[DrBoar]

With a G4/400 and an ATI 8500, the CPU limit is obvious. By turning of shadows and all that other stuff the game is almost playable. But as far as I can find out the UT2003 is inferior to UT in "play feeling" UT 2003 is Quake 3.5 according to me. The cartoonish bots and even the grunts and blood clouds are there.

The only good thing is when we all have 970 CPUs other companies can use the UT2k3 engine for making intresting and fun games...
UT2003
botmatch-antalus
2.149388 / 4.768878 / 11.751142 fps -- Score = 4.770157 rand[2017934972]

flyby-antalus
15.373693 / 28.935104 / 148.952408 fps -- Score = 28.918737 rand[786162508]

botmatch-anubis
3.068868 / 10.190529 / 19.521624 fps -- Score = 10.199616 rand[422306265]

flyby-asbestos
15.353176 / 36.794125 / 131.142776 fps -- Score = 36.689384 rand[1447920047]

botmatch-asbestos
3.497990 / 8.209352 / 21.473747 fps -- Score = 8.211122 rand[264729812]

flyby-citadel
5.866177 / 20.083702 / 63.331738 fps -- Score = 20.140837 rand[631030102]

botmatch-citadel
2.660036 / 6.192835 / 16.701725 fps -- Score = 6.198581 rand[422378309]

[xyber233]

Originally posted by Eug:
So our tests basically say that this game is terribly CPU limited on the vast majority of our Macs. The 17" vs 15" is a good example.

Yeah . That is really sad to see.

[Hornet]

Originally posted by Eug:
So our tests basically say that this game is terribly CPU limited on the vast majority of our Macs. The 17" vs 15" is a good example.

Yep. Also with my "runs very well" or whatever comment I made before - I think I was more referring to how it runs vs many other macs around here, which must be running it very poorly in comparison

However it doesn't run nearly fast enough for me to play it much. Flyby scores are pretty good, compare:

Radeon9000Pro Mobile: 70.5fps (63.2 on a GF4 440 Go) at 800x600 on an antalus flyby in a 2ghz P4-M. Note however how sucky our asbestos results are vs the above: 131fps (103.3 on a GF4 440 go). I hit a brick wall in asbestos at 70 - regardless how much I bring it down, it wont go much over it, so the CPU becomes a major limit.

Overall the flyby scores are about what I was expecting - but botmatch scores are sucktacular! Bot AI is seriously flawed right now. Some major major major bot ai code efficency is needed.

[Tom Rudderham]

Bot AI is seriously flawed right now. Some major major major bot ai code efficency is needed. [/B]

Glad someone else noticed! I hope Ryan sorts this out before released.

[Jim Paradise]

On my ghz Tibook, I've found the performance to be incredibly assy even with everything turned down to the lowest settings. Definitely a game that I won't be buying.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by 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?!?!?!

It's a Mac, dude. These games were made with the most powerful PCs in mind and we Maccies are way behind in speed. if you smoke something then the slowness will feel good though, like when you get shot and stumble everywhere. Realistic!

[roders]

Try editing your UT3002.ini files guys (Users/Lib/AppSupp), I changed the number of sound channels down to 8 from 32 (made a BIG difference) switched off all eye Candy (particles, decals etc) put all textures to normal (so the game still looks good) Physics Low, no onscreen Hud, Low sound quality, and it plays alright on my 12" PB.

[calamar1]

Here's mine from my Quicksilver single-867:

MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 866 MHz
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX OpenGL Engine

DM Antalus 800x600:

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

5.137138 / 13.746702 / 38.508732 fps rand[1401800517]
Score = 13.750598

CTF Citadel 800x600:

ctf-citadel?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=t rue?attractcam=true -bench
mark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

3.958891 / 18.662020 / 38.064823 fps rand[1960194706]
Score = 18.668879


Wow, those scores are terrible compared to some of the stuff you guys have been posting. it had taken a while for me to benchmark it because i was too busy playing it, though. Let's not get caught up in lamenting comparative performance... Honestly, it had never even occurred to my that the performance was bad on my machine--i'd been having too much fun with it. It'd be a shame for people to be discouraged from having a good time... If i'd read this thread before actually playing it, i'm not sure i'dve bothered with the download...

numbers are great and all, but more importantly, are the numbers high enough to enjoy the game? for me, on a 2 year old stock system, they are...

i must be doing something wrong...

[Eug]

Originally posted by calamar1:
Here's mine from my Quicksilver single-867:

MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 866 MHz
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX OpenGL Engine

-- snip --

Wow, those scores are terrible compared to some of the stuff you guys have been posting. it had taken a while for me to benchmark it because i was too busy playing it, though. Let's not get caught up in lamenting comparative performance... Honestly, it had never even occurred to my that the performance was bad on my machine--i'd been having too much fun with it. It'd be a shame for people to be discouraged from having a good time... If i'd read this thread before actually playing it, i'm not sure i'dve bothered with the download...

numbers are great and all, but more importantly, are the numbers high enough to enjoy the game? for me, on a 2 year old stock system, they are...

i must be doing something wrong...

Well, if you enjoy it that's great. However I get much better frame rates than you (since I have a faster CPU and much faster video card in my PowerBook), and I still find it quite slow.

Then again, I have a faster PC for gaming so I'm a little spoiled in terms of speed. But even then I find my PC slow too.

[RooneyX]

So we can forget about Doom III running well on any current Mac.

[Eug]

It's not very playable on my iMac/700/GF2MX... like 15-20 FPS in Asbestos and 5-10 in Antalus. I haven't tested it yet on my DP450/Radeon.

Heh. If you think DM-Antalus is slow, just wait until you try DM-Inferno. On my PC it's roughly half the speed at certain spots, or something outrageous like that.

--

I wonder if this works in the Mac version of UT2003:

Get the Redemeer and the Ion Gun in the demo
Edit the user.ini in the ut2003 system folder and set the following line:
Z=set XWeapons.Rocketlauncher FireModeClass class'XWeapons.RedeemerFire' | set XWeapons.RedeemerFire AmmoClass Class'XWeapons.RocketAmmo'

or to use the Guided Redeemer, use:

Z=set XWeapons.Rocketlauncher FireModeClass class'XWeapons.RedeemerFire' | set XWeapons.RedeemerGuidedFire AmmoClass Class'XWeapons.RocketAmmo'

or use this to get Redeemer's Gun model, too:

Z=set XWeapons.RocketLauncherPickup PickupMessage You got the Redeemer | set XWeapons.RocketLauncher FireModeClass Class'XWeapons.RedeemerFire' | set XWeapons.RocketLauncherPickup StaticMesh StaticMesh'WeaponStaticMesh.RedeemerPickup' | set XWeapons.RedeemerFire AmmoClass Class'XWeapons.RocketAmmo' | set XWeapons.RocketLauncher Mesh SkeletalMesh'Weapons.Redeemer_1st' | set XWeapons.RocketLauncher AttachmentClass Class'XWeapons.RedeemerAttachment'

'Z' being a random key that's not assigned. After that you can use the rocket launcher to shoot Redeemer ammo, you just have to hit whatever key you assigned it to before using the weapon. Enter ** summon xweapons.ionpainter ** during the game and - et voila - you can mark a spot to be hit by the satellite weapon. (NOTE: I don't know if you have to include the asterisks or not, I'm not at home , thus couldn't try it out myself yet.)

[suthercd]

1024x768, TiPB 1G, 1G RAM, settings high, all effects on.

Code:
UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 1000 MHz
ATI Radeon 9000 OpenGL Engine

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

7.559460 / 15.318573 / 39.835434 fps         rand[1401800517]
Score = 15.323213

Very smooth. Will run other benchmarks.

Craig

[xyber233]

Do you think Panther will help a lot?

[Leonard]

You know, talking about UT2003 performance reminds me of when I first bought Unreal Tournament and the performance I had. I think I was getting 25 FPS and under on a B&W G3 with an ATI Rage 128 PCI card. I later bought a Radeon PCI card and got 35 - 40 FPS. Now I get a good 70 or more FPS in Unreal Tournament on my DP800 Quicksilver with Geforce 3. I guess it's getting time for another hardware upgrade.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Leonard:
You know, talking about UT2003 performance reminds me of when I first bought Unreal Tournament and the performance I had. I think I was getting 25 FPS and under on a B&W G3 with an ATI Rage 128 PCI card. I later bought a Radeon PCI card and got 35 - 40 FPS. Now I get a good 70 or more FPS in Unreal Tournament on my DP800 Quicksilver with Geforce 3. I guess it's getting time for another hardware upgrade.

On my PC, 35-40 fps did really well with UT. However, it seems maps are much more variable with UT2003. 35-40 fps on one map might mean 10 on the next.

[Peter753]

I put the demo on a Duel 1.42ghz machine with a radeon 9000 and 512mb of ram in the apple store and it ran really smoothly. Sure was cool playing it on the 23inch flat panel.

[edddeduck]

Ran all the tests on my machine

Dual 1.25 Gig / 1.5Gig / ATI 9700

Max settings and 1600x1024 (Max Resolution on 22" flat panel)

--

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 1249 MHz
ATI Radeon 9700 OpenGL Engine

Fly By

dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

36.300068 / 74.773384 / 273.566742 fps rand[854994256]
Score = 68.769981

dm-asbestos?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=71 -nosound

35.235306 / 102.883720 / 388.569702 fps rand[2015808859]
Score = 75.540726

ctf-citadel?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

15.929926 / 54.484829 / 182.896515 fps rand[2105232759]
Score = 52.874138

Bot Games

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

10.387995 / 23.339600 / 50.844910 fps rand[1124990176]
Score = 23.357073

br-anubis?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=tr ue?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

11.294365 / 36.161304 / 79.373894 fps rand[322091182]
Score = 36.193466

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

12.154963 / 28.865086 / 74.051720 fps rand[1090824280]
Score = 28.871021

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

10.217883 / 23.763050 / 50.784031 fps rand[1679975194]
Score = 23.789410

[JB72]

Dual gig MDD, 1.5GB RAM, GeForce4Ti. Playing at 1024x768 is smooth as silk afaict.

What file, exactly, would I need to modify to make a 1680x1050 resolution appear? Assuming that's possible of course. Tia.

[Hornet]

~/Library/Application Support/Unreal blah blah/System/UT2003.ini

[SDLDrv.SDLClient]
WindowedViewportX=1280
WindowedViewportY=854

Thats my setting, just under SDLDrv.SDLClient. Put in your screen res in there, and booyah




Related: saw this game running on a 17" 800mhz GF4MX imac. Unplayable to say the least

Hopefully some *serious* optimisation is in place.

Related: Unreal Tournament 2004 has been announced. Coming out in a few months. It will have all of ut2k3, plus bonus packs, plus a few new game modes (lots of vehicle stuff), plus other cool stuff. The mac port of that ought to take only weeks, as the engine has had little change since UT2k3.

And by then Ryan ought to have learned how to code bots on the mac properly, so bots should run decently

[Johnny_B]

I have a lot of ram. Is there a way to make it use more ram, and diskspace. Cache or something ? If so, what's the best settings.

Let's tweak it !!

[javabeans]

I downloaded the demo version and played it on my 17" PB..its very smooth! I only have 512MB

[billybob128]

800MHz
640 ram
30gb
16mb card
iBook 12 in

when i first played i was disapointed it was fragmented hard to control an extreemly stuttery but then i looked at the settings and changed from 32 mb graphics which is wat it was running to 16 what i can do i lowerd some settings but it ran amazingly just about to try it maxed out

[billybob128]

ok so i said i would max it out so i did it only slightly change the performance by the fact that when i was running sometimes it wouldnt let me steer but other than that it was perfect

oh yeah it also ripped the s**t out of my battery
start 1hr 28
finish (bout 20 mins later) 34 mins (but rising as i changed what i was doing so affected the prediction(

[JB72]

Originally posted by Hornet:
~/Library/Application Support/Unreal blah blah/System/UT2003.ini

[SDLDrv.SDLClient]
WindowedViewportX=1280
WindowedViewportY=854

Thats my setting, just under SDLDrv.SDLClient. Put in your screen res in there, and booyah

Booyah indeed my friend. Worked like a charm. Still seems to play pretty smooth on my 1x2 mdd.

[xyber233]

Anyone have a 900mHz iBook? I am very curious to see how it compares to the 12" Powerbook which costs $500 more.

[krove]

Umm...anyone have any ideas as to why my Dual 1.25 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9000 Pro would give results like this:

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.1 PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 1249 MHz
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro OpenGL Engine

dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

5.291229 / 13.573838 / 182.788620 fps rand[1775347087]
Score = 13.569679

I see other people with better results from Powerbooks with all settings to maximum! What's the deal? These results are from minimum settings for everything. BTW, how do you set settings for the benchmarks (just by changing prefs in game I suppose)?

[xyber233]

Try raising the resolution and settings. I bet you will not see a slow down. Your framerate might even go up.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by krove:
Umm...anyone have any ideas as to why my Dual 1.25 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9000 Pro would give results like this

Try upgrading to 10.2.6 (the demo was on hold til Apple released that point release)- there were many issues with OSX updates before 10.2.5 I believe.

-Jerry C.

[mrchin]

Especially being way back at 10.2.1. That's like the stone ages of Jag.

Go to an Apple Store near you, if you've got dial-up and ask them to plug you into their T1. Then, you'll get the 84MB download installed in no time.

good luck

[krove]

Thanks.

[xyber233]

I think you should all take a look at Ryan's blog. He added FSAA. Anyways, I found these two points interesting.

- Sound hurts framerate. The version of OpenAL we're using outputs sound
through the SoundManager API, which apparently is mad slow on OSX. We're
looking at what it would take to coerce OpenAL to use CoreAudio instead.
This will probably be addressed in a later patch. If you can get by with
no sound at all (yeah, yeah), you can turn it off in the .ini file for a
bigger framerate boost than even a CoreAudio version would give you.

- Bots probably kill about 2fps per bot, so playing with 10 of them on a
map is gonna put a dent in your game. AI is very VERY expensive. This is
true on the PC versions, too.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by xyber233:
Anyone have a 900mHz iBook? I am very curious to see how it compares to the 12" Powerbook which costs $500 more.

iBook 900 user reporting.

1024x768@32, all details normal, everything on except blob shadow.

flyby:

dm-antalus
17.069992 / 31.026711 / 112.215446 fps
Score = 31.021484

dm-asbestos
18.846624 / 45.619213 / 162.657867 fps
Score = 45.252449

ctf-citadel
13.429169 / 28.681040 / 106.668098 fps
Score = 28.692753

botmatch:

dm-antalus
1.902682 / 9.565001 / 27.093081 fps
Score = 9.569083


haven't tried anything else yet, i'll add some more later. but i'd suggest either wait for the new pb 12" or get the iBook 900 now.

edited:

1024x768@32, same except: texture detail low, character detail low, detail texture off and decals off.

dm-asbestos
19.153414 / 47.581806 / 156.436813 fps
Score = 46.854275

didnt run any other benchmarks but played bombrun against 3 other bots and it played very acceptable without losing to much eyecandy. you'll hardly notice a difference on such a small screen.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by JB72:
Dual gig MDD, 1.5GB RAM, GeForce4Ti. Playing at 1024x768 is smooth as silk afaict.

What file, exactly, would I need to modify to make a 1680x1050 resolution appear? Assuming that's possible of course. Tia.

No file needed. Simply enter the game, bring down the console w/ the Tidle key "~", and type: setres 1680x1050x16 (replace the 16 w/ 32 if you desire 32-bit color and it'll actually run smoothly).

[G0Ducks]

I have:

G4 400
PCI Radeon 7000
512 megs o RAM
10G HD

and this game was as slow as molasis in January! This is unaceptable in my book. I didn't see anything more special that should cause this massive slowness. I actually set everything to its maximum low levels

320 x what ever
lowest settings for all and every other thing...

still.... suck. ;\

oh well. I guess I will have to be stuch with different games.

I am happy that this game was ported, I just wish that they were going for a lower machine, that's all.

[greenG4]

G4/400 w/ 512MB RAM. Stock ATI card w/16MB RAM. Pathetic. Now I REALLY need a new computer. <sigh>

[drHo]

thought this would be interesting.

I have a B&W G3 450mhz
1 gig or ram
Original Radeon 32 PCI
10.2.6

LOL this is funny...had everything set to lowest 640x480etc...

the game actually RUNS which surprised me!! and its actually plyable....would never buy it though..well until a worthy mac that can run the game like those pc dudes can! but little experiment...tought it would be fun.
BTW: it helps a lot to turn of the sound

[alex_kac]

Originally posted by Peter753:
I put the demo on a Duel 1.42ghz machine with a radeon 9000 and 512mb of ram in the apple store and it ran really smoothly. Sure was cool playing it on the 23inch flat panel.

Same here. Worst I could get was around 45 fps with every option turned on the max. Mine is a 20'' flat panel and 1.25 GB of RAM, though.

Look guys - one thing I read from Ryan's blog was that he wasn't done with the game (obviously since its not out yet). A LOT, and I mean a LOT of optimization can be done at the end of development - and usually is done at the end.

So just because its not running at 1920x1680 with 32-bit color, 50000 bots, etc... at 200 fps now - doesn't mean it won't in the future
(yes, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but I hope I got my point across).

[DBvader]

i hope so.

my cheap PC(2000+/Ti4200) cost around 600 dollars and gets framerate averages in the 40-50s.

thats the same as your 3000 dollar mac configuration.

i hope that they fix this game, becuase its pointless to play on my powermac (Dual 867/9000)

[xyber233]

Heh, I don't think its the game that needs to be fixed...

[alex_kac]

Originally posted by DBvader:
i hope so.

my cheap PC(2000+/Ti4200) cost around 600 dollars and gets framerate averages in the 40-50s.

thats the same as your 3000 dollar mac configuration.

i hope that they fix this game, becuase its pointless to play on my powermac (Dual 867/9000)

Yes, but I have a Radeon 9000 - your Ti4200 blows my 9000 away. And my $3k machine is used for far more than games. Beleive me - I have an Athlon PC at 2Ghz with 512MB RAM, 80GB RAIDs, etc... and I can't stand it.

[Graymalkin]

The suggests Hornet made for performance improvements are very important. UT2003 is VERY processor intensive when you've got all the details to everything turned to the max.

You can either have really pretty screenshots or a playable game. Even the fastest PCs have difficulty running UT2003 with all of the extra details turned on to the maximum. Epic's default settings make for a good looking but somewhat unplayable game.

There's basically two settings to increase performance, processor bound settings and GFX card bound settings. The texture detail settings are your card bound settings. Lowering the texture size will allow all of the textures to fit into a much smaller space, like the 32MB of RAM on most of our GF2MX and GF4MX cards. The cards can handle the polygons but not the gigantic textures. The newer Radeons and the GF4MX in the 17" Powerbook handle higher res textures because they've got enough memory to store them. If you've got a 32MB card be it a GF2MX, a GF3 or Radeon 7500, set the texture detail to normal or low.

For processor bound tweaks turn the Decals, Coronas, and Projectors off. Set the Physics detail to low. Turn on Low Quality Sound, turn down the Gore level. Every body part's trajectory, bullet impact site, or light projector that needs to be calculated adds pretty serious strain onto the processor, on top of the normal game operations. If you tweak your processor bound options to low settings or off entirely even slower systems like 733 Quicksilvers will get much better framerates.

Using lower the default settings I get playable framerates on my 12" Powerbook, far better framerates than the default settings had ever given me. These tweaks also work on the PC versions of UT2003, I've got a dual P3 500 that UT2003 runs pretty well on because I reduced its processor load enough for the CPU to handle the load. It's got a GF2GTS which is plenty of pixel pushing power for the game.

Also a last note on bots, UT2003 bots are insanely processor intensive! They bog down performance of the fastest Pentium 4s and Athlons, they will definitely bog down even the fastest Macintoshes. If you want to run bots in your game the best plan is to run a game in dedicated server mode on a different computer and run the bots from there. Trying to play with bots hosted on your own system is a horribly slow operation. Your Botmatch benchmarks and normal gameplay will be MUCH slower than flyby benchmarks or normal multi-player gameplay.

Please, start your tweaking.

[Graymalkin]

Accidental double post, sorry.

[DBvader]

"Yes, but I have a Radeon 9000 - your Ti4200 blows my 9000 away. And my $3k machine is used for far more than games. Beleive me - I have an Athlon PC at 2Ghz with 512MB RAM, 80GB RAIDs, etc... and I can't stand it."

hardly, the 4200 isnt that much better than the 9000. and i know that your computer is used for more than games, gaming isnt a high prio for me (and that is why i switched to my mac), it just kinda gets me steamed that i cant run whats there on a fairly powerful, up to date mac.

just to make a point, i asked a friend to run some tests on his 1900+/MX440, and he gets essentially the same framerate as i do on my PC.

It isnt the video card (alone) that is doing the damage here.

[RooneyX]

Guys, I don't understand a few of you (with high end Macs).

I just downloaded the demo onto my Powerbook 17. When I launched it at the default 800x600@32 bit color it was a bit jerky. So I fiddled with the settings and...

I'm playing it with all defaults but with the screen set to 1440x900@16 bit color. It's beautiful, fluid. It's awesome even with five bots chasing my backside.

Then I installed it on my cousin's Ti-800. Set it to run at 1280x854@16 bit. Again, awesome. It runs really smooth. His machine still runs 10.2.5.

Well, we've been thrashing eachother playing deathmatch after deathmatch for several hours and we haven't stopped yet. It runs just as well as the Athlon 2000 (1600Mhz) with Geforce 2 Ultra in the next room.

[DBvader]

the game screams on the PC with everything enabled, yet on the mac it stutters with most things off. the reason i am unhappy with the performance is that my PC cost a small fraction of my mac, and it completely outperforms it.

there is little point playing the game on low res with low color depth to get manageable framerates, becuase it negates the point of the game: fast paced, good looking fragging.


hopefully, they tighten the code up, or few people will be able to play this game.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by DBvader:
the game screams on the PC with everything enabled, yet on the mac it stutters with most things off. the reason i am unhappy with the performance is that my PC cost a small fraction of my mac, and it completely outperforms it.

From what I can tell, you're comparing performance of a 2GHz PC with a 867MHz Mac? That's your problem right there. As far as games go, there is no Megahertz Myth - it's a pretty real fact. Most games depend heavily on raw CPU performance, and the Mac has been losing this battle ever since things stalled at the 500MHz G4 level for about a year.

[RooneyX]

Funny thing was that I was running it on my PB17 and was really impressed with the performance and then realized reduced processor speed was on (667Mhz). Plugging the laptop into the AC boosted performance even more. But it was running at 1440x900 and totally playable even at 667Mhz.

[Eug]

Heh. I just realized I haven't played this game in well over a month, besides for doing some benches and stuff. And yes I paid the full price for it, for my PC.

This game simply doesn't hold my interest as much as UT did.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by Eug:
Heh. I just realized I haven't played this game in well over a month, besides for doing some benches and stuff. And yes I paid the full price for it, for my PC.

This game simply doesn't hold my interest as much as UT did.

Yeah, me too - I guess I've been waiting for some kick-ass mods to come out. In the meanwhile I've gotten interested in PlanetSide, which seems more interesting than any PC version of Halo. No Mac version (yet) it seems

Check it out,

J

[Olorin]

I have a 1Ghz TiBook with 768MB or ram. When I first started playing UT03 I would get around 20fps I tried all sorts of different settings to get it over 30fps consistently and found that turning everythig down to low would do this, but the game would not look very beautiful at these settings. I wanted to try the game at my native rez and finally found a way to change it to 1280x854x16 (can't tell difference between 16bit and 32 on this game). Anyway I have 1280x854x16 with all settings on normal except physics which is on low and I usually get around 40fps-30fps with 4 bots during battles. Just walking around not fightins it goes up to 90fps sometimes but normally is around 60-70.

I think playing the game at your native rez is better for performance than turning it down.
In the command line type in "setres" then the rez you want and it'll change it for you. Really helped me out!

sorry if my grammer is bad...it's very late here and I'm very tired, yet I don't seem to be able to pull myself away from my PB.