Jump to content


Aspyr Releases DOOM 3 Universal Binary


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#21 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 01:44 PM

View Postbobbob, on February 21st 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

Triplebuffering?

Yes, thats pretty much what it is.

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#22 leifishy

leifishy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 02:39 PM

I installed the patch last night on my Power Mac G5 1.6, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro Mac/PC 256mb, 1.5 g of RAM, didn't notice any increase in FPS.

I did just get an email back from ASPYR telling me that since I installed Doom 3 into my Applications folder that could be corrupting the game and giving me performance lags.  I have a set of instructions to uninstall and reinstall.

Could this also be a reason I didn't see much of an increase with the new patch?

Also, Can I save my save games folder, and not start over, or are these files potentially corrupt and should be removed as well.

#23 Mookiteo

Mookiteo

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 03:18 PM

View Postleifishy, on February 21st 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

I did just get an email back from ASPYR telling me that since I installed Doom 3 into my Applications folder that could be corrupting the game and giving me performance lags.  I have a set of instructions to uninstall and reinstall.

Well ... where are you supposed to install it?  I install all my games into a "Games" folder in applications.  Is that a bad idea?  What does installing into the Applications folder do to cause corruption?

Sounds wacky.

#24 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 04:10 PM

I will be giving this patch a workout once I get home.  Sounds very promising.  I have a dual 1.8GHz G5 and an X800 XT.  So, from the looks of what I got before.  My MAX FPS was like 47, and I can't remember the settings I used.  But, it was now in the range of like 40FPS with good settings.  So, I hope this brings me over the 50 mark :D

#25 totallywhacked

totallywhacked

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 04:52 PM

I  second the opinion that maybe, just maybe, this very same trick is what everyone on the mac porting/developing side has been missing for the last few years. Can you share the trick with the other mac developers? Like for instance Blizzard, Feral, MacPlay, MacSoft ?

It would be great if maybe everyone got a performance patch that used the cpu to make up for lost time on the graphics board.

#26 ajmas

ajmas

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 05:20 PM

View PostGlendaAdams, on February 21st 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

There is a GL option ATI had us turn on for their cards that basically lets the game get a little bit farther ahead rendering while the card catches up.  This is something that happens on the PC by default.

Does anyone know why ATI turned this off on the Mac by default?

#27 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 06:21 PM

WORD!  Why was that off?
I will post up my results in a few.  Got to test the before and after :D

#28 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 06:47 PM

Well, I didn't get jack diddley squat of an improvement.
Before updates (pre patch)
(1)     (2)
29.3   40.4

After game patch (post patch)
(1)     (2)
31.0   41.1

This is @1680x1050 Resolution
Dual 1.8GHz G5
4GB Ram
10.4.5
ATi X800 XT

Just about a frame more. :(

I even did ran it with the patch @640x480 (stretched)\
(1)    (2)
31.8   40.8

Useless for me.  I didn't bother with or without shadows.  These are all without shadows on.  I was hoping for like 10FPS more so I could turn them on but, no point.  Just the same thing :(  Darn it!

#29 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 21 February 2006 - 08:44 PM

My framerate improvements were along the same lines as dj's for my setup.  Only a small FPS improvement across the board.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#30 tthiel

tthiel

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az

Posted 21 February 2006 - 08:50 PM

Will Quake 4 implement the ID dual core patch that was provided for dual core PC's?  I understand there was quite a jump in performance.

#31 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:07 PM

View Posta2daj, on February 21st 2006, 09:44 PM, said:

Only a small FPS improvement across the board.

Which seems about what I would expect, given the description of the speed-up.  I really don't see how that could possibly result in anything like a 10fps increase.  The one user who reported such a huge leap probably had something else going on.  

--Eric

#32 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:50 PM

View Postdj phat 2000, on February 21st 2006, 07:47 PM, said:

...
This is @1680x1050 Resolution
Dual 1.8GHz G5
4GB Ram
10.4.5
ATi X800 XT
...
Useless for me.  I didn't bother with or without shadows.  These are all without shadows on.  I was hoping for like 10FPS more so I could turn them on but, no point.  Just the same thing :(  Darn it!

You should lower the resolution a bit and play with shadows on. It really changes the game atmosphere. In single player that is.

#33 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 11:55 PM

That was done with Shadows off.  I'm only getting 40FPS no matter what the resolution is.  I remember my best score was 47 at one point.  But, that was a few point releases ago and i am sure driver updates.  

There seems to be no breaking this cap.  Even with this new feature for ATi cards.  The best (or the next best AGP card) ATi makes for Apple.  There is a frame difference in performance.  So, this must be a CPU limit here.  SMP will be the only thing that could help :(

I just ran it with shadows on (not player shadows though, just everyone else)
  (1)    (2)
26.4  34.6

Those numbers are a bit better then the 10 I used to lose when turning on shadows.  But, I think having player shadows off helps a bit here.  So, it may be the same 10 I used to lose.  That is @ 1680x1050 resolution.  Being I don't gain anything from going lower in res, it makes no sense to even bother.

#34 totallywhacked

totallywhacked

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 12:32 AM

Oh well. That's too bad guys. When you test after patch, be sure to delete preferences and .cfg files and cache and stuff first.

#35 Someone

Someone

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 05:56 AM

View Postdj phat 2000, on February 21st 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

That was done with Shadows off.  I'm only getting 40FPS no matter what the resolution is.  I remember my best score was 47 at one point.  But, that was a few point releases ago and i am sure driver updates.  

There seems to be no breaking this cap.  Even with this new feature for ATi cards.  The best (or the next best AGP card) ATi makes for Apple.  There is a frame difference in performance.  So, this must be a CPU limit here.  SMP will be the only thing that could help :(

I just ran it with shadows on (not player shadows though, just everyone else)
  (1)    (2)
26.4  34.6

Those numbers are a bit better then the 10 I used to lose when turning on shadows.  But, I think having player shadows off helps a bit here.  So, it may be the same 10 I used to lose.  That is @ 1680x1050 resolution.  Being I don't gain anything from going lower in res, it makes no sense to even bother.

Well...you can never expect miracles running at such high rez.

#36 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 10:37 AM

someone I don't think your following me on this.  It doesn't matter what resolution I use.  From 640x480 to the highest I can go of 1680x1050.  I get the same FPS practically.  This must be CPU limited.  The video card is showing a pretty flat response from end to end.  With the 3D rendering off, I was getting 70FPS (I think that was it, must recheck.  I swear it was higher at one point).  I should redo that again with this patch to see if any improvement comes of this on the CPU end. But, I don't think there will be, and if so not much.

#37 leifishy

leifishy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 12:10 PM

Can some one help me with this.  I installed the patch.  Initially I saw no improvement.  It was recomended I reinstall the game, I had it in the Application folder. I put it where I was suppossed to.(after deleting my preferences and the doom 3 folder in app support folder)

I ran the game in version 1.1 and saw a fps in timedemo demo1 of 26.0.  My settings were medium, 1024x768, no shadows.

After installing the patch I saw a moderate gain in timedemo demo1 to fps 29.2.  I noticed the second time running it a much smoother frame rate, no pauses or lags...

I then went into the DoomConfig.cfg file and modified it, turning off showbrass and projectile lights, enabling the cache, image downsize, etc, I added an autoexec.cfg as well with a bunch of different performance tweaks.

What I noticed while watching the demo was that settings I had turned off, like projectile lights, and several others, were on in the timedemo. Is the timedemo reading the DoomConfig.cfg file? And is the timedemo reading the autoexec.cfg?  I still got 29.2 fps running the timedemo.

What I type in in the console is "timedemo demo1".

Do I need to type in something else to get the cfg files to be read to give me a more acurate fps reading?

#38 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 22 February 2006 - 01:16 PM

View Postdj phat 2000, on February 22nd 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

someone I don't think your following me on this.  It doesn't matter what resolution I use.  From 640x480 to the highest I can go of 1680x1050.  I get the same FPS practically.  This must be CPU limited.  The video card is showing a pretty flat response from end to end.  With the 3D rendering off, I was getting 70FPS (I think that was it, must recheck.  I swear it was higher at one point).  I should redo that again with this patch to see if any improvement comes of this on the CPU end. But, I don't think there will be, and if so not much.

Try running it in a window and looking at the CPU usage (activity monitor or Menu Meters). Press the command key when launching Doom.. no wait you already know about that (1680x1050 res!).

Well, I'd be interested in knowing of you CPU is the bottleneck, at any settings.

#39 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 01:52 PM

I'll give that at a try.  I do remember from a while ago turning off a CPU and performance went down a small amount.  5+ frames or so.  I'll try it again with one and  two CPU's in windowed mode :)

#40 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 22 February 2006 - 02:52 PM

I hope people realize that medium quality is for GPU's with 256mb and high is for GPU's with 512mb and not complain when they can't run high well on a GPU with 128mb. =p I think I have seen someone test out Doom 3 on a iMac core duo with a 128MB GPU with it on high.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7