Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

potboy · Aug 16, 2001, 08:22 PM

I read reports of Omnigroup having Q3 running over 100 FPS.

My G4/733 nv2 can only get 20-30 in 1027-768 with everything on running 1.29. 9.1 manages 40-50. Is this ever gonna be sorted out.

Being able to play games at decent frame rates is the only thing stopping me from using OS X as my primary OS.

Guess I'll just have to be patient *sigh*

blizzard · Aug 16, 2001, 11:00 PM

You and me both. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why OS X's supposedly 'vastly superior' OpenGL isn't yielding dividends. Me, I drop from 45 fps in OS 9 to 30 fps in OS X. Quite pathetic.

daydreamer · Aug 18, 2001, 01:05 PM

That's because the latest osX update was just a beta version that still does not contain dual and altivec support wich still has to come from Graeme Divine.

voodoo · Aug 18, 2001, 04:59 PM

Yep, the 10.0.4 looks like a beta, smells like a beta, feels like a beta and what do you know, it IS a beta.

No matter what Steve Jobs says.

exca1ibur · Aug 18, 2001, 05:15 PM

I have my dual 500 getting frames rates in the 70ish range on average, depending on the maps. Try reconfiging your config file. I do agree that the rates should be higher in X than 9, but I can get the rates close by configuring my config file. I even got mine up to 150 frames at one point, even over 200FPS (w/o sound). Didn't look all that hot but was FAST.

LOL
 
I think once OS X 10.1 ships it'll help a lot, if it doesn't break the game like the jump from PB to 10.0 did. Still more optimization to do. The only major issue I have is, the mouse is a little rough in Q3 on X but I haven't really finished testing a config to fix that, but I'm working on it.

exca1ibur · Aug 18, 2001, 06:03 PM

If you are having issues with Quake 3 and mouse control in OS X. Try out these settings they work for me just fine now. :-)

seta in_macMouseDivider "220"
seta in_mouseLowEndSlope "1"
seta in_mouseHighEndCutoff "10"
seta sensitivity "20"

Good luck and I hope that helps you out too.

Leonard · Aug 18, 2001, 08:40 PM

That's pretty pathetic FPS for Quake. I know this guy on the Apple Discussions board that got pretty good FPS for UT in OS 9 on his new G4 and Nvidia card. He has some recommendations for UT and Deus Ex at http://www.theinnet.net/~lesliev/ and this is the discussion on his tips http://discussions.info.apple.com/we...^6@.eef1851/81

Nothing on Quake 3 though.

I haven't tried these yet as I don't havee my new G4 yet.

SpeedRacer · Aug 20, 2001, 10:27 PM

Just tried it in UT on my Cube/500/384/Radeon. I guess there's a reason he did not list that card in his descriptions. Pretty much the worst .ini file i've ever come across. Average <20FPS in UT @ 1024 when i'll get >40FPS in UT @ 1024 with RAVE.

Too good to be true?
Yup.

Speed

Originally posted by Leonard:
That's pretty pathetic FPS for Quake. I know this guy on the Apple Discussions board that got pretty good FPS for UT in OS 9 on his new G4 and Nvidia card. He has some recommendations for UT and Deus Ex at http://www.theinnet.net/~lesliev/ and this is the discussion on his tips http://discussions.info.apple.com/we...^6@.eef1851/81

Nothing on Quake 3 though.

I haven't tried these yet as I don't havee my new G4 yet.

Leonard · Aug 21, 2001, 09:08 AM

I guess I should have clarified that a bit... those tips are for Nvidia cards which, unlike ATI cards, have had problems getting FPS or even running UT and Deus Ex. So don't try them unless you have an Nvidia card.

You should be getting more than 40 FPS in UT in RAVE with your AGP Radeon, I get that on my G3 400 B&W with a PCI Radeon.

SpeedRacer · Aug 22, 2001, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Leonard:
I guess I should have clarified that a bit... those tips are for Nvidia cards which, unlike ATI cards, have had problems getting FPS or even running UT and Deus Ex. So don't try them unless you have an Nvidia card.

You should be getting more than 40 FPS in UT in RAVE with your AGP Radeon, I get that on my G3 400 B&W with a PCI Radeon.

Just to clarify... so you're saying that the nVidia card work better under OpenGL mode than Rave? Is this true across the board? And could this be the reason behind the somewhat lackluster performance listed by the review websites several months ago in comparing Radeon - GeForce2MX?

If the answer to all three questions is "yes" i think there's a definite need for some new reviews comparing the cards.

Speed

Leonard · Aug 23, 2001, 06:28 PM

I personally can't answer that, I haven't got my G4 yet.

BUT from what I read in the Apple Discussion thread that I enclosed above (second URL), the Nvidia cards do do better in OpenGL than RAVE with enough RAM. That's the message I get from reading the thread. It makes sense that the Nvidia cards would do better in OpenGL since RAVE is dieing, why perfect code for it.

saviorass · Aug 25, 2001, 12:36 AM

i dont know what you guys are doing about your quake3 fps, but i can get up to 120 fps on my little g4 400 with radeon, and it still looks really good (i average about 70)! on my dads computer (533 standard & OS X), i have it looken sweet and i get an average of 100 fps. so its all in your config file. If asked, ill post my config for download.

BenN · Aug 28, 2001, 11:09 AM

I'm not sure why some people are getting worse framerates in the OS X version, compared with OS 9.1. I would suggest a reinstall.

Anyway, I get 67-69 fps @ 1024x768, and 85-88 fps @ 800x600 (in demo four, with sound on) on the following set-up:

1.29f
Lightmap
32-bit graphics
Bilinear
s_mixahead 0.06
r_smp 1

....on a G4 450DP, with 512MB PC100 RAM, Radeon AGP (non-beta drivers), OS X 10.0.4. This beats 9.1 performance quite considerably.

SteveJobs · Aug 28, 2001, 03:36 PM

It is not a problem of Quake3 but of OS X. The GL driver in OS X sux. It does not support a lot of features the one in OS 9 does and is a lot too slow. 10.1 will adress this, so we should get better fps in X, especially on MP systems, there you can expect 95 frames ps, when you had 40 (in 9 using on processor) before.

Steve