Specs needed to run LCPDFR?

[Storm 25]

What are the specs you need to run LCPDFR...I've always thought it was me having a laptop, Or the mods, Or the other stuff I had that caused.

• Lag. Huge FPS Drops.
  
• Missing Textures.
  
• Object Popin.
  

But no, I traced the faults to LCPDFR, The game will work perfectly but upon installation of the LCPDFR mod, Textures will not load correctly and objects will pop in, Someplaces the FPS will also drop.

I've tested on my laptop, A friend of mine's gaming rig.. He has Intel Core i7 and some...shit...One of those long Ati Cards, I've also tested on a friends of mine alienware laptop, even tho it had problems running GTA IV all togheter.

So whats specs do we need to be able to run LCPDFR? =/

Thanks in advance

[Iconography 1,384]

There's no official specification list.

Really, I recommend

Core i7 or AMD equivalent

At least 6GB of RAM (preferably 8, it is cheap now. Also, 6GB is awkward to achieve since it usually comes in 2GB dimms)

GeForce GTX 560 Ti or ATI equivalent

At least a 600W PSU to safely run all that.

GTA on the latest patch, 1.0.7.0, is demanding. LCPDFR on top of that requires a good machine. This may be a little more than you will need but if you want good graphics as well, any lower than what I listed really will be a bottleneck.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Iconography

[Storm 25]

So users with an average computer can't really enjoy this mod then? as it creates game errors.... =/

[Iconography 1,384]

On low settings they can. That list above was for good graphics like with ENB et cetera.

[Break 978]

AMD or Intel Quadcore -> AMD Phenom II X4 955 / Intel i5

4-8GB of RAM (best DDR3 or fast DDR2)

Graphics card -> nvidia GTX 550 (or something like that)

[Cyan 4,990]

So users with an average computer can't really enjoy this mod then? as it creates game errors.... =/

No, an average computer nowadays meets the specs for running LCPDFR on Low graphics settings.

[unr3al 1,124]

Our technical troll already took off, but for future reference, for reasonable play:

Dual Core i5, 4GB, AMD 5770.

Optimal play:

Quad Core something (except Athlon CPU's or weak Phenoms)

6GB

AMD 5800 series or higher

I used to run GTA IV vanilla install with a Core 2 Duo and an 8800GTX. Ran like crap, and that was a very powerful system at the time (beginning of 2006). So bottom line is you need to invest some money for higher end graphics. It's not LCPDFR's fault, it will be the fault of the poor console port-over coding that Rockstar did, high end car models and weak system components. If you don't want to upgrade your PC; Buy a Playstation or XBOX. People use those for gaming because you can buy one and be set for 5+ years without having to change anything, and you can just spend money on games and equipment. PC's are just more flexible and better with graphics and customization.

[Synapt 17]

I gotta be honest, your 'Reasonable' Specs are pretty steep, lol.

Any mid to high range Core 2-era CPU (the 45nm core models being the best) should be fine, as well as a higher end 9 series GeForce era card (higher end radeon R700/4xxx for you ATI guys) should really play the game on generally close to the max settings, minus general draw distance maxing at about 50~ if your GPU has around 512MB.

This being noted from experience, as I played GTA IV plain and with this mod on an E8400 and 9800GTX+ for quite a time before recently getting a GTX 460.

One thing to note if anything is, if you got a 32-bit system like XP still, and 4GB of RAM, you'll generally want to make sure your system has PAE on (which on the majority of XP installs, it will be by default), but also use the /3GB switch in your boot options, as GTA IV is LAA built, meaning rather than maxing out on 2GB of RAM on 32-bit systems like most apps do, it can use up to 3GB.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Synapt

[unr3al 1,124]

It's steep because for most games it would be, but GTA IV's code base is a pile of trash. Say what you want about the complexity of the game, but Rockstar could have done better. They obviously put very little effort into this console port. I used a Core 2 Duo E6700 (Conroe Generation), 4GB of Corsair XMS DDR2, a PNY 8800GTX on Windows XP with a 19" LCD monitor. Not a widescreen, so it wasn't a 1080i or 1080p resolution. That was a great computer for January 2006, which is when I built it. GTA IV ran pretty poorly when it came out, even at medium settings. May of 2009 rolls around, and I re-build my system with a Phenom II X4 955BE, two 4890's anda 6GB DDR 3 OCZ Reaper memory, and finally the game is playable at high details on a 23" LCD or LED at 1080p resolution.

And on an unrelated note, since I can't reply to Iconography or the rest of the forum community in the other topic with our loveable bail-out, Storm;

Understand that what I said regarding blue screens(as should be apparent by the context it was used it) is a generalization. I generalized people who had catastrophic trouble installing this mod. I had difficulty for about an hour or so before I created a forum account, asked a question, and followed instructions. And that was before I found a convenient .exe file that did the work for me, like we have today. My statement was no more broad and overly elaborate than his ridiculously overstated description of the problems with the mod. It's a beta, it has bugs, but most people on this forum solve them, or find explanations for them. If he's having all of these magical problems; it's him and his computer. Nothing else. Furthermore, the post I responded to was indeed trolling, by definition. It's a fact, not an insult. You'll notice that he took note of what I said and apologized, implying that he realized he shouldn't have said what he said, and I commend him for that. But if he's going to outright insult people I work with in the development and progression of this mod, and say what he said, he's not going to be getting a sugar sweet response from me anytime soon. Instead he's going to be called out for the way he acts. And if he doesn't like it, then that's his problem. I violated no rules by pointing out facts regarding what he said in his thread, and I stand by my remarks and observations. I'd thank him for his apology, but the thread is closed.

Edited August 31, 2011 by unr3al