vehicle or boat. You have to remember the weapon upgrade tree with ranks; some guys have been playing since early morning on the 24th and have barely slept (I saw a rank 15 or so on Oct 25th). Build up your rank, gain weapons, weapon accessories, learn the maps, use the vehicles and your lone play K/D ratio will change drastically.


I have to go in for a round of Botox on Friday and have been advised not to do anything to aggravate my neck (like sitting in one position without barely moving my head), so I have barely been able to play outside of the first 3 Co-Op missions and a few rounds in MP. My advice stems from playing BF since BF1942/DC Mod and heavy Beta testing.


I have one question since I haven't had much time in MP. Can you drive any of the large ships like you could in BF1942? I know you can spawn on Aircraft Carriers like BF1942, so I was curious if you could move them and if they have weapons on board, even just AA guns.

10/27/2011 12:16:12 AM

Yes, even with flying in circles shooting guys in the ground - extremely linear. There is ONE way to complete a mission, at least in the 4 co-ops I have played

10/27/2011 12:21:43 AM

It's very linear if you fly straight into the ground. You didn't answer the question though. When in COD do you fly a heli? I haven't even played all the SP missions like I said and it is totally different from COD by mission 2. MW3's selling point by the publisher is "Hey don't play BF3, it is too graphically intense with huge maps and vehicles for your computer. Instead buy MW3 and play the same thing you did in MW1 and MW2, but we swear we changed something AND you don't have to upgrade anything if you can play MW2!" Halo and MW have many similarities in how they have been developed, haha the latest Halo uses the same engine as the first Halo.

I bought my Dad a GT430 (the 1Gb 128bit BUS version) for $30 after MIR on NewEgg and it can play MW2 at Med settings @ 720p (his 42" Plasma Native Res). That is one hell of a great PC gaming engine if you have to put that kind of money into a PC! Hell socket 939 AMD CPUs like the X2 3800+ can power the GT430 at those settings with smooth play. COD 1 was fun, the rest have been shit; I followed the devs from MOH:AA who broke off to make COD 1 and when I saw COD 2 I was seriously disappointed (as with all other COD games, although I did get World at War due to a lack of modern WWII non-sim FPS out).


I'm mainly playing Co-Op with my friend because it is an easy ass way to unlock some of the weapons in multiplayer. That 412-Rex sure does help (the first Co-Op unlock) after you run out of primary ammo. Aside from the Heli mission, we also know there is a tank mission which once again puts you in control of vehicles even in SP/Co-Op. Last I checked MW doesn't allow you to drive vehicles freely nor does it have a non-linear story or multiple ways to complete SP objectives. Even the MP in MW is linear and that is sad for a game made these days.

If you really want a good SP experience with no linearity at all, go get the new Deus Ex, I highly recommend it.








[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 12:47 AM. Reason : _]

10/27/2011 12:35:46 AM

Quote :

"i like to get to know maps, know which direction (preferably have choke points on maps designed for combats to take place there) the enemy is going to come from at the start of a round, don't have to rely on having a good squad to play with because most gamers are fucktards and I don't have the time to put into finding a squad and practicing with them etc. right now. and i like people to die after 2-3 seconds of shooting them MAX, not have invincible health like TF2 and the like."

Jesus Christ, yes, stick to CoD.

10/27/2011 2:20:31 AM

done and done

10/27/2011 2:23:04 AM

this game is bad ass. I'm a fair-weather gamer and generally suck at COD, but i still play from time to time with my brother and friends, etc.

I just got B3 on PS3 because they all did. Its turning out that i'm glad i did. this game is incredible. it has a way more realistic feel and pacing. I find i'm doing better than in COD. Instead of spawn, run, die, repeat, this has a lot more going on. I find myself caring a lot more about each life and so being more sneaky and playing smarter. so much more fun

10/27/2011 7:46:17 AM

3D not working with Origin PC download of BF3. Not happy.

10/27/2011 8:02:06 AM

Didn't get a chance to play it yesterday but I might tonight. ^Can't get the 3D to work? I'll try it but I think I'd rather have the high FPS then split in half for 3D.

10/27/2011 9:12:18 AM

http://kotaku.com/5853621/battlefield-3s-many-vehicles-seen-on-a-big+ass-triple+screen-display

Going to give this a shot later on 3 24" 1920 by 1200 displays. The vehicles/planes with 3 monitors look AWESOME. Probably going to have to bump it down from ultra though. Haha.

10/27/2011 10:21:19 AM

Quote :

"Also the GTS 250 is not even a re-bagged 9800 series, it's just a die shrink on the 8800 GTS 512 (G92 vs G92b)"

umm... the 9800 chips used a g92b... the gts250 uses a g92b chip... has the same specs... its rebadged into the GF 200 series after the intro of the 260/280 chips; about the same time the slower GT210, 220 and 240 cards came about the following year. They just integrated it once they killed the 9k series brand.

And yes... we all know that the 9k series is just a die shrunk of the 8k series from 90 to 65/55nm. That's not what I was stating... besides a die shrink isn't exactly the same thing and remarketing...

10/27/2011 12:56:41 PM

I have a few gripes.

The launching system SUCKS. ASS. co-op keeps failing for no reason, game doesnt launch, ect.

WHY THE FUCK IS THERE NOT A VOICE COM? why would you go into battle with your mouth taped shut? this is BASIC stuff these days. this exemption has ruined the game for me. i dont know enough people to have a 32 man battle on ventrilio or in the battlelog voice channel to play. You should be able to communicate with your squad at a minimum. The console versions can handle this.... COD can do this. Why?

i think that the shoulder fired launchers are too strong. Too easy to get hit and killed with them in a f18... really? the stationary AA is almost impossible to shoot a jet down with, same as with mobile AA tanks.. I have used them to kill troops much more than shoot at planes.

Overall i think the air-power is too weak compared to everything else. I was shooting a little-bird's mini guns at a lone soldier with a RPK. He didnt die, yet he killed me and the chopper landed on his head. He got in and flew it off. LOL.

10/27/2011 1:48:11 PM

like i'm going to really buy the argument of increased Air Superiority from a user name Air

10/27/2011 1:54:06 PM

Quote :

"You should be able to communicate with your squad at a minimum. The console versions can handle this.... COD can do this. Why?"

It's long been discussed that voice comm in game does more to HINDER strategy in unorganized groups more than anything. See Halo and COD, the voice comm in game is just ear-raping children and people shouting for inane reasons.

I agree that there should be squad voice comm, and I would assume it's coming since it was in BC2 (but not heavily used), but I haven't played yet so, yeah.

10/27/2011 4:04:35 PM

the voice system on ps 3 is still jacked. I can't hear my squad members half the time, it goes in and out. Other times, it just doesn't come through at all.

10/27/2011 4:18:56 PM

This is why so many people use a third-party platform for squad communications.

Like Ventrillo or TeamSpeak.

10/27/2011 4:36:03 PM

^ True.

I have TS, vent, mumble, ect. Used to use the hell out of TS2 to play MOH:AA back in the day.


"hey, lets make a teamwork based game" "but not let you communicate with anyone"

really DICE? VALVE has had in game voice com working properly since ~2000... why cant you get it right?

I realize that there will always be immature kids in the game, but a mute feature fixes this easily.
The cool, mature, serious teamwork based gamers more than easily outweigh this reasoning.

Squads should be able to communicate with each other, squad leaders should be able to communicate with each other and their squad. Squads should also be 6 players.

Having to use a external voice program results in alot of alt-tabbing, even if you KNOW people to play with.
I dont really have that many friends who play this game... 2-3 at most. We arent always on at the same times, so i usually end up playing pick-up games. This means I have no-one to talk to unless i can type in game-- hey join me in voice, alt tab to desktop, add friend, alt tab in game, say hey i friend-ed you, alt tab back to desktop, ect. You see how in-convenient that is. By the time that is done, we are kicked for inactivity or the map has changed and we are now on different teams.

For serious gamers or teams, this isnt really an issue.

I dont have a team (yet), so this is my reality.

seems really stupid that DICE couldnt get voice to work properly in BC2 so they just decided to get rid of it all together. lazy fucks.

10/27/2011 4:49:43 PM

umm... i donno about you... but squad in-game voice com worked for me in BC2... but i never used it because:
1) I play using 3rd party voice chat programs with friends; easier, better quality sound
2) I don't need to hear 14yr old kids saying "wtf" every 2 seconds
3) I can play efficiently without any voice chat

Quote :

"Having to use a external voice program results in alot of alt-tabbing"

umm... really? once I join my TS or vent server... I rarely ever have to alt-tab and even then, its pretty fast.

Also, you can setup parties that has in-game voice chat abilities. You can set the party to have your friends list join in without you having to invite them. Sound quality is pretty decent, scared the hell out of me yesterday when someone on tdub joined my party and started to chat. I was in my TS server and was like... "who else is talking in here..." My clan thought I was going crazy.

10/27/2011 5:00:52 PM

that was probably me who joined up with you yesterday.

Just saying, for people not in a clan or team no voice chat is a huge let-down.

10/27/2011 5:08:17 PM

Quote :

"1) I play using 3rd party voice chat programs with friends; easier, better quality sound 2) I don't need to hear 14yr old kids saying "wtf" every 2 seconds 3) I can play efficiently without any voice chat"

4) In case of a server or software crash you don't lose your communication.

10/27/2011 5:12:12 PM