Quake II or Unreal?

[Guest Conor]

Unreal runs better on my computer too. I can turn every single thing on Unreal to the highest setting and run it at 1600x1200 and there is never any slowdown unless I take a huge level, fly above it, and look at everything at once.

 

UT will run perfect on most levels at 1024x768, although I can't really put it higher. If a UT level gets even close to the size that Unreal's were, it gets so jerky it is unplayable (2ndSpaceBeacon comes to mind).

 

I'm not complaining, they both run fine, but Unreal does run better than UT for me.

 

Of course, the fact that my version of Unreal came with my Voodoo3 (3000) may be the reason. I have a suspicion my version might be optimized for my card.

 

Another point: My friend happens to have almost the exact stats (P200MMX, 48 Ram, but with 12 meg Creative labs Voodoo2) as Qui-Gon and Unreal runs absolutely smooth and pretty much perfect on his computer (only a couple things turned off, res 800x600).

 

------------------

"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."

-St. Francis of Assisi

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Guest Argath]

If Qui-Gon would post up a timedemo score, I could tell him whether his computer is performing abnoramlly slow or whether he just has higher standards for what he considers good gameplay. Of course, I just noticed his previous post about his new computer, so I suppose he won't be needing to fix it anymore.

 

Regarding Unreal's performance, if both run adequately, I see no problem. When UT was first released, a number of surveys were conducted on various message boards in which a good number of gamers, especially those with non-3dfx cards, found UT to run better than Unreal. There's not necessarily something wrong if Unreal runs better, but the majority of people experience better performance in UT.

 

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

From what I have experienced what UT needs most is Ram and a lot of it. When I had 64 the game would jerk and crawl every time I got into a heavy firefight. I had the same problem, only magnified many times, with Wheel of Time. After I upgraded to 128 UT ran near flawless and WOT ran much better (although not perfect, mostly because the game is so beautiful I can't stand to lower the detail one iota ).

 

------------------

"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."

-St. Francis of Assisi

[Guest Qui-Gon Jinn]

Ok, I did what Argath told me and here are the results:

 

Highest: 29.107813 FPS

Lowest: 4.564277 FPS

Average: (At the start) around 13.18

(At the end) around 13.56

 

I have [no clue how to "read" and know that, but there they are. I hope you can tell me the results, Argath.

 

NOTE: DON'T be a wise aleck again!

 

 

------------------

http://www.JediKnight.8k.com

 

"Be Mindful of the Living Force." - Qui-Gon Jinn

 

 

 

[Guest Argath]

Yeah, those are way below normal, but I need to know what resolution you were using to run the timedemo. A previous post of mine included some information on checking to make sure you're running in Glide and not software mode. Did you try those suggestions? Just to be sure, you DID answer yes to the question when it asked if you have a 3dfx card, correct?

 

I'd also suggest getting the latest drivers from 3dfx.com and the latest Unreal patch if you haven't gotten it yet. Hopefully, you'll be able to get Unreal running soon.

 

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Oh, I didn't say this before, but I have Unreal and UT both running at their highest quality settings (graphics and sound wise) with nothing turned off (except screen flash).

 

I run them both at 800x600 res and I'm running them in full screen mode. I have my desktop set to 16 bit color (if that matters at all and 800x600 res).

 

I'm running DirectX 7 and the latest drivers for my Voodoo2 card (Diamond Monster 3D II: 8 meg). I also have 64 megs of SDRAM on my system and am running Windows 98 SE.

 

I'm also running UT and Unreal both with the latest official updates respectively.

 

I have UT and Unreal on full installs (and I play them both without the CD's), and Unreal runs faster for me. They are both playable (ie: I'm able to enjoy them, and do well in games, and it isn't perceptably jerky). I also have a decent amount of my harddrive free.

 

One should note that both Unreal and UT say in their documentation that "32 megs of ram" is "probably unplayable" (which is not accurate), and that 128 megs of ram is basically the "best" way to play them. Apparently however, many are able to enjoy the games with less than 128 megs of ram (even without turning off everything and putting all the detail on the lowest settings).

 

As I recall, from reading various Unreal websites and UT websites (I never got into Unreal until just a few short weeks before UT came out actually), in which some people were complaining (they had non 3dfx cards) that they were experience trouble (whatever that means). Somehow then, the support for non-3dfx cards must have been less than adequete for these users. The UT sites seem to confirm this by commenting (especially in the update sections) that UT has "better" support for Direct3D cards.

 

I have never tried to run UT or Unreal with a direct3d card, so perhaps my view is thus limited. I'll take their word for it that a problem existed (the developers, and owners of Direct3d cards). However, I will say that my roommate (who has a ton of ram) was able to run Unreal and UT successfully, indeed better than on my computer. So apparently, with enough ram, this problem goes away on its own.

 

This does not prove however that Unreal must always run worse than UT. Perhaps this is only the case with Direct3d card owners.

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited March 02, 2000).]

[Guest Argath]

Unreal had bad Direct3D support, and the fact that TNT and TNT2 cards don't support palletized textures caused a lot of problems for users of those cards. UT works a lot better with non-3dfx cards than Unreal did, and usually plays smoother on most systems.

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

So Argath, does that allow for the possibility that on a 3dfx system, Unreal would actually run better than UT?

 

You were making it sound like no matter what, Unreal SHOULD run worse than UT. That doesn't speak to my situation right there.

 

If that's the case, then you have no reason to doubt what I said in earlier posts.

 

I don't have a TNT-based system, so I can't speak to their ability or inability to run Unreal or UT better or worse than one another or 3dfx owners.

 

I've been hearing all along from the various sites on the 'net that if you have a 3dfx card and you're an Unreal/UT player, you're better off than one who doesn't have a glide-based card. I've also read all the stuff about how the developers have been tweaking the direct3d support for UT, so in theory it should run better than Unreal did for those people.

 

I don't run in Direct3d mode, I run it in glide, and I have a 3dfx card, and as I said before, Unreal runs better for me than UT does. They both are playable, but Unreal runs a bit better (smoother, even at the highest settings).

 

Kurgan

[Guest Argath]

I never said it couldn't. I took exception to your false comments about what made Unreal and Unreal Tournament different, not the fact that Unreal runs better on your computer. Based on several surveys I've seen, UT does run faster on most systems, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true for everyone.

 

I don't understand why you're obsessing over this, anyway. Read the last paragraph of my first post on the topic. As long as both run well, there's no reason to assume something is working incorrectly.