|
|
Anyone with a Halo (Mac) status update? (Page 3)
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Finland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by bOOzo:
I know that, but still, it's annoying.
You can just rename or remove the intro movies from the Halo/Movies folder. I just left in the original Bungie intro so it'll be just like on my Xbox
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by a2daj:
There's some good info in this thread regarding pixel shaders and ARB_fragment_program (OpenGL ARB version of pixel shaders). Hopefully, it will clear up some misconceptions going around about Pixel Shaders on Mac Halo. bike2live(Duane Johnson) and Ken Cobb worked on the port so they're going to have the best understanding of rendering paths.
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/...r=asc&start=30
The problem is that the Radeon 8500 and 9000 don't have hardware support for the ARB_Fragment_Program extension, which is equivalent to Pixel Shaders in Direct3D. The 9600+ cards do. So Westlake can't code PS support in for the 9000 if the API isn't there to support it.
There's also some good info here from titanMac (no idea who he is) More linkage
Beautiful. Like I've been trying to say at some other forums, a card supporting DX 9 doesn't mean JACK to a Mac user.
Thanks a2daj for the informative link.
|
MacBook Pro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
You can also go into the movies folder and take the shortest movie..900 something K...edit it to like .5 seconds of black, then save it. Duplicate it 3 or 4 times and replace the other movies (except the Bungie one, of course, hehe) by renaming them :-P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to Themes
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Jacke:
You can just rename or remove the intro movies from the Halo/Movies folder. I just left in the original Bungie intro so it'll be just like on my Xbox
Ah, clever. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone notice something nice about Captain Keyes' uniform? There's a lovely wee nod in Marathon's direction. On his upper left chest, beside his name, is the logo from Bungie's "Marathon" series of games!
Noticed it immediately. Thought it was a really nice touch. Is this only in the Mac version or is it more-or-less a direct port?
BTW, it says 800MHz is minimum spec. I've only got 733 G4 and almost all preferences are on their highest settings. Runs like a dream I love this game...and I'm off to play it some more....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Geobunny:
Anyone notice something nice about Captain Keyes' uniform? There's a lovely wee nod in Marathon's direction. On his upper left chest, beside his name, is the logo from Bungie's "Marathon" series of games!
Noticed it immediately. Thought it was a really nice touch. Is this only in the Mac version or is it more-or-less a direct port?
BTW, it says 800MHz is minimum spec. I've only got 733 G4 and almost all preferences are on their highest settings. Runs like a dream I love this game...and I'm off to play it some more....
What video card are you using with that 733?
You didn't notice the Marathon logo on the main menu screen??
|
MacBook Pro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Windham, ME
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes the game runs great on the 800ish machine like my g4, but thats because we don't have pixel shaders on our cards and you don't get the full halo experence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Default settings but res at 1024x768 on Rev A Alu17. This game amazed me. Why? Because the graphics look only slightly better than Half Life did three years ago but it runs at half the speed even though CPU and GPUs are three times faster than then.
No shaders turned on or supported by my machine, which boggles the mind even more as to why it's got crap graphics. I run MOHAA at 1600x1200 and the graphics are much better. I also run UT2003 at higher res and it's better in every department.
Halo, kind of a fun game, looks and runs like shite though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Connecticut
Status:
Offline
|
|
Mac OS 10.3.2 is now out. Anyone want to report back with new FPS scores?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sad to report that my dual 2.0G5/9800 has almost identical frame-rates under 10.3.2 but on the other hand the AA bug seems much much better. I still see some artifacts around vehicle models with some small white flashing pixels but overall it seems about 90% better but still not ready for prime-time. Maybe we need a Halo update too to make it all better.
-Jerry C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, the first patch for Halo should fix some stuff..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Worst. Game. Ever.
This makes UT2K3 and MOHAA look like fast graphical beauties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here are the timedemo results from my Dual 2GHz G5/Radeon 9800 OEM/1GB RAM running 10.3.2, both with my settings as I play, with the default settings, and with the max settings. First, the default:
Code:
Date / Time: 12/18/03 9:13:22 (0ms)
2000MHz, 1024MB
G5\Applications\Games\Halo\Halo Frames=4700
Total Time=109.20s
Average frame rate=43.04fps
Below 5fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames) (3.150s spent in 7 frames)
Below 10fps= 3% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 3% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 4% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 12% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 30fps= 29% (time) 15% (frames)
Below 40fps= 48% (time) 30% (frames)
Below 50fps= 70% (time) 54% (frames)
Below 60fps= 86% (time) 73% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= Normal
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Low
###Video Options###
Resolution= 800 x 600
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
Then, my settings:
Code:
Date / Time: 12/18/03 9:9:20 (0ms)
2000MHz, 1024MB
G5\Applications\Games\Halo\Halo -console -ip 209.187.160.115 Frames=4700
Total Time=166.15s
Average frame rate=28.29fps
Below 5fps= 5% (time) 0% (frames) (9.311s spent in 10 frames)
Below 10fps= 6% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 12% (time) 3% (frames)
Below 20fps= 28% (time) 12% (frames)
Below 25fps= 41% (time) 23% (frames)
Below 30fps= 72% (time) 53% (frames)
Below 40fps= 85% (time) 68% (frames)
Below 50fps= 90% (time) 77% (frames)
Below 60fps= 95% (time) 87% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= Low
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1024 x 768
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
Finally, highest settings:
Code:
Date / Time: 12/18/03 9:23:50 (0ms)
2000MHz, 1024MB
G5\Applications\Games\Halo\Halo Frames=4700
Total Time=269.13s
Average frame rate=17.46fps
Below 5fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames) (8.025s spent in 28 frames)
Below 10fps= 20% (time) 8% (frames)
Below 15fps= 34% (time) 19% (frames)
Below 20fps= 72% (time) 56% (frames)
Below 25fps= 86% (time) 73% (frames)
Below 30fps= 93% (time) 85% (frames)
Below 40fps= 98% (time) 94% (frames)
Below 50fps= 98% (time) 95% (frames)
Below 60fps= 99% (time) 95% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= High
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= High
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1600 x 1200
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
Bottom line is, Halo is not playable on its highest settings, even on the fastest Mac hardware you can buy.
|
Mac Pro 2x 2.66 GHz Dual core, Apple TV 160GB, two Windows XP PCs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Connecticut
Status:
Offline
|
|
:O And the game really isn't THAT pretty either! Now I'm worried that the top of the line macs won't be able to even run Half life 2/Doom 3!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by phillryu:
:O And the game really isn't THAT pretty either! Now I'm worried that the top of the line macs won't be able to even run Half life 2/Doom 3!
Nah, I think it's simply that Halo is badly coded, or that it's trying to do things in inefficient ways. I get 400 fps in Quake 3, and it pegs at 85 fps in RTCW and MOHAA (I have vsync on and run at 85Hz). I don't think that Doom 3 will be as slow as Halo on this hardware.
|
Mac Pro 2x 2.66 GHz Dual core, Apple TV 160GB, two Windows XP PCs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Arkham_c:
I don't think that Doom 3 will be as slow as Halo on this hardware.
You wanna bet on that one? Doom 3 is gonna be more shaders piled on more shaders with much higher polygon counts. I think at best it will only perform as badly. I hope you're right though.
-Jerry C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
(
Last edited by macgyvr64; Dec 18, 2003 at 01:52 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
10.3.2 also fixed the issue with it playing about 5fps full-screen on my 12" PB 867 (but acceptably in a window). Now I get a 19fps timedemo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norway
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Angus_D:
10.3.2 also fixed the issue with it playing about 5fps full-screen on my 12" PB 867 (but acceptably in a window). Now I get a 19fps timedemo.
Wow! That's not bad for a rev. A 12" powerbook!
Can't wait to play it on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Menlo Park, Cal.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by dennis88:
Wow! That's not bad for a rev. A 12" powerbook!
Can't wait to play it on mine!
I dunno... I'm running it on my rev A 12". Framerates are fine when there's no or few enemies around, but any battle of any size and it drops a fair number of frames. The game's "playable," but for me it's not quite "fun."
Installing 10.3.2 did make a big difference in performance for me. My average timedemo score is around 19 fps. A nice surprise was that increasing the textures (from low to medium) or model polys (from low to medium) didn't really diminish the fps much. But it's still low.
I suspect the problem is the CPU getting choked by AI and such things. Anyway, you might still enjoy it fine, but heads up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norway
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by rocketbandito:
I dunno... I'm running it on my rev A 12". Framerates are fine when there's no or few enemies around, but any battle of any size and it drops a fair number of frames. The game's "playable," but for me it's not quite "fun."
Installing 10.3.2 did make a big difference in performance for me. My average timedemo score is around 19 fps. A nice surprise was that increasing the textures (from low to medium) or model polys (from low to medium) didn't really diminish the fps much. But it's still low.
I suspect the problem is the CPU getting choked by AI and such things. Anyway, you might still enjoy it fine, but heads up.
I have a 15" powerbook 1,25ghz with 1 gig of ram, so I don't think I will have problems with halo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: CA, USA & Bangkok, Thailand
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by rocketbandito:
I dunno... I'm running it on my rev A 12". Framerates are fine when there's no or few enemies around, but any battle of any size and it drops a fair number of frames. The game's "playable," but for me it's not quite "fun."
...
I suspect the problem is the CPU getting choked by AI and such things. Anyway, you might still enjoy it fine, but heads up.
thanks for the info. from your review, I don't think i'll enjoy it on my 12"-pb.
kinda sad that a 50-dollar game doesn't have a demo. how can people know how the game will run on their machine?
|
^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bellevue, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by ae77:
thanks for the info. from your review, I don't think i'll enjoy it on my 12"-pb.
kinda sad that a 50-dollar game doesn't have a demo. how can people know how the game will run on their machine?
Yes.. They won't put out demo for new games.
I would like to try it on my DP 1.25 FW800 with 1280MB of RAM.
How does it different from what we saw in 1999/2000?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Front of my Intel iMac 20"
Status:
Offline
|
|
This game just sucks. on my dual 800 with i gig RAM and radeon 8500 with 10.3.2 i cant even play some levels at 640x480.
What a piece of garbage
|
iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0 Ghz 20", 1.5 GB RAM, 250GB
iMac G5 2.0 Ghz 17", 512 MB RAM, 160GB
iPod Video 5G 60GB White
Mighty Mouse sucks - "Bought the Logitech 518 Gaming mouse"
USB 2.0 Hard Drive Sucked - "Bought a Firewire Hard Disk"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Running great on my dual 800 with GeForce 3 at 800x600. Pixel shaders off, of course�but that's what I expected, anyhow, even if they did function on the nVidia cards. Textures high, models high, no VSYNC ... it's running superb so far. If you can live without the bump-mapping (pixle shaders), addie, try turning it off on your ATI card and it'll run great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|