[iOliverC]

TiBook 1GHz with 768mb ram and a ATI Radeon 9000 w/64mb?

I just tried the demo and I am in love.

[Adam Betts]

I like original UT over UT2k3

UT2k3 on my 867ghz Radeon 8500 64MB isn't great. In outdoor area, it lag very badly.

[iOliverC]

Why don't you play the orig. UT then? I've played an OS X version of it, or atleast I think I have...Is it the one with the menu at the top, like OS X is?

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by iOliverC:
Why don't you play the orig. UT then? I've played an OS X version of it, or atleast I think I have...Is it the one with the menu at the top, like OS X is?

Yep it's the one with menu at the top.

Ryan Gordon is still working on an update to UT X. UT for OS X was an unfinished project that Glenda Adams never got the time to finish so Ryan Gordon took over it.

The current version of UT X isn't smooth. There's glitches everywhere.

[Super Glitcher]

I actually dig original over UT2k3 also..

Adam, how long until the update is released do you think? - any insightful articles?

[11011001]

I ran the demo on my 1 Ghz 15" AlBook.

It's got the Radeon 9600, and 1 GB RAM.

It runs smooth with max settings, and 3 bots.

Although, too many bots does make it lag.. but, who plays with bots when there is multiplayer?

In short, UT 2K3 runs well on the 1 Ghz PB.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by 11011001:
I ran the demo on my 1 Ghz 15" AlBook.

It's got the Radeon 9600, and 1 GB RAM.

It runs smooth with max settings, and 3 bots.

Although, too many bots does make it lag.. but, who plays with bots when there is multiplayer?

In short, UT 2K3 runs well on the 1 Ghz PB.

Wanna fight?

[cSurfr]

I have the new 12" 1ghz with a 32mb GeForce FX and it absolutely screams. I don't have any problems with the game regardless of where i am in the map, or with about 10 - 12 people on the screen at a time. My settings are almost maxxed out as well. I don't know why the box says the 12" isn't supported, but hey it works fine anyway. I'd have to say it will run just fine on your Ti.

cs

[i am yujin]

Is there any difference with Jaguar and Panther?

I'm just wondering since UT didn't run too smooth on Jaguar (well compared to OS 9 and PCs).

[Johnny_B]

I just can't say how much I look forward to a real port of UT for X. Anybody know an url to a page to look at the progress ?

[dennis88]

Originally posted by i am yujin:
Is there any difference with Jaguar and Panther?

I'm just wondering since UT didn't run too smooth on Jaguar (well compared to OS 9 and PCs).

"from macbidollue

"Panther makes us wonder every day a bit more. "le_mackeux" on our forums posted the results he reached with BenchUT2003 under X.2.6 and X.3. He uses a G4 Quicksilver 933 with a Radeon 9000 and 1.5 Go RAM. Tests were done under 1280*1024 resolution with demo flyby-citadel

Under X.2.6:
Score 37.00
Min FPS 11.42
Average FPS 36.94
max 121.27

Under X.3:
Score 55.95
Min FPS 17.4
Average FPS 57.026
max 192.117

Score improves by more than 30% !"

Yes, there is a difference.
And this is from a test performed in early august, i think

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I have the new 12" 1ghz with a 32mb GeForce FX and it absolutely screams. I don't have any problems with the game regardless of where i am in the map, or with about 10 - 12 people on the screen at a time. My settings are almost maxxed out as well. I don't know why the box says the 12" isn't supported, but hey it works fine anyway. I'd have to say it will run just fine on your Ti.

I think our definition of "screams" is far out of wack. I have a hard time indeed believing that UT2k3 is perfectly smooth in any map with 10-12 people on the screen.


I think it definitely depends if you're a hardcore FPS fan or not....

greg

[i am yujin]

Originally posted by dennis88:
"from macbidollue

"Panther makes us wonder every day a bit more. "le_mackeux" on our forums posted the results he reached with BenchUT2003 under X.2.6 and X.3. He uses a G4 Quicksilver 933 with a Radeon 9000 and 1.5 Go RAM. Tests were done under 1280*1024 resolution with demo flyby-citadel

Under X.2.6:
Score 37.00
Min FPS 11.42
Average FPS 36.94
max 121.27

Under X.3:
Score 55.95
Min FPS 17.4
Average FPS 57.026
max 192.117

Score improves by more than 30% !"

Yes, there is a difference.
And this is from a test performed in early august, i think

Excellent.

Now I only wish War3 ran better too.

[cSurfr]

Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
I think our definition of "screams" is far out of wack. I have a hard time indeed believing that UT2k3 is perfectly smooth in any map with 10-12 people on the screen.


I think it definitely depends if you're a hardcore FPS fan or not....

greg

I've been playing FPS's since Doom, so I'd like to think I know what i'm talking about. You don't have to believe me, just go buy a new 12" and you'll see that it runs great.

[dennis88]

Originally posted by cSurfr:
I've been playing FPS's since Doom, so I'd like to think I know what i'm talking about. You don't have to believe me, just go buy a new 12" and you'll see that it runs great.

What graphics settings do you play in?
You say that it "screams" on your 12" and it will run "fine" on a Ti 1ghz?
A Ti 1ghz will run any game better than the 12" because of extra 32mb vram.

But I don't doubt that games run quite well on the new 12".
But it's not a gaming machine.

[cSurfr]

Originally posted by dennis88:
What graphics settings do you play in?
You say that it "screams" on your 12" and it will run "fine" on a Ti 1ghz?
A Ti 1ghz will run any game better than the 12" because of extra 32mb vram.

But I don't doubt that games run quite well on the new 12".
But it's not a gaming machine.

you can substitute "fine" with whichever word you want. the game will play "well" or however ou wish to say it. As for the settings, everything is maxxed out, except for maybe terrain detail which is one notch lower than perfect? I don't have it installed anymore so i can't give you the exact name of it.

cs

[AssassyN]

You must also realize "maxed out" on a 12" PB is only 1024 res. This has a huge impact on it...on a 15" 'book you're running higher resolutions to begin with. I played SoF II, Quake III, and RtCW on my new Rev. B 12" PB w/ 768MB RAM and all of them ran perfectly smooth in online deathmatches at native res. and all settings medium.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hmmmm.

My 733 MHZ Quicksilver with a Radeon 8500 and 640 megs of RAM doesn't run UT (in OS 9) with high enough framerates to be competitive at a decently high level, adn that's with many options turned down. Granted, I play only sniper mod, which requires precise play, but you're tell me a machine with ~1/3 again (at most) the horsepower and a slower graphics card runs UT2K3 with maxxed options perfectly smooth?

Maybe I'm missing something.



greg

[Vash]

No, UT2k3 doesn't run perfectly smooth at all on any Powerbook to date(at 1024x768). Even on a 1ghz TiBook, it goes down into the high teens, or low 20s in scene with 2 or 3 other poeple, or just a high detailed area. I usually play with everything set to medium except physics, this way it rarely dips below 30fps at 1024x768. I agree with AssasyN, everything set to medium on majority of the games today will run nicely. But maxed out? Come on, in some areas maxed out the Dual 2ghz G5 Radeon 9800, 4gb RAM lags, only that massive open field Bombing Run level though Btw, I do realize everyone has a different idea of perfect play. For example my buddy's 15" iMac got 6-7FPS in ut2k3 and he said it ran perfectly without a glitch. I just laughed and told him you should get at least 25-30fps.

[RooneyX]

Drop to 16bit. You won't notice the color depth and your framerates will soar.

[dantley]

I have a 1ghz tiBook and it sucks at native resolutions. It runs fine if you lower the resolution to 1024x768 and set the detail to medium.... but why would I want to do that? I'll just go play it on my PC or G5.

[DBvader]

Performance in Panther is much better. Im getting 10-15 FPS increase throughout.