bureko

MTA for GTA IV

Recommended Posts

Well, I actually did what it said to do and got somewhere with it but didn't get the "exclusive access" the page was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that developing MTA:SA not actual more. Yes it is sad that many ideas are not implemented in SA. But SA is too old. Terrible graphic, weak physic..

You need to start developing MTA for IV and stop it for SA. imho.

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that developing MTA:SA not actual more. Yes it is sad that many ideas are not implemented in SA. But SA is too old. Terrible graphic, weak physic..

You need to start developing MTA for IV and stop it for SA. imho.

Heh, sounds like GTA3:MTA/MTA:VC all over again...

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that developing MTA:SA not actual more. Yes it is sad that many ideas are not implemented in SA. But SA is too old. Terrible graphic, weak physic..

You need to start developing MTA for IV and stop it for SA. imho.

Do you know the most used resolution currently in MTA SA? 800x600. Obviously they don't have very good computers then. Some people cant even get 10 fps in MTA SA let alone GTA IV. Few people would play MTA IV.

The player count of MTA SA is only rising, so the development should continue more than ever on it.

In my view GTA IV is rubbish, it doesn't even have anti-aliasing so you have to drive around this really nicely detailed city and watch it get ruined by jagged lines on everything you look at. And the multiplayer made by rockstar was just a sick joke.

It might be an old game but that doesn't stop it from being great fun.

Share this post


Link to post

Arran - you forgot one fact - GTA:SA is most UNoptimized game ever :/ I can run GTA:SA (ugly) on most details low (well, this is not changing much even with high - some addional grass and shadows) with 960x600 or something. I can run Burnout: Paradise (amazing graphics on medium (THERE IS difference between all those settings)) with my native resolution 1280x800 and I've got identical framerate. Funny. And i can run Vice City, all on high with native res, with around 200 FPS. And the only difference between VC and SA is ugly blur, hot air effect, "dynamic" "shadows". Can't remember more.

Edit:

GTA IV is unoptimized too, but not as much as SA.

Share this post


Link to post

I beg to differ on that edit hahaha...

But yes, SA isn't very well optimized at all. You have to ALSO keep in mind that smaller resolutions don't always mean better. If you start getting too small, it can actually have a negative effect because your video card is struggling to process so much detail in such a small area and display it correctly. Generally from what I've noticed, it's not usually a good idea to go any lower than 1024x768, but again, that can vary depending on your setup. 800x600 or lower tends to not work well for me on most computers, just throwing that out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Arran - you forgot one fact - GTA:SA is most UNoptimized game ever :/ I can run GTA:SA (ugly) on most details low (well, this is not changing much even with high - some addional grass and shadows) with 960x600 or something. I can run Burnout: Paradise (amazing graphics on medium (THERE IS difference between all those settings)) with my native resolution 1280x800 and I've got identical framerate. Funny. And i can run Vice City, all on high with native res, with around 200 FPS. And the only difference between VC and SA is ugly blur, hot air effect, "dynamic" "shadows". Can't remember more.

Edit:

GTA IV is unoptimized too, but not as much as SA.

My GTA:SA run in 1024x768 with LOW effects and i got 25 FPS and I hate it and with GTA IV, run in the same resolution with MEDIUM effects and I got 45-60 FPS. It's ugly.

MTA OnRAGE it's AWESOME!

Share this post


Link to post

SugarD-x, i dont know much about generating 3d graphics, but you described it like game is generating images in (for example) 1024x768 then scaling it down. No struggles for details, as on 640x480 there is no details anyway. For me: less pixels = more fps. If you disagree, maybe you could provide some test results? (aka banchmark - every time same scenes, but with different settings, count min, max, avg fps)

Share this post


Link to post
SugarD-x, i dont know much about generating 3d graphics, but you described it like game is generating images in (for example) 1024x768 then scaling it down. No struggles for details, as on 640x480 there is no details anyway. For me: less pixels = more fps. If you disagree, maybe you could provide some test results? (aka banchmark - every time same scenes, but with different settings, count min, max, avg fps)

I'm a bit too lazy for that hahaha. I do know though that most modern cards can, but don't generally support those very low resolutions unless it's forced by the computer or a program. If you're playing in a window that small though, and you still have issues, something is wrong with your computer.

Share this post


Link to post
....

Edit:

GTA IV is unoptimized too, but not as much as SA.

My GTA:SA run in 1024x768 with LOW effects and i got 25 FPS and I hate it and with GTA IV, run in the same resolution with MEDIUM effects and I got 45-60 FPS. It's ugly.

Turn off the frame limiter :P

Share this post


Link to post

gta4 is the worst gta made, graphics and physics are the only advantage of the new engine witch could be semi-solved in SA with cleo scripts. otherwise driving, walking, shooting BLOW! and they took away all of the good vechiles like hydras, bmx bikes, and ect.

i believe a good game shouldnt take away but add new in ontop of wats already there. just my .02

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.