Jump to content


Doom 3 Discussion.


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#161 Dr. Geebs

Dr. Geebs

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts

Posted 24 March 2006 - 07:18 PM

Has anyone noticed that the latest update breaks a few visual effects in the GTX mod?  I'm using graphics-only, latest version.

#162 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 25 March 2006 - 02:48 AM

View PostDr. Geebs, on March 25th 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

Has anyone noticed that the latest update breaks a few visual effects in the GTX mod?  I'm using graphics-only, latest version.

well, if you're on v1.3 of d3 (with ppc) then you should be ok.. If u are using this and still having troubles then Gyppi over at AppleCrypt, i'm sure he'll be happy to help you out. (but not for v1.3A of course). Cheers
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)

#163 Dr. Geebs

Dr. Geebs

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts

Posted 25 March 2006 - 04:37 PM

It's 1.3A on a G5 tower.  Pity, 'cos I have an x800 and 1.3A has improved my framerate no end.

#164 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 25 March 2006 - 04:41 PM

ahh well, there ya go then.. I use nvidia (i'll never go back to ATI! But that's another story). So you've got two choices, stick with v1.3A and enjoy better framerates like nvidia overs, or downgrade and enjoy compatibility with more mods.

Have u tried other mods? There's a ton out there..

cheers, Strider
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)

#165 paulc

paulc

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 11:17 AM

It was "reported" that 1.3A gave a boost to framerates at 800 x 600 and below, but did not above that. I tested that and found it to be true... at 800 x 600, big boost (~10 fps), but at 1024, no boost at all. This was with a 9650 OEM.

I made inquiries about 1.3A with the GTX author... according to him, 1.3A was a Mac specific one and if he had an updated SDK he would look to fix any issues he came across.

#166 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 27 March 2006 - 11:26 AM

View Postpaulc, on March 27th 2006, 11:17 AM, said:

It was "reported" that 1.3A gave a boost to framerates at 800 x 600 and below, but did not above that. I tested that and found it to be true... at 800 x 600, big boost (~10 fps), but at 1024, no boost at all. This was with a 9650 OEM.

I hate to keep saying this, but you've gotta remember that you're the only one who's experiencing this issue.  I saw performance increases across the entire spectrum of resolutions.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#167 paulc

paulc

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 12:38 PM

Just retested on a X800 (on a G5 tower, dual 2.7, 3G RAM, 500G stripped array). Pretty much box stock config file (some different key bindings, a new r_lightscale value(which is supposed to have NO effect on performance)), box stock "barefeats" config, no shadows, high quality video, no vsync, no fsaa, no AF filtering in ATi Displays. Has been that way since day 1. OS install (10.4.5) less than 2 months old.

On this card, I do see some differences. At 1024 x 768, 1.3 yielded 47.3, 1.3A ran 53.7. At 1280 x 768, 1.3 yielded 43.7, 1208 x 1024 ran 43.3. I did have some user processes running so these are comparative not absolute numbers. Those processes generally equate to 2-3 fps at best.

Now "improved my framerate no end" is quite subjective. And "I saw performance increases across the entire spectrum of resolutions" is also pretty meaningless without quantifying it (surprising from someone who took me to task for not explicitly saying a performance figure was "frames per second" aand who chided me for only quoting the screen width). I've seen plenty of claims that 2 and 3 frames per second boosts are a goal worth hours of tweaking; just to put it in perspective, my opinion is that 5 fps is interesting, 10 is significant.

#168 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 27 March 2006 - 02:23 PM

Keep in mind that as the resolutions increase, there's less room for improvement since your entire system is being stressed more and more.  If you're curious, I could re-run a few benchmarks on my system and give you a percentage increase for a half-dozen resolutions.

Something else to remember is that the timedemos are average figures, so raising your old average 2-3 fps over a long timedemo requires some significant increases in framerate over a long enough time to effect the change.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com