Func_Msgboard: Fitzquake System Requirements

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Fitzquake System Requirements

Posted by liquidlogic [64.252.175.74] on 2008/04/06 04:43:26
What are the recommended system requirements for Fitzquake?

Jengle:
#1 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/04/06 10:07:39
Originally, fitzquake had the same requirements as GLQuake, but I have made some changes which gradually increased the video memory usage. So it's definitely higher memory needs than the minimum requirements for GLQuake. And, I think voodoo/voodoo2 support is now broken, but I'm not sure why and maybe it can be solved with the right settings.
Recommended requirements should be fairly low, like a Riva TNT or TNT2 or better, and a Pentium 2 or better.
Personally, I have a P4 2.4GHz, 1GB ram, and a Geforce FX 5900, and that's definitely higher than needed.
I Was Running It
#2 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.36] on 2008/04/06 14:01:22
in 1024x768 on an Athlon 1.7ghz with 512Mb RAM and an on-board geforce 2. It would run in 1280x1024 but in some complex areas it would slow down a tiny bit. 1024 was fine.
The Reason I Asked Is Because
#3 posted by liquidlogic [64.252.175.74] on 2008/04/06 17:14:06
I'm trying to run Fitzquake on a machine running an AMD Athlon 951 MHz processor with 576 MB of RAM on an nVidia GeForce 4 MX graphics card, and it's a complete dog. Is there any way to optimize for slower hardware?
#4 posted by rudl [78.104.10.74] on 2008/04/06 17:57:50
I was running Fitzquake, glquake, Joequake on an celeron 700 with an intel i810 onboard gfx-card, but only in 512x384x16 and 40-50 fps. I think this gfx card is about the minimum requirement.
#5 posted by liquidlogic [64.252.175.74] on 2008/04/06 18:07:29
I finally have it working. I bumped down Windows' resolution from 1024x768 to 800x600, and I think Fitzquake is running at 640x480, and everything works great. I was stumped by how a 12-year-old game could still be doggy on a newer system! Thanks for the help.
Jengle
#6 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/06 23:21:56
windows resolution? It doesn't have anything to do with it.
Fitzquake runs nicely on P3-400 and GF4 MX 64 MB - if the maps are done right. All the id maps are. Even marcher is playable although stutters a little at points.
Er... Does Marcher Run In Fitz?
#7 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.36] on 2008/04/06 23:25:25
I didnt think it did...
Yes It Runs
#8 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/06 23:52:38
and it's faster than in aguirre's engine.
..albeit With Lots Of Packet Overflow & Missing Sounds
#9 posted by rj [86.1.160.132] on 2008/04/08 09:07:26
that's odd about the speed. i've never had fitz run smoother than aglquake on anything, let alone a massive level like marcher.
I Think It's Because
#10 posted by bambuz [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/08 09:40:50
of the Fitzquake 3d engine being slightly optimized for big scenes (don't remember if it's particular only to Fitz). There was talk about it years ago, probably in the Marcher release thread.
So you get more FPS in Marcher because of that. You can do tests with r_drawentities 0 to make it clearer.
Huh
#11 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/08 11:58:29
I thought it was the other way around?
From Fitzquake's Readme
#12 posted by bambuz [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/08 13:29:04
Changes to 0.75:
- totally rewritten bsp drawing code. The new code combines the advantages of the gl_texsort 1 and gl_texsort 0 codepaths from glquake into one codepath that uses texture sorting and multitexture. In my tests, i've found that it's about the same speed as glquake in low poly scenes (like the original quake levels,) but as you get into the thousands of wpolys, it's faster and faster.
Aguirre's engine *supports* bigger stuff than anything else out there but Fitz is quite fast on the big stuff that doesn't break its limits.
There are some changes to the renderer in QW engines too but they don't help as much in big scenes.
References:
-Marcher release thread http://www.celephais.net/board/vie...
-Fitz readme
http://celephais.net/fitzquake/fil...
Performance
#13 posted by than [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/09 13:32:37
Fitz is smoother than AGL engines on my machine too, though AGL at least loads the big levels and is really useful if you somehow manage to get a leak that you can't find in the editor or some other problem on a big unoptimised map.
Hopefully the next version of fitz will support bigger maps (and ogg/mp3 playback :) )
I Actually Hope
#14 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/09 14:00:51
that Fitz won't go to AGL level limit features, it would encourage sloppy mapping... AGL:s features are mostly for debugging - except for some massive maps too.
Bam
#15 posted by than [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/09 18:16:45
Maybe you are right. Quoth 2 has a lot of features for reducing model useage and if Kinn can fit marcher into less than 32k faces we shouldn't really complain :)
Then Again
#16 posted by than [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/09 18:19:09
if the edict and MAX_CHANNELS overflow stuff could be improved it would be nice.
#17 posted by gone [91.122.99.143] on 2008/04/09 20:09:07
or maybe someone needs to get a PC that is not 8 years old...
I Can't Believe What I'm Hearing
#18 posted by Orl [68.38.78.49] on 2008/04/09 21:05:52
You mean you guys actually want Fitzquake to be limited to standard Quake's limitations like clipnodes and marksurfaces?
Limits
#19 posted by Preach [86.156.60.17] on 2008/04/09 21:23:24
It's not so much that they want fitzquake to have the limits. It's more about making maps that conform to the limits of every engine, and so it's not a problem that fitzquake doesn't increase them.
. . .
#20 posted by ijed [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/09 22:06:13
I tend to add too much crap into a map, true, but this sounds odd.
Maintain the ten year old limits so that all Quake maps are pure / well built / not beyond a certain filesize?
Preach
#21 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/09 22:24:26
Though when Fitz SDL port works on all platforms, there is less reason for that since everybody could in theory just use it.
If some kind of compromise could be reached where new mappers would still understand the benefits of making the map with lower limits. I don't have any idea how to make it so though.
I have a roughly 6 year old computer and display card btw. :)
So Whats The Best Way Of Breaking The Limits Of Size
#22 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.20] on 2008/04/10 02:41:59
but still being able to run coloured lights.
Darkplaces :-|
Viagra
#23 posted by Spirit [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/10 09:38:55
if you eat too much, your vision will get blue.
Bambuz
#24 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/10 11:29:51
surely that's up to the mapper himself if he wants to be a good mapper?
I dont see what that has to do with engines having higher limits.
Well
#25 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/10 13:52:05
since a lot of mappers just don't know, they will use a random client and add stuff to the map until it crashes, then remove slightly.
So
#26 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/10 14:02:30
you have a big noob map instead of a small noob map. Its still a noob map :)
T'would Be Nice
#27 posted by RickyT23 [86.137.233.151] on 2008/04/10 14:04:21
if I could have WARPSPASM sized maps with .lit files support!
My Point Being
#28 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/10 14:06:48
if you have regular glquake limits, a mapper that doesnt know much would end up making an undetailed ugly map within the limits (but still unoptimised) rather than a bigger map that might look ok, but would still be unoptimised.
But I guess what you're saying is if you dont break it the first time, the next time you will just keep adding rather than learning about limits.
Ricky
#29 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/10 14:08:00
aguire's said he hasnt added .lit file support because he hasnt seen a quake map that uses colored lighting well.
Perhaps you might want to give him a poke and point to Slave :)
Raised Limits;
#30 posted by rj [86.1.160.132] on 2008/04/10 19:53:46
i pretty much agree with nitin on this one. it's a pretty safe assumption that huge sloppily-built maps from newer mappers will either:-
- compile like shit
- run like shit
- play like shit
..and have any/all of the above pointed out to them by testers, reviewers or general forum folk, regardless of whether the maps crash stock quake or not. people learn to improve through feedback, and with said improvement comes optimisation skills.
bambuz, i can see your point.. but really it's insignificant when compared to the advantages of raising the limits.. which as it stands can easily be broken by even the neatest & efficient of mappers who just want to make big maps (and end up having to cut out detail or chop areas off etc..)
Well
#31 posted by ijed [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/10 20:36:10
I used what's described as a testing engine (AguirRe's) to build a pack of maps, most of which broke all previous engine limits.
Weather they ran like shit depended on if you used the recommended engines.
They got fairly good review scores.
None took longer than a day / half day to compile.
If there is a group who wants to maintain ten year old engine limitations and play nothing but maps that work for those then they can go ahead.
Mac and Linux users don't really have a choice, true and thats something I didn't factor in when I made the pack.
I'm sticking to my preferred method of making maps for Quake, but lighter so that non-windows users can play as well.
I don't want to play bad maps either, but draconian enforcement measures defeat the purpose of what is a creative medium in the first place.
In any case, show me a single mapper who hasn't made a shit map. Chances are any who haven't just haven't released them, leaving them in a learning folder where they belong.
Ijed; (off Topic)
#32 posted by rj [86.1.160.132] on 2008/04/10 23:49:37
i just rememebered, i completely forgot to reply to you in that other thread (and i forget which one it was now) where you mentioned you were after an extra playtester. does the offer still stand? let me know if so and i'll wing an email your way :)
Ok
#33 posted by ijed [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/11 00:46:33
My mail's in my profile.
Nothing too fancy since I'm fighting with code and . . . engine limits.
Czg
#34 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.20] on 2008/04/11 00:47:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5a...
:)
Fuckwrongpost
#35 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.20] on 2008/04/11 00:48:00
Linux Users Can Use Wine
#36 posted by mwh [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/11 04:57:20
And it works just great.
Mac users are in more of a bind when it comes to eye-candy engines. I don't know how Darwine is doing these days.
#37 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/04/11 13:48:51
We Mac users now have Fitz. We're all set!
Its The LAW
#38 posted by gone [91.122.2.83] on 2008/04/11 22:39:53
bigger=better
map with 1000 monsters is better than a map with 100 monsters
and 1 hour playtime is better than half-hour
and 1000000 brushes is better than 999999
humans are always impressed by the size and and quantity alone
Willem!!
#39 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.20] on 2008/04/12 04:25:45
Congrats! You can now play Thehand (that feeds you) on skill 2!
Also QRP pack is worth a look (Quake Retexturing Project)
:=)
The Only Good Replacement Textures
#40 posted by nitin [124.168.94.61] on 2008/04/12 05:00:05
are starbuck's idbase makeovers. Definitely check those out.
FYI
#41 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/04/12 08:43:35
The next fitzquake will have raised limits.
Long ago, I was opposed to them because it would mean people making maps that didn't work on all engines -- i wanted to support standards rather than undermining them. But now that it's happened, I'm annoyed when I can't use fitzquake to play worthwhile maps like sickbase, warpspasm, and masque. So since the battle has been lost, I might as well join the winning side :)
Welcome To The Dark Side
#42 posted by negke [82.82.176.235] on 2008/04/12 09:14:50
It will forever determine your destiny
#43 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/04/12 11:31:36
"Also QRP pack is worth a look (Quake Retexturing Project) "
No, it isn't. :)
Metlslime
#44 posted by JPL [82.234.167.238] on 2008/04/12 13:35:49
Already an idea about the limits you will raised ?
So
#45 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/12 16:45:03
Could you make dynamic allocation so they would only be limited by the amount of memory?
People wouldn't need to do that pesky vis blocking and vising. And one could carve all the way. And make most stuff out of models.
The future looks so bright, I think I've seen the light.
Rygels Set Is Best IMHO!
#46 posted by RickyT23 [90.199.193.20] on 2008/04/12 18:04:39
Excessive, but the best.
Debaser set is also cool! Just to quicky install.
Bambuz
#47 posted by Bal [90.2.40.106] on 2008/04/12 18:25:45
It may be sarcasm to you, but you're pretty much describing a modern engine, so yeah all those things are good things.
No
#48 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/12 20:19:41
it wasn't fully sarcasm.
Bambuz:
#49 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/04/13 07:39:33
Dynamic allocation isn't really possible with quake's memory management. It's easier just to raise them a lot and know that most or all maps will be under the new limits.
P.S. vis blocking has nothing to do with engine limits (except in software mode) -- it's a rendering optimization.
JPL: which limits? things like models, sounds, lightmaps, visleafs, marksurfaces, static entities, signon buffer size, etc.
Metlslime
#50 posted by JPL [82.234.167.238] on 2008/04/13 10:55:42
I'm very interested about the limits you will raised, as my current project is already close to these limits (e.g marksurfaces, etc..)... And not being able to play a map with FitzQuake is not acceptable to me... Well, maybe I should try to do smallest maps... thougth.. ;)
anyway, thanks for the infos... Oh, one small question again: any idea of the release dat of such a fancy enhanced brand new FitzQuake ?
JPL:
#51 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/04/13 22:49:41
"soon", which could mean a couple months.
Metl
#52 posted by than [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/14 01:56:15
Make sure you make a backup to cd/dv/internet before then, eh ;)
Same goes for Rubicon 2!
Metlslime
#53 posted by JPL [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/14 08:07:35
Thanks, it sounds good to me :)
Rubicon2
#54 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/14 12:45:07
wasnt that like some sort of urban legend that was disproved on Mythbusters?
It Boggles My Mind
#55 posted by Jago [84.250.87.231] on 2008/04/14 21:52:43
that we actually have a tread like this. The only possible explanation for:
"I'm trying to run Fitzquake on a machine running an AMD Athlon 951 MHz processor with 576 MB of RAM on an nVidia GeForce 4 MX graphics card, and it's a complete dog."
Is that your hardware is broken, you are not using the correct drivers for your hardware, your PC is infested with viruses/spyware or all of the above combined. I used to run FitzQuake on a P3/450 with 128mb ram and it flied.
Nitin:
#56 posted by metlslime [64.175.155.252] on 2008/04/14 22:34:47
I think, after going through two dozen watermelons, half an acre of bubble wrap, and wrecking three vintage cars, they decided it was "inconclusive."
Metlslime
#57 posted by RickyT23 [90.213.8.240] on 2008/04/14 22:43:50
#56 i thought was aimed at #55, as in "minimum FitzQuake System Requirements = #56"
:P
Well Why Do You Think It Takes So Long To Do Releases
#58 posted by bambuz [91.152.87.250] on 2008/04/14 22:52:22
at the very end you have to determine the system requirements, and it takes a lot of time, money and overall effort
Jago
#59 posted by Mr Fribbles [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/15 04:32:48
The only possible explanation...
You're probably right, but there's another possible explanation as well. It could be that they're trying to run a completely unoptimized pig of a map that some people dump on us these days (HEY MAN, DON'T OPPRESS ME WITH YOUR DRACONIAN LIMITS).
#60 posted by gone [91.122.151.208] on 2008/04/15 09:01:43
its NEXT GEN man!
when was the 'screw the r_speeds thread"? QMAP `2003? (too bad the archives vanished)
Metl
#61 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/15 13:51:05
yeah but 'inconclusive' really means we dont believe it but for those of you that still want to hold on to something, we wont shatter the hope for you :)
Somebody Else Should Make Rubicon 2
#62 posted by RickyT23 [86.137.233.151] on 2008/04/15 13:56:19
Hah!
Fribbles
#63 posted by ijed [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/15 15:12:10
I didn't realise I'd upset people by ignoring ten year old arbitrary limits.
In any case all future maps will come with a special unoptimised pig disclaimer, just for the sensitive out there.
Oh, wait, maybe if you had bothered to read my earlier post instead of pulling out one phrase I'd give a shit. Or if you'd bothered to play the maps.
Why isn't there a retarded bullshit icon?
Ijed
#64 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/15 15:37:58
because then all func posts would use the same icon...
frib, that's a bit harsh though, there's unoptimised pig maps and optimised hippo maps that break limits just because they are big not because they are poorly made.
And this post should really use the retarded bullshit icon too given that I'm arguing about engine stuff when I've never even thought about opening up an editor :)
Yeah It's A Problem.
#65 posted by bambuz [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/15 18:25:04
If you want hippos, you get pigs too. But if you ban pigs, you ban hippos too.
Baby with the bathwater etc...
That's Not A Problem.
#66 posted by rj [86.1.160.132] on 2008/04/15 20:42:56
you appreciate the hippos & ignore the pigs.
on the flip of the coin, sure you can appreciate the lack of pigs.. however it's never nice for the hippo farmers out ther to have to slice their livestock into pieces X(
it's just something i feel strongly about because i have two maps that are presently at 5 & 6 thousand brushes respectively and neither are half done yet.. i'm not sure how that translates into marksurfaces but make no mistake they're already pretty fucking BIG and it wouldn't surprise me if they ended up breaking limits. i'm obsessively tidy when it comes to brushwork so there really isn't a whole amount of optimisation to be done, the only thing pushing them beyond the limits is ambition.
i'm full aware that bigger doesn't always = better, but personally LOVE huge epic maps you can literally spend hours on (like warpb/warpc) and think there's a massive scope for exploring mapping on that scale. providing vis is always taken into account, of course.
Rj
#67 posted by nitin [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/15 23:34:40
release the hippos.
Dont Argue!
#68 posted by gone [91.122.151.208] on 2008/04/16 03:13:43
bigger = better
You Need To Be A Zoologist Just To Make A Map Nowadays...
#69 posted by metlslime [64.175.155.252] on 2008/04/16 07:29:41
what with all the pig maps, hippo maps, turtle maps...
Don't Worry Metl
#70 posted by Spirit [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/16 08:57:39
Even though your engine does not support them, there are normal maps too!
To Ijed, With Love...
#71 posted by Mr Fribbles [59.167.93.82] on 2008/04/16 16:41:54
I didn't realise I'd upset people by ignoring ten year old arbitrary limits.
I'm not upset, and I doubt anyone else is. If you want to ignore those limits in your maps, go right ahead. Just be aware that in doing so, you forfeit the right to complain if people refuse to play those maps (on the grounds that they don't function correctly in their engine of choice).
You can argue that the original Quake limits are arbitrary and antiquated these days, and that's all well and good (it's a discussion worth having!)
You cannot argue against the fact though, that for better or for worse, many engines adhere to the standard Quake limits, and as such, exceeding those limits restricts engine choice (and in some cases can deny people the chance to play the map at all, as our mac and linux friends have reminded us recently).
In any case all future maps will come with a special unoptimised pig disclaimer, just for the sensitive out there.
They already do - here's an excerpt from the warp spasm readme:
"...you most likely will encounter crashes and various problems... due to engine bugs and limitations... You will receive a series of warnings at the start of most maps, relating to various limits being breached... Do not complain to me that your favourite engine cannot run the maps. I don't care."
So don't worry - you're already covered!
Oh, wait, maybe if you had bothered to read my earlier post instead of pulling out one phrase I'd give a shit.
I read it. I understood it. I simply happen to have a different opinion. You're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. You'll note that I didn't chime in like I usually would in that other thread - I actually didn't want to argue with you about this, despite my strong opinions on the matter. I don't know you, I have no beef with you personally, so I didn't want to just fly off the handle unprovoked... that would be most unlike me! ;)
Or if you'd bothered to play the maps.
I actually have warp spasm on my list of stuff to play, since someone asked me nicely. I hadn't actually looked at the readme yet, if I had seen that shitty comment about not caring that the maps won't run in my favourite engine I'd be much less inclined to play it, but whatever. Do you want to know the real reason I haven't played it yet?
I've been busy.
Why have I been so busy? I've been doing a lot of overtime. Doing what, you ask?
Well, I've been busy cutting gameplay out of my maps in order to get them to load on (PS2, PSP, <insert platform here>). Everything was all fine and good, but then the art team came along and started adding boatloads of unoptimized, wasteful art into my levels in the name of making them pretty.
After they've exceeded all of their well-known poly and memory budgets (to the point where the game crashes on load with 50% of the game's levels), naturally these artists are too lazy and undisciplined to fix the problem they created, so they fuck off home and leave someone else to clean up the mess.
In order to get the builds out to the publisher on time, I then come through and delete gameplay features like destructible/dynamic objects or try to trim my entity files down by a few kilobytes until the levels load again, so that the art guys can come back the next day and add more shitty art and break the levels again.
Why isn't there a retarded bullshit icon?
Listen up metl! This is an excellent suggestion. I strongly approve of and endorse the "retarded bullshit icon" concept. I would use said icon in at least 70-80% of my posts. If you don't know what icon to use, you could make a small version of this image:
http://media.steampowered.com/stea...
Nitin
#72 posted by Mr Fribbles [59.167.93.82] on 2008/04/16 16:57:27
because then all func posts would use the same icon...
Bollocks. There are people like yourself that consistently post sensible and worthwhile things in between our retarded bullshit posts.
frib, that's a bit harsh though, there's unoptimised pig maps and optimised hippo maps that break limits just because they are big not because they are poorly made.
Sure. I get that. I also get that people get a bit carried away, whether that's just ambition or momentum or whatever... and plenty of people like big, epic maps. But in all seriousness, if your map won't load in standard engines anymore, isn't it time to trim things back a bit or break the level up into smaller chunks?
By making the choice to continue past the standard limits, you're limiting your audience's engine choice and possibly locking people out from playing the map at all. Even those that can play it, are going to have a less than optimal experience if they're playing in an engine they don't like or don't have configured properly.
If the map is the best thing since sliced bread, it might be worth it (for those that can actually play it)... but if not, what's the point? In many cases, beyond a certain point, isn't it just the mapping equivalent of "guitar wank"?
And this post should really use the retarded bullshit icon too given that I'm arguing about engine stuff when I've never even thought about opening up an editor :)
I call bollocks again. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone can voice it too. That's the beauty of teh intarwebs! :)
Ok
#73 posted by ijed [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/16 16:59:26
I was pissed off because it seemed that you were assuming that I didn't care about optimisation, when that was maybe half the work I did on warp.
I decided at the start to limit the engines, since as well as good ones, like fitz, that have maintained the original limits there are many bad ones. As I said earlier this meant that also stopped Mac and Linux users from playing because AguirRe's engines are windows only - something I overlooked.
I'm not arguing that maps without fullvis or just a load of crap thrown together are what I want to make.
I prefer design to art or programming and the key to that discipline is a want to make a solid system that functions well. Programmers tend to worry more about the thing working at all whilst artists tend not to give a shit if it works or not, just how it looks. Technical artists are more like designers in that respect.
That's the reason that allot of warp was bland - fancy shadow casting brushwork #10 copied throughout maps of that size would have given me vis times of more than a day.
I overreacted, but "ho-ho, these n00bs don't have a clue" was the vibe I got.
And wait til you have to use a PS3 - there's a memory partition between graphics and runtime; 256 a piece. Whilst a equally crappy xbox 360 allows full access to all 512 from whatever source. The difference is you're more likely to see animated loading screens on a PS3.
But that same difference is similar to the discussion here. Limited resources or not.
(nice Rant Frib)
#74 posted by RickyT23 [86.137.233.151] on 2008/04/16 17:04:01
I honestly think you'll probably like WarpSpasm.
I mean OK - many limits are broken, but Ijed has done a pretty good job of vis blocking, and the levels are quite tastefully done. The pack will run OK an pretty much any machine with 48+ Mb of RAM, and I dont think that's an unreasonable requirement.
OK, you're tied to using a particular engine, but the engine has some pretty cool features, none of which are un-true to the Quake style of gameplay.
666 monsters might sound like a figure which was done for the sake of doing it, but you'll find the monsters are actually spread out.
And like I've said, the levels are pretty well visually optimised, and speeds are pretty good :D
I dunno, my 2c
I can see both sides...
#75 posted by leilei [127.255.255.255] on 2008/04/17 04:21:38
FitzQuake runs well on a K6-2 433 with Trident Cyberblade3D i7 4mb, well around 20fpsish constant at 800x600. That's good considering this is a single-TMU card with the worst OpenGL support ever. Interestingly GLDirect makes things worse for framerate on it. This card also forces translucency on the most opaque of objects so fill-rate is also down the drain. (now if only the card didn't do that things would be much much faster)
Also for this card, gl_cull has to be set to 0, otherwise pieces of the map do not render.
Leilei:
#76 posted by RickyT23 [86.137.233.151] on 2008/04/17 10:31:00
What does Slave to a Machine run like on your comp?
(Sounds like a beast BTW!!!)

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2013 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.