[AssassyN]

Since the other post is getting a tad long, here's where we can just post the facts. State your machine, it's specs., and your opinion of the performance (and what game settings used).

I'm using a 17" PowerBook w/ 1GIG of RAM pushing it to my 23" HD Display w/ the notebook closed at the highest res. with all details maxed out and it's SMOOTHER THAN BUTTER!!! I'm astounded! It runs better than some of the older games...in other words, it seems to be *perfectly* ported! I'm thrilled, can't wait to get the full version!

[::maroma::]

From the other thread:

Initial reaction is WOW! I had not seen many screenshots or movies of this game, and I am really surprised at how well it plays. The visuals are really nice, and gameplay is speedy (like UT). I still have to get used to it a bit though, it's quite different from original UT.

I ran it at 1024x768x32, with all options on and on High and it ran very smooth in both single player with bots and multi. Some of the heavier scenes seemed to tax it a bit, but overall really nice! Can't wait for the final release!

I will check my fps next time I play.

My specs:
Powermac G4/1.2Ghz (upgraded Sawtooth 500Mhz)
GeForce3 64MB
1G RAM
80GB HD (8MB Cache)
21" CRT Monitor

[Rand]

dual 1ghz G4
128mb GForce 4 TI
1gb RAM

Opinion:
I maxed out the settings, "normal" and "high" for everything, upped the resolution to 1280x1064 (my max) and threw 16 bots into a big (can't remember the forrest level name) level. It was pretty nice. There were clips, but when the framerate slowed (always very playable) it seemed to move fluidly even when it was getting bogged down; it never "paused" and then "strobed," more like got sluggish....

..... but by no means was it sluggish.... even maxing out what I could, with explosions, bots and depth to the level it was still playable. It was really fun to play, especially when action got intense. Though I do have pretty decent hardware, Unreal uses it well. Playing SOF on maxed settings is completely unplayable, even on my machine, and the quality, picturesque graphics Unreal gives are amazing. Definitely going to be spending time with this one.

One major nicety is the menu/organization of the pre-play application. It is very slick and well designed. A lot different than the clunky original port.






(in console (~) stat fps (with <space>) for Framerate)

[xyber233]

700 mHz iMac, 32mb gf2mx, 640mb ram.

I have tried different settings and I can only manage an average of 8fps against 4 bots . Anyone else have a similar machine to mine? I would be interested to see your framerates.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by xyber233:
700 mHz iMac, 32mb gf2mx, 640mb ram.

I have tried different settings and I can only manage an average of 8fps against 4 bots . Anyone else have a similar machine to mine? I would be interested to see your framerates.

WHAT! this is crap! This is my machine.
Are you running any other apps (like photoshop!)

[xyber233]

Nope, I've restarted many times to make sure nothing was running.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by xyber233:
Nope, I've restarted many times to make sure nothing was running.

Is it playable?

[Rand]

Wow, I need to update my "feelings" with FPS data......

(1Ghz x2, 128mbG4Ti, 1GB RAM)

In standard 5 person combat, on big level, I averaged high 20s FPS......

While near water, with 8 people on screen, 16 in level, I was getting as few as 8fps.... but for some reason it still felt playable (may be my learning Unreal on an old performa)

I guess I could push down the "best" settings, but I kind of figgured I'd get more than 30fps during standard combat...

....but it still looks beautiful nonetheless....

[xyber233]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Is it playable? [/QUOTE

I don't find it playable. After playing, I felt the urge to run XBench....wow, that opengl score is depressing.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by xyber233:
700 mHz iMac, 32mb gf2mx, 640mb ram.

I have tried different settings and I can only manage an average of 8fps against 4 bots . Anyone else have a similar machine to mine? I would be interested to see your framerates.

Considering this is practically the bare minimum UT2K3 requirements, I can understand why it's "barely playable", unfortunately.

[Corys]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
Considering this is practically the bare minimum UT2K3 requirements, I can understand why it's "barely playable", unfortunately.

yeah..it's misleading the minimumum system requirements..on my 733 quicksilver w/1 gig o' ram and the GF2mx card I average about 10 fps

makes me feel better about my decision to buy a gaming PC

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Rand:
Wow, I need to update my "feelings" with FPS data......

(1Ghz x2, 128mbG4Ti, 1GB RAM)

In standard 5 person combat, on big level, I averaged high 20s FPS......

While near water, with 8 people on screen, 16 in level, I was getting as few as 8fps.... but for some reason it still felt playable (may be my learning Unreal on an old performa)

I guess I could push down the "best" settings, but I kind of figgured I'd get more than 30fps during standard combat...

....but it still looks beautiful nonetheless....

I've found the same thing to be true. The first time I played it, I didn't have the FPS stats up. It felt like I was getting at least in the upper 20's or so. But then played later with the FPS stats up and I was getting as low as 8fps on the Citadel level (big one). Indoor levels I get in the 20's. Not sure if my gameplay suffered because of the low fps, because I stink either way.

But it feels smooth and playable. So someone with more knowledge about these things...does FPS play a big roll in how effective you can be during battles? Or is it more your ping?

[Colonel_Panic]

Feels great on my system (dual 533) but I was not running my settings as high as Rand - I had mine on High/normal at an 800X600 Resolution. I dunno what my FPS where but it felt great so I`m not even going to look and see what they where.

[Colonel_Panic]

::maroma::

I am big on MOHAA and you NEED at least - AT LEAST - 15Fps to play with a high level of frustration. I don`t know why this game feels so playable with such low FPS.

[kdogg73]

Repost here: I have Dual 867, factory GeForce4MX, 512 RAM. My framerate dipped to 17 on detailed areas of a map. Doable, to say the least.

[a2daj]

To benchmark:

If you view the contents of the UT2k3 package there's a folder called Benchmark. In it are some scripts you can run from the terminal.
I do this by opening up a terminal window, typing in
cd<space>

and then dragging and dropping the Benchmark folder onto the Terminal window then type in

./<scriptname>.sh

The results are then saved in `/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo/Benchmark/Results.

[andretan]

If a 700MHz iMac with 32mb of VRAM with 640MB RAM gives 8fps, what does a 700mhz G3 with 16MB VRAM give?

[::maroma::]

test

[Colonel_Panic]

Just did an FPS test with custom settings - pretty high settings to.

I was getting an average of about 15-20FPS with a dual 533 and a radeon 8500. It dipped to around 10 sometimes though but not often

[parsec_kadets]

I got about 15-25fps with settings maxed out with a 1024x768 resolution. I reduced everything to medium and got about 35-50fps (still 1024x768). Amazingly, I then reduced the resolution to 800x600 and it didn't make much difference. AssassyN, I don't know you you can say that 15fps is smooth as butter. Did you even bother trying to get online and play with real people?

Stats:
17" PB
1GHz G4
1024MB RAM
GeForce 4 Go
Connected to cable via snow ABS (802.11b)
external mouse, internal keyboard and screen

P.S. I'm sure it's going to come up sooner or later. To check your fps, when you're in a game press ~ then type "show fps"

[iT4c0]

I have a imac 17" 800mhz Geforce4 mx 768mb ram. It runs like crap in default setting (all max out high)
so I turned it down to 1240x760x16 and turn down some settings and turn off a lot of eye candy, it is still not as smooth as it should be. I played Ut2k on the pc with geforce3 200 and it ran so much better than my imac.

I guess I will wait for my 970 and then buy the game

[smic]

well my 700mhz ibook with the raedon7500 and 16 vram
it sucked
felt worse then playing quake3 on my old imac
i had all the settings dumbed down
and it was choppy as hell
seeing as i didnt meet the minimum requirements im not to disapointed

[iT4c0]

Originally posted by a2daj:
To benchmark:

If you view the contents of the UT2k3 package there's a folder called Benchmark. In it are some scripts you can run from the terminal.
I do this by opening up a terminal window, typing in
cd<space>

and then dragging and dropping the Benchmark folder onto the Terminal window then type in

./<scriptname>.sh

The results are then saved in `/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo/Benchmark/Results.

I do not have any folders in my ut2k3 demo. The only thing i have is the ut2k3 icon for running the game. That is all. Where did you get those folders from?

edit: never mind, i found them doing benchmark now

[iT4c0]

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 800 MHz
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX OpenGL Engine

dm-antalus?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=t rue?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

3.548779 / 10.466585 / 29.612446 fps rand[1283341812]
Score = 10.474136

[DBvader]

i have a Dual 867 with a ATI 9000, 512 RAM.

it runs like a joke...

my Atlhon 2000+/4200 runs this game perfectly with everything on high, i was expeciting similar performance with my machine. nope.

its really too bad..

[andretan]

Originally posted by smic:
well my 700mhz ibook with the raedon7500 and 16 vram
it sucked
felt worse then playing quake3 on my old imac
i had all the settings dumbed down
and it was choppy as hell
seeing as i didnt meet the minimum requirements im not to disapointed

Hmm. I know I would be disappointed when I saw the requirements (G4, 32mb vram), but then again, I don't have any better Mac other than my trusty iBook.
Hopefully, my next machine would be a more powerful desktop Mac

And hopefully by then, Mac games would be at least on par with (or better than) their Wintel counterparts.

[Jansar]

I don't know how to check the FPS but it ran great on my machine. The only problem is that the game screen won't use up my full monitor.

dual 1.25
geforce 4 ti
2 gb rm
23 hd cinema

[a2daj]

Originally posted by DBvader:
i have a Dual 867 with a ATI 9000, 512 RAM.

it runs like a joke...

my Atlhon 2000+/4200 runs this game perfectly with everything on high, i was expeciting similar performance with my machine. nope.

its really too bad..

Why would you think that? Because Apple said so? Don't believe the hype about the G4 processor when games are a concern. While there are several things to take into consideration, when you add everything up a G4 867 (with L3 cache) will typically have about the same performance as a PIII 867. And since UT2K3 doesn't take explicit advantage of dual proc machines, the extra processor is negligible, unless the sound computation is rather intensive, then the 2nd proc might help some there. There's no magic that anyone can do that will make UT2K3 on a Mac with G4 867 processer run faster than a 1 GHz x86 compatible machine. iMacs, without the L3 cache, are even worse.

Now when it comes to UT2K3 performance, remember, the engine was designed around Direct3D and the x86 architecture. There may be small performance issues with the OpenGL renderer and PPCs.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I don't know how to check the FPS but it ran great on my machine. The only problem is that the game screen won't use up my full monitor.

dual 1.25
geforce 4 ti
2 gb rm
23 hd cinema

I mentioned how in a post above...
But for more clarification:

1. Find your Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo application.

2. Right/Control-Click on the app and select Show Package Content. Locate the Benchmark folder.

3. Open Terminal and type:
"cd " without the quotes. Note the space.

4. Drag and drop the Benchmark folder onto the terminal window and hit enter. Your pwd (present working directory) should now be the Benchmark folder inside Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo.app

5. To run a benchmark, just execute one of the *.sh scripts.
Example:

./flyby-asbestos.sh

You can find the results in ~/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo. Your custom settings are also stored there.

Here are some results taken from the lowframerate.log file. The first 3 are fly by timedemos. The last is a botmatch timedemo. I almost cried watching it so I didn't run anymore botmach ones yet. I haven't bothered looking up what exactly score is but the X / Y / Z numbers are probably low / avg / high framerates:

My world according to UT2K3
UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 866 MHz (a Quicksilver)
ATI Radeon 8500 OpenGL Engine
Init: Physical RAM: 1207959552 bytes (1152 megabytes)
Revo 7.1


dm-antalus
10.928917 / 54.718929 / 294.232239 fps
Score = 53.010483

dm-asbestos
12.154134 / 70.298515 / 283.598267 fps
Score = 63.248722

ctf-citadel
11.245472 / 37.670044 / 121.418037 fps
Score = 37.661968

dm-antalus
4.743754 / 9.602894 / 21.610180 fps
Score = 9.605494

[eevyl]

Anyone with a PowerBook G4 12" that tested out the demo?

I am downloading right now the file, but only at 26 KB/sec (I'm on a 256kbps DSL line ) so it will last about one hour and a half to finish...

[phillryu]

Yes, an owner of a 12 inch powerbook (not me) has commented that it runs "smooth as butter".

However, I have a 800 mhz iMac, 640 megs RAM, Geforce2MX, and it runs like crap. I'm guessing maybe 10-15 frames a second, at 640*400 res (or w/e that is) and color depth at 16 bit. I didn't see any other settings I could lower though, so that's how far I went. Still, I'm very disappointed

[phillryu]

Also, I've heard reports from people with tibook 800's (32 meg radeon cards) that they're getting 30+ frames a second... is there somethign wrong with Nvidea cards or something?

[Hornet]

Edit: Super post time! Added scores at 3 resolutions (800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x854) on two seperate configs (default and mine) on all three map flyby's! Thats a total of 18 scores in total listed here! Try comparing results in this format, it gives a pretty comprehensive view of the overall performance without the huge hinderance of bots

I was anticipating a wave of dissapointed mac users (anyone with less than a 700mhz or so CPU particularly), but I guess it turned out better than that

My Powerbook G4 1ghz, Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB, 512MB ram runs it quite nicely! The flyby results are respectable against my friends 1.53 athlon/4ti4200, however my botmatch scores are low (not sure what is are, but realistically his cpu is 50-60% faster [53% faster with a faster bus and faster ram]). Overall I am quite happy with the performance.

Benchmark time

"Default config" = What UT2K3 creates fresh (to get a fresh file, delete Home/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo/System/UT2003.ini). Default chooses these settings: 800x600x32, (x32 means 32bit colour) with all "detail" options at maximum EXCEPT shadows (they are off) and physics (middle setting).

"Hornet's config" = The default config (above), with these changes: drop "world detail" to high, drop physics to low, and turn off the following: trillinear, shadows, detail textures, decals, foliage, projectors and dynamic lighting. This is optimised for speed, and keeps a decent amount of detail. This is "playable" mode, rather than "pretty" mode

MAPS:

Antalus (outdoor forest like DM map)

Default config @ 800x600x32:
25.508516 / 56.155087 / 205.284271 fps rand[786162508]
Score = 55.346733

Default config @ 1024x768x32:
24.370304 / 42.608311 / 233.949860 fps rand[786162508]
Score = 42.567101

Default config @ 1280x854x32 (Ti15 fullscreen):
18.452477 / 33.376831 / 100.516228 fps rand[1685446585]
Score = 33.380104

Hornet's config @ 800x600x32:
40.253906 / 86.278435 / 300.428497 fps rand[1395410453]
Score = 72.388870

Hornet's config @ 1024x768x32:
35.706932 / 68.771255 / 238.347534 fps rand[1395410453]
Score = 66.466171

Hornet's config @ 1280x854x32:
33.811859 / 55.161598 / 145.359390 fps rand[1134785274]
Score = 54.896046


Asbestos (indoor metal DM map)

Default config @ 800x600x32
26.294235 / 75.376930 / 257.924316 fps rand[1447920047]
Score = 67.044167

Default config @ 1024x768x32
26.362970 / 67.073578 / 208.561813 fps rand[1447920047]
Score = 63.341156

Default config @ 1280x854x32
24.882542 / 56.528065 / 184.445770 fps rand[1895328717]
Score = 55.426228

Hornet's config @ 800x600x32:
38.199543 / 89.427551 / 284.225494 fps rand[1582635838]
Score = 73.610275

Hornet's config @ 1024x768x32:
30.578756 / 89.488556 / 270.376251 fps rand[1582635838]
Score = 73.679588

Hornet's config @ 1280x854x32:
29.117205 / 88.289078 / 264.926453 fps rand[1992669316]
Score = 73.551445

Citadel (outdoor gothic style CTF map)

Default config @ 800x600x32:
12.271772 / 41.581741 / 127.682625 fps rand[631030102]
Score = 41.501183

Default config @ 1024x768x32:
12.432904 / 40.351280 / 128.778244 fps rand[631030102]
Score = 40.328777

Default config @ 1280x854x32:
12.403687 / 37.940361 / 109.735733 fps rand[1456595658]
Score = 37.962536

Hornet's config @ 800x600x32:
13.261931 / 45.706791 / 130.037369 fps rand[631030102]
Score = 45.597706

Hornet's config @ 1024x768x32:
12.861835 / 45.520760 / 128.461655 fps rand[631030102]
Score = 45.426502

Hornet's config @ 1280x854x32:
11.737349 / 44.698750 / 127.098022 fps rand[1456595658]
Score = 44.59818

/End mammoth test!



Very happy with those scores Especially being able to play in my LCD's native widescreen mode. UT2K3 looks amazing on an LCD vs a CRT


Dont be surprised if radeon 8500/9000 scores are above that of the geforce 4MX - the geforce4mx lacks pixel and vertex shaders which UT2k3 uses extensively. It will be interesting to see how the difference on the PC side translates to the mac (driver quality differences etc will impact heavily on it)

In any case, its FINALLY here, and screams on my Powerbook 1ghz



Please report your own scores, particularly the default config at 800x600x32 and 1024x768x32 - that way we get ana across the board comparison. Also use my config if you want for benchmarking, for more speed!

[eevyl]

Originally posted by Hornet:
OK now for my personal config. Taking the default config and: dropping world detail to "high", dropping physics to "low", turning off trillinear, shadows, detail textures, decals, foliage, projectors and dynamic lighting)

Well, I did the benchmarks and I get pretty embarrasing numbers.

However if I configure the settings very much like Hornet, but changing resolution to 1024x768x16, I am quite satisfied with the performance when playing. Clearly better than UT for X...

So anyone with similar machine may try to do that, my specs:

PowerBook G4 12"
640 MB RAM
Mac OS X 10.2.6 of course
GeForce 4MX 420 Go 32 MB RAM

I set the color depth to 16 bits because I can't tell the difference between 32 bits and 16 bits of color in the middle of a raging battle and I get better framerates.

One silly question, how can I view the framerate while playing? If it involves typing in the console, how can I show the console with an European ISO keyboard?

Overall, this game rocks, I am going to order the full copy as soon as it is available in Spain

[DrBoar]

Regarding Concole with eurpean keyboards. The tilde thing "~" is at least on my keyboard ALT and one of the keys just to the left of the return key (the other one generate a TM sign)

With D2ol and fold@home running in the background everything on Normal @1280x1024 a new dual 1.25 with R 9000 pro runs it well. I will run the benchmark later. The graphics is very nice very impressive! The bots on the other hand look like toy robots.

[atomiclotusbox]

Originally posted by phillryu:
Also, I've heard reports from people with tibook 800's (32 meg radeon cards) that they're getting 30+ frames a second... is there somethign wrong with Nvidea cards or something?

I'm wondering the same thing. My specs:

933 mhz
1 gig ram
GeForce 4 Ti

I average 15 fps on outdoor maps. Slightly higher indoor. Playable, but definately not smooth.

[Leonard]

Originally posted by phillryu:
Also, I've heard reports from people with tibook 800's (32 meg radeon cards) that they're getting 30+ frames a second... is there somethign wrong with Nvidea cards or something?

No there is nothing wrong with Nvidia cards. You just have a damn old Geforce 2MX - I wouldn't even consider a Geforce 2MX card as a 3D card anymore. Alot of Radeon cards are way better than a Geforce 2MX. You need a newer video card, but with an iMac you can't change the video card.

[normyzo]

G4 Dual 450
768MB
Radeon 8500 @ 230/230 (flashed powercolor)
800x600x32
Default detail

While its not "pretty", it _certainly_ is playable on this machine. And this thing only has 2x AGP anyway. I'm probably only getting < 10 FPS, but from the amount of other first person shooters I've played it feels like ~15, its NOT laggy.

Dan

[jhhcr]

Well, 700 seems to be the absolute minimum indeed. My G4/400 with ATI 7000, 1GB Ram and my T4/500 is doing 2-4 fps and 8 with all the goodies disabled. Guess I have to wait for the ppc970 to come out.

[mrchin]

My dial-up download should be done anytime this evening. My Quicksilver should be fine with 4Ti and 1.5 gigs of RAM.

I'm concerned about my multiplayer. Just moved out of a Comcast Cable area to a town that has no DSL and crappy 1 way cable with dial-up upstream. Anyone have any opinion as to how my gameplay will be over that? I'm thinking bad. Just the thought of the lag of having my movements and what I see from the environment going through to separate pipelines to meet up at the server makes me not want to make the mistake of signing up for it. What do you guys think? I'll shoot at you, but by the time it gets to the server, you'll be gone.

[Johnny_B]

I am to buy GF3 (not Ti, from InnoVISION) or Radeon 8500 (ATI Retail), both for PC. Which one is best for UT2k3 ?

After my old GFX went to a warm place, I now sit on an old ATi Rage Pro 16MB VRAM I don't even bother dl'ing UT

The rest of my machine
PowerMac QS 867 (one cpu)
1,12 GB ram
2*80 (RAID) + 120GB (system disc) both WD Special ed.

[OwlBoy]

Seems to run good on my 12 inch PB with defaut settings.

-Owl

[Leonard]

Originally posted by Johnny_B:
I am to buy GF3 (not Ti, from InnoVISION) or Radeon 8500 (ATI Retail), both for PC. Which one is best for UT2k3 ?

from the benchmarks here http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/...00/index2.html both the Radeon 8500 and Geforce 3 look fairly even in other games like the old UT and Quake 3. I haven't benchmarked my Geforce 3 yet on UT2003, so I guess it goes back to your question, which is best for UT2003? Does the Radeon 8500 have features that UT2003 would use over the Geforce 3's features?

[- - e r i k - -]

Unplayable on a G4 400 with a Radeon 8500. Not surprisingly as the game states an 800 mhz minimum. All other games run excellent though (with the exception of SoFII, which runs just average, but still highly playable).

Guess this games taxes your CPU as much as your video card.

Only one week until my 17" PowerBook though.

[CheesePuff]

I have a PowerBook G4 Titanium 1 GHz with 768 MB RAM and the ATI Radeon 9000 Mobility graphics card (64 MB VRAM) and am using an external DVI LCD of a resolution of 1280x1024. Played multiple online and offline games, and no slow down. Nothing below 25 FPS. It was very fluid.

[xyber233]

Originally posted by Leonard:
No there is nothing wrong with Nvidia cards. You just have a damn old Geforce 2MX - I wouldn't even consider a Geforce 2MX card as a 3D card anymore. Alot of Radeon cards are way better than a Geforce 2MX. You need a newer video card, but with an iMac you can't change the video card.

Then what about atomiclotusbox's geforce4Ti? He gets 15fps. That is horrible. Same thing happens with WC3. It seems that mostly the people with nvidia cards are getting horrible framerates. The ones with the radeons seem to do just fine.

[Leonard]

The other question for people with Macs with Nvidia Geforces may be what version of MacOS X they are using. Are they using MacOS X.2.6? Apparently MacOS X.2.6 has some fixes for Geforce cards. Or maybe, some fixes or optimizations are still required. A Geforce 4Ti on a G4 933 should get higher FPS then 15. But in my opinion, a Geforce 2MX is ancient and shouldn't be expected to handle UT2003 well. Any Radeon will clobber it - I was just looking at benchmarks on XLR8 today.

[Leonard]

Here's the benchmarks I was looking at http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/...00/index2.html

Go to the Quake 3 benchmarks. The Geforce 2MX is at the bottom of the barrel. Even the original Radeon beats it.

Maroma's Geforce 3 isn't doing well either. Xyber may be right that there is a problem with Geforce cards.

[Buck_Naked]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
Since the other post is getting a tad long, here's where we can just post the facts. State your machine, it's specs., and your opinion of the performance (and what game settings used).

My setup:
Dual800
1.2 gigs of ram
GF4
19" Viewsonic Monitor

The game plays good at the default settings

[xyber233]

WTF. I turned down the settings and I get the same, if not worse framerates. 640x480, settings on lowest, all options turned off and I get around 7fps!!!!!!!!! What is this?!?!?!