Can I run the game on my PC?

[Emerson Schwarz]

Hello Game Labs Forums,

I am making this post to ask a question. I was hoping to buy Ultimate admiral: dreadnaughts. However, before I spend money and preorder the game, I want to make sure my PC can actually run it first. Here are the specs of my PC, as explained on can you run it website.:
Running Windows 10. 64 bit

Intel Core i7 CPU. 920 @2.67 GHZ. 

16 GB installed RAM

Video card: AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHZ edition.

I have plenty of RAM available, and plenty of space on my computer. My graphics card meets the minimum requirements according to the specs on steam. The only thing that concerns me is the specification for the Processor. Even the i5's are in the quad digits now. the minimum spec is an Intel Core i5 2500 with 3.3 GHZ!! and the Recommended requirements are an i7 3770 with 3.4 GHZ!!! if my PC isn't close to this number, am I S*** out of luck? I just want to make sure my computer is capable of running the game before I spend any money to buy or preorder it. I know my machine is probably laughably out of date by now, but when I bought it in 2010, the quad core i7 was one of the best computers you could buy at the time. It has served me well for all this time, and only really now has it really started to show it's age. I understand if I am unable to play the game due to system requirements, then so be it. I will simply have to wait until I can build a better machine. Because the only thing I haven't replaced on the machine is the motherboard, and if I do that, I may as well replace the entire system. If the matter can be solved with a new graphics card, then I shall do that. But if my processor cant handle it, then I'll just have to put off buying the game until I build a better machine.
I tried sending an email to Game labs and posting the question to their Facebook page as a message, but I have received no response. I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I am getting increasingly frustrated. I would like my question to be answered. I don't want to spend money on a game, only to not have it run properly, and spend many days trying to get a refund. 

Thank you, Emerson Schwarz

P.S. this is also my first time posting on the forums. I am unsure how active I will be. depends on if I get the game or not. 

[admin]

1 hour ago, Emerson Schwarz said:

Hello Game Labs Forums,

I am making this post to ask a question. I was hoping to buy Ultimate admiral: dreadnaughts. However, before I spend money and preorder the game, I want to make sure my PC can actually run it first. Here are the specs of my PC, as explained on can you run it website.:
Running Windows 10. 64 bit

Intel Core i7 CPU. 920 @2.67 GHZ. 

16 GB installed RAM

Video card: AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHZ edition.

I have plenty of RAM available, and plenty of space on my computer. My graphics card meets the minimum requirements according to the specs on steam. The only thing that concerns me is the specification for the Processor. Even the i5's are in the quad digits now. the minimum spec is an Intel Core i5 2500 with 3.3 GHZ!! and the Recommended requirements are an i7 3770 with 3.4 GHZ!!! if my PC isn't close to this number, am I S*** out of luck? I just want to make sure my computer is capable of running the game before I spend any money to buy or preorder it. I know my machine is probably laughably out of date by now, but when I bought it in 2010, the quad core i7 was one of the best computers you could buy at the time. It has served me well for all this time, and only really now has it really started to show it's age. I understand if I am unable to play the game due to system requirements, then so be it. I will simply have to wait until I can build a better machine. Because the only thing I haven't replaced on the machine is the motherboard, and if I do that, I may as well replace the entire system. If the matter can be solved with a new graphics card, then I shall do that. But if my processor cant handle it, then I'll just have to put off buying the game until I build a better machine.
I tried sending an email to Game labs and posting the question to their Facebook page as a message, but I have received no response. I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I am getting increasingly frustrated. I would like my question to be answered. I don't want to spend money on a game, only to not have it run properly, and spend many days trying to get a refund. 

Thank you, Emerson Schwarz

P.S. this is also my first time posting on the forums. I am unsure how active I will be. depends on if I get the game or not. 

there is a 2 hour refund rule on Xsolla

buy it - try it and if you dont like it for 2 hours - for example for technical reasons - refund it.
The game is not fully optimized YET. 

[Emerson Schwarz]

1 hour ago, admin said:

there is a 2 hour refund rule on Xsolla

buy it - try it and if you dont like it for 2 hours - for example for technical reasons - refund it.
The game is not fully optimized YET. 

I thank you for your response. I read on the Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnaughts purchase page that the game will eventually be available on steam in late autumn of 2020. I would be more comfortable buying the game through steam, because I have more experience buying games through steam. 

When the game arrives on steam, will it be fully optimized? I really like the Idea of designing and building my own warships. I like drawing them on paper. It would be very enjoyable to be able to take the drawings and put them into the game, so to speak. :3 

[Mooncatt]

well, theres a couple of things you could do. i know UAD is expensive for an alpha release, why dont you save that money towards an upgrade for your pc? on ebay you can buy new a ryzen 3 cpu and mobo bundle for £150ish thats really not expensive and although the lower end ryzen 3 cpus arent fantastic, itll be better than that ancient i7 your running i would of thought. bear in mind though that i dont know what the game utilises the most i.e is it cpu heavy or gfx card heavy. 

if you did decide to go for a ryzen bundle and keep that gfx card of yours then the cpu will be bottlenecked due to the age of your gfx card. but again, you can pick up a new GTX1060 3GB card for not much more than £100 now so again, not that expensive. depends on your budget ofc.

were it me, id stop worrying about if your rig can handle certain games and just upgrade your pc, no offense and i know money is an issue for a lot of people including myself but youll be doing yourself a massive favour, but your pc is waaaay overdue for an upgrade mate

[Cptbarney]

Well i can run this game on simple resolution 1660x1080 on an AMD athlon 860x quad core processor 3.7ghz with a GTX 750 2GB graphics card.

Both of which are almost 10 years old by this point so i dont see why you're so worried, i suggest doing a benchmark test and learning more about computer components. I also only have 8gbs of DDR3 1660mhz RAM as well.

You can just buy a new motherboard and cpu, and make sure it matches with your current GPU, PSU, RAM etc and if it does get it.

I can also have around 8+ ships on the screen or more depending on the timeframe with around  26-42fps.

[madham82]

From my experience the game is far more resource intensive on the graphics card than CPU. I've got a i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB DDR3, and Radeon RX 580. Card temps stay around 60-70C even on Medium. This same setup runs Elite Dangerous at max settings at 1080p around 50-60C, which tells me the game has a lot of optimization left before public release. 

[RUSS663]

Best upgrade investment is video card

[ReefKip]

On 8/28/2020 at 12:30 PM, Mooncatt said:

well, theres a couple of things you could do. i know UAD is expensive for an alpha release, why dont you save that money towards an upgrade for your pc? on ebay you can buy new a ryzen 3 cpu and mobo bundle for £150ish thats really not expensive and although the lower end ryzen 3 cpus arent fantastic, itll be better than that ancient i7 your running i would of thought. bear in mind though that i dont know what the game utilises the most i.e is it cpu heavy or gfx card heavy. 

if you did decide to go for a ryzen bundle and keep that gfx card of yours then the cpu will be bottlenecked due to the age of your gfx card. but again, you can pick up a new GTX1060 3GB card for not much more than £100 now so again, not that expensive. depends on your budget ofc.

were it me, id stop worrying about if your rig can handle certain games and just upgrade your pc, no offense and i know money is an issue for a lot of people including myself but youll be doing yourself a massive favour, but your pc is waaaay overdue for an upgrade mate

1060 3Gb is a horrible card. 3GB of Vram is barely enough to run recentish games on Low to Medium settings and would severly drop in FPS in UAD in big Naval battles(the more happens on screen the more Vram it takes). he can better save up a little more and go for the  1060 6GB variant. which besides running this game on ultra will still be enough for most future titles a couple of years down the line. Vram is really one of the most important factors in GPU nowadays

[RUSS663]

On 10/16/2020 at 3:19 PM, ReefKip said:

1060 3Gb is a horrible card. 3GB of Vram is barely enough to run recentish games on Low to Medium settings and would severly drop in FPS in UAD in big Naval battles(the more happens on screen the more Vram it takes). he can better save up a little more and go for the  1060 6GB variant. which besides running this game on ultra will still be enough for most future titles a couple of years down the line. Vram is really one of the most important factors in GPU nowadays

I do agree a good video card is a very good upgrade bigger bang for your buck.  Beware good vid cards cost. Them most expensive part in machine. Good luck and have fun. Russ663

[Tycondero]

On 8/28/2020 at 12:30 PM, Mooncatt said:

well, theres a couple of things you could do. i know UAD is expensive for an alpha release, why dont you save that money towards an upgrade for your pc? on ebay you can buy new a ryzen 3 cpu and mobo bundle for £150ish thats really not expensive and although the lower end ryzen 3 cpus arent fantastic, itll be better than that ancient i7 your running i would of thought. bear in mind though that i dont know what the game utilises the most i.e is it cpu heavy or gfx card heavy. 

if you did decide to go for a ryzen bundle and keep that gfx card of yours then the cpu will be bottlenecked due to the age of your gfx card. but again, you can pick up a new GTX1060 3GB card for not much more than £100 now so again, not that expensive. depends on your budget ofc.

were it me, id stop worrying about if your rig can handle certain games and just upgrade your pc, no offense and i know money is an issue for a lot of people including myself but youll be doing yourself a massive favour, but your pc is waaaay overdue for an upgrade mate

Fully agree, pc parts are so cheap nowadays. A Ryzen 5 3600 with mobo, 16 GB of RAM will cost around 300 dollars if selected properly. If you need a better GPU you can upgrade that one also at a later time. You could go for the Rtx 1660. Better spend the money there first, the current PC is a write off imo for gaming.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Tycondero

[ReefKip]

On 8/28/2020 at 1:40 PM, Cptbarney said:

Well i can run this game on simple resolution 1660x1080 on an AMD athlon 860x quad core processor 3.7ghz with a GTX 750 2GB graphics card.

Besides low resolution do you run other graphic  parameters on low aswell? If you do i envy you to still be able to play on the absolute minimum settings without cringing everytime the game starts. Seeing pixelation and rough edges in a game is a massive turn off. If i know it could be much better.

 

If i ever have to put the resolution down  in a game to get decent FPS.  i know i have to upgrade. Luckily my GTX 1070TI has not reach that point yet. Only with some 1440p games with bad optimisation (Like RDR2) i have to switch back to 1920×1080 because of ridiculous vram requirements some 1440p games have.

[Cptbarney]

7 minutes ago, ReefKip said:

Besides low resolution do you run other graphic  parameters on low aswell? If you do i envy you to still be able to play on the absolute minimum settings without cringing everytime the game starts. Seeing pixelation and rough edges in a game is a massive turn off. If i know it could be much better.

 

If i ever have to put the resolution down  in a game to get decent FPS.  i know i have to upgrade. Luckily my GTX 1070TI has not reach that point yet. Only with some 1440p games with bad optimisation (Like RDR2) i have to switch back to 1920×1080 because of ridiculous vram requirements some 1440p games have.

I used to play on a resolution of 1660x1080, sometimes a bit lower. The graphics weren't even bad they just looked toned down, but nothing huge really. I got 30-45fps on it with like 6-10 ships.

The resolution isn't low, it's the second option for my monitor since its max resolution is 1920x1080 and refresh rate is only 60hrz plus its 22-24 inch i think as well.

I'm actually used to low graphics at this point, my new pc is much more powerful, but even then i don't run max settings even though i could for AW i run high-medium settings but max resolution.

Hell i used to play with an integrated graphics chip in my last computer lol for like 5 years and playing with a USB dongole with 85-105ms ping and 25-35fps. Same with the old laptop i used to have.

With most games i find little difference between ultra and high so don't typically go above high graphics really anyways.

[ReefKip]

3 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I'm actually used to low graphics at this point, my new pc is much more powerful, but even then i don't run max settings even though i could for AW

What is AW?

if low graphics are part of the game and it has good Gameplay to compensate for that. i don't mind ether.

however having good visuals is a huge part of immersion in my opinion.Take for example games like Battlefield,Red Dead Redemption. if you play those on low settings. it takes away alot from the experience. also for games that market themselves as realistic having realistic visuals seems to me as a crucial part of the theme.

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, ReefKip said:

What is AW?

Armoured warfare, a world of tanks knock off, with its own twist based on modern tanks and vehicles. First developed by obsidian with mail.ru as publishers now my.com/mail.ru as publisher with allsort as the devs.

2 minutes ago, ReefKip said:

if low graphics are part of the game and it has good Gameplay to compensate for that. i don't mind ether.

however having good visuals is a huge part of immersion in my opinion.Take for example games like Battlefield,Red Dead Redemption. if you play those on low settings. it takes away alot from the experience. also for games that market themselves as realistic having realistic visuals seems to me as a crucial part of the theme.

Yeah i know what you mean, but i find sound to be more important than visuals, if the sound design is terrible or even average with excellent visuals i can never take it seriously at all, nevermind being immersed in it.

With UA:D we could do more varied sounds as im sure not even gun sounded the same entirely.

Plus islands or ice fields or something to break up the constant ocean map we have atm (yes i know not as realistic but i could careless it makes the game more visually appealing and also adds another tactical element in).

[ReefKip]

2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah i know what you mean, but i find sound to be more important than visuals, if the sound design is terrible or even average with excellent visuals i can never take it seriously at all, nevermind being immersed in it.

With UA:D we could do more varied sounds as im sure not even gun sounded the same entirely.

Plus islands or ice fields or something to break up the constant ocean map we have atm (yes i know not as realistic but i could careless it makes the game more visually appealing and also adds another tactical element in).

Sounds are pretty important too.  but seeing that this is something that can be very easely modded into the game. i am sure UA:D will be fine. even if the developers do not add more sounds themselves.

Icefields are not that unrealistic as you may think. alot of battles where fought in the vicinity of icefields in the ice sea above scandinavia(example of this is the raid on convoy PQ17)by the Germans trying to intercept Convoys heading to the Soviet Union. there was no real big surface battle in a ice field however. but seeing that UA:D wants to potray Alt History with Historically accurate equipment, Ice fields are not that far of a stretch to add for this type of game.

 

[Cptbarney]

1 minute ago, ReefKip said:

Sounds are pretty important too.  but seeing that this is something that can be very easely modded into the game. i am sure UA:D will be fine. even if the developers do not add more sounds themselves.

Icefields are not that unrealistic as you may think. alot of battles where fought in the vicinity of icefields in the ice sea above scandinavia(example of this is the raid on convoy PQ17)by the Germans trying to intercept Convoys heading to the Soviet Union. there was no real big surface battle in a ice field however. but seeing that UA:D wants to potray Alt History with Historically accurate equipment, Ice fields are not that far of a stretch to add for this type of game.

 

Ahh never knew that really, i hope mod support is done to a high standard so overhauls can be a thing among many other features as well. Dunno if the devs will ever add in islands, coastlines or ice fields at all (i hope they do at some point).

[slayer6]

His computer isn't that far off mine; I am running:

i7 960 3.20GHz

Rampage III (Socket 1366)

16GB 1066MHz DDR3

Crucial MX500 2TB SSD

GTX1660Ti

I had a couple of issues setting the O/S to boot off the SSD, but other than that, there were no real issues.  The GPU seems OK for it as well.  As for the game, I find that it seems to run just fine until you have 30+ ships involved firing their main and secondary battery.

[Tycondero]

12 minutes ago, slayer6 said:

GTX1660Ti

The GPU seems OK for it as well.  As for the game, I find that it seems to run just fine until you have 30+ ships involved firing their main and secondary battery.

I think this GPU is fine for UAD, I personally have a GTX1070 and get similar issues with many ships. Maybe the new 3000 series of Nvidia will do a lot better, but I think that it is mostly the lack of optimization that kills the frames.

[Cptbarney]

I have a GTX1660S 16gb ram and i get 60fps with beautiful settings and 1920x1080 resolution.

Seems pretty gud so far.