PDA

View Full Version : Doom 3!


Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 05:47 PM
Hey everybody, I was very fortunate to get the Pc leaked version of Doom 3 and let me tell you its awesome! Now my question is will Doom 3 come out for a Mac? if you remember the Apple Expo in Tokyo 2001 John Carmack Ceo of Id Software presented Doom 3 technology using Os X. Now everybody is telling me that Doom 3 will not be on a Mac and the Doom 3 news tells me there currently in production just for PC's. I dont want to wait 2 years for this game to come out for a mac, and also the ATI radeon 9000 mobile is the only notebook (powerbook) 3d card that cun run the game at awesome quality.

Tiauguinho
Nov 13, 2002, 06:16 PM
Jeffx342,


Can you post some pictures of the game?

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 07:55 PM
Here are some screenshots in-game I took, These are all Real time graphics no video.

http://www.angelfire.com/freak2/jeffx342/doom_3_1.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/freak2/jeffx342/Doom_3_3.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/freak2/jeffx342/Doom_3_5.jpg

more pics are coming soon

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 08:25 PM
Doom 3 pic i took

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 08:29 PM
2

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 08:30 PM
3

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 08:45 PM
4

beez7777
Nov 13, 2002, 08:47 PM
those look sweet. what kind of video card do you have? i hope when i play it on my iMac w/ geforce 4 mx itll look half that good

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 08:50 PM
I am using a Ati Radeon 9700
p4 1.7ghz w/ 512 DDR RAM

Running Doom 3 1024x768 32bit Color/Texture HighQuality Textures, Dynamic Lights,

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 08:51 PM
5

MacBandit
Nov 13, 2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by beez7777
those look sweet. what kind of video card do you have? i hope when i play it on my iMac w/ geforce 4 mx itll look half that good

Sorry but the G4MX doesn't have any of the shaders or AntiAliasing functions needed to run a game that looks that good.

beez7777
Nov 13, 2002, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


Sorry but the G4MX doesn't have any of the shaders or AntiAliasing functions needed to run a game that looks that good.

grr, will i be able to play the game at all? this is kinda disappointing.:rolleyes:

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:01 PM
6

MacBandit
Nov 13, 2002, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by beez7777


grr, will i be able to play the game at all? this is kinda disappointing.:rolleyes:

I don't know. If you can it will be really ssssllllooooowwww.

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:15 PM
7

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:31 PM
8

job
Nov 13, 2002, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't know. If you can it will be really ssssllllooooowwww.

Either that, or really ugly with all the eye candy turned down.. :p

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:34 PM
9

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:37 PM
doom console

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:40 PM
Alright, I hope u enjoy the screenshots I took

job
Nov 13, 2002, 09:40 PM
thats pretty funny..."doom 0.02"

Jeffx342
Nov 13, 2002, 09:46 PM
Beez7777 grr, will i be able to play the game at all? this is kinda disappointing


Of course you will be able to play the game it just wont look as nice.

bousozoku
Nov 13, 2002, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Jeffx342
Alright, I hope u enjoy the screenshots I took

Absolutely! Very kewl.

Must be fun to play. I don't think I'll have time (or money) anyway. I'm still working on Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Jedi Knight II.

8thDegreeSavage
Nov 14, 2002, 02:51 AM
Incredible....

diorio
Nov 14, 2002, 08:40 AM
I never really liked Doom, too many weird monsters, too little storyline. But this one actually looks like it could be good.;)

Jeffx342
Nov 14, 2002, 07:06 PM
Here's another Pic enjoy

Inhale420
Nov 17, 2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by beez7777
those look sweet. what kind of video card do you have? i hope when i play it on my iMac w/ geforce 4 mx itll look half that good

keep dreaming, lol.

Inhale420
Nov 17, 2002, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit


Sorry but the G4MX doesn't have any of the shaders or AntiAliasing functions needed to run a game that looks that good.


gf4mx has anti-aliasing, but whether it's on or not, it wont be sufficient to play this. todays top of the line pc's would probably be the minimum recommended computers by the time this game comes out. my hunch is that the dual 1.25 mac would have a hard time playing this at 1024x768 with everything turned on.

F/reW/re
Nov 17, 2002, 11:30 AM
I have heard you have to have GeForce Ti 64 MB to be able to play the game. MX cards doesnt support vertex shading.

On my XP 1800+, 512 RAM, GF3 Ti 64 there was some real nasty lagging when the monsters killed me.

Did I get scared, you bet!! This game is gonna be awesome!!

Take some screens when you look into the mirror or thruu the window with the monsters passing by on the other side, thats really cool!

xelterran
Nov 17, 2002, 01:47 PM
ack, another game thats all graphics and no gameplay, when are game companies going to start thinking about gameplay instead of just cranking out better and better graphic engines? After the graphic engine is just a novelty that wears off after a few weeks.. :rolleyes:

job
Nov 17, 2002, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by xelterran
ack, another game thats all graphics and no gameplay, when are game companies going to start thinking about gameplay instead of just cranking out better and better graphic engines? After the graphic engine is just a novelty that wears off after a few weeks.. :rolleyes:

Just have some faith and let the modders at it. :) ;)

I'm sure in a few weeks after the release, you'll install a kickass mod that is far better than the original.

And about the whole graphics engine thing: It's like comparing ***** sizes.. :rolleyes:

FattyMembrane
Nov 17, 2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Jeffx342
Now my question is will Doom 3 come out for a Mac? if you remember the Apple Expo in Tokyo 2001 John Carmack Ceo of Id Software presented Doom 3 technology using Os X. Now everybody is telling me that Doom 3 will not be on a Mac and the Doom 3 news tells me there currently in production just for PC's.
insidemacgames.com had an interview with someone who worked at id (i'm not sure, but it may have been carmack) back in early september. the guy said that a build of doom 3 was up and running on 10.2 and i certainly doubt that they would spend time on a mac port before it was released if they had no plans of supporting osx. hopefully, there will be a simultaneous release, but if not, the mac port will not be too far behind the pc debut (i would guess that if they are developing all of the builds side by side, they would probably aim for a simultaneous release).

xelterran
Nov 18, 2002, 07:37 AM
what about multiplayer?? everyones going to have to have an OC3 connection or its gunna lag like *******!

MacBandit
Nov 18, 2002, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by xelterran
what about multiplayer?? everyones going to have to have an OC3 connection or its gunna lag like *******!

Why will it lag? The only data that needs to be sent between machines is the coordinates of all the players and the details about them. Such as what direction they are moving, speed, what they are holding, etc.. Not a large amount of data really no graphics or anything and it shouldn't take any more data then QuakeIII or Unreal Tournament.

xelterran
Nov 19, 2002, 09:27 AM
have u seen D3 on a 3GHZ p4 with a gforce4ti 4600? it runs at like 18fps (all settings max i beleive)........... the only way youll get decent fps is if you use a Gforce FX and that hasnt even been released yet!

springscansing
Nov 19, 2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by xelterran
have u seen D3 on a 3GHZ p4 with a gforce4ti 4600? it runs at like 18fps (all settings max i beleive)........... the only way youll get decent fps is if you use a Gforce FX and that hasnt even been released yet!

What about the damn fact that this is version 0.02? MAYBE ITS NOT RUNNING AT FULL SPEED YET?

God, all you people, just wait and see.

MacBandit
Nov 19, 2002, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by xelterran
have u seen D3 on a 3GHZ p4 with a gforce4ti 4600? it runs at like 18fps (all settings max i beleive)........... the only way youll get decent fps is if you use a Gforce FX and that hasnt even been released yet!


That doesn't make sense. When Carmack ran the demo it was running smoothly which means at least 30+ FPS minimum. At the time the 2.8GHz pentiums hadn't even been released yet. Though I would guess he was using an AMD. He was also running a prerelease version of the ATI9700 which improved much later due to driver developement.

xelterran
Nov 19, 2002, 10:26 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1749&p=7

3GHZ P4
512MB ram
XP
1280x1024 res

18fps with gforce Ti 4600..

MacBandit
Nov 19, 2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by xelterran
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1749&p=7

3GHZ P4
512MB ram
XP
1280x1024 res

18fps with gforce Ti 4600..

That does explain it. Since they show the ATI9700 breaking 30FPS.

Chisholm
Nov 19, 2002, 10:47 AM
Man, those screen shots look scary. I'm afraid I'd pee myself if you added 5.1 setup and a dark room!

cheers!

MacBandit
Nov 19, 2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Chisholm
Man, those screen shots look scary. I'm afraid I'd pee myself if you added 5.1 setup and a dark room!

cheers!

Don't tell me you're a member of the wet crotch presidential campaign.:rolleyes: ;) :)

FattyMembrane
Nov 19, 2002, 12:04 PM
this is kind of a stupid question, but if the gforce FX is supposed to take up more than one slot, where is extra space it needs? don't most computers just have one agp slot? do you have to clear out your pci cards to make room?

Chisholm
Nov 19, 2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


Don't tell me you're a member of the wet crotch presidential campaign.:rolleyes: ;) :)

SSShhhh!!! I haven't formally anounced my intentions to run for pubic er, oh I mean public office.

cheers!

MacBandit
Nov 20, 2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Chisholm


SSShhhh!!! I haven't formally anounced my intentions to run for pubic er, oh I mean public office.

cheers!

Sorry it's joke from another thread.

MacBandit
Nov 20, 2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by FattyMembrane
this is kind of a stupid question, but if the gforce FX is supposed to take up more than one slot, where is extra space it needs? don't most computers just have one agp slot? do you have to clear out your pci cards to make room?

It doesn't actually take up two slots. It needs two ports in the back of the computer. The first one is where the AGP slot is this is wher the monitor port would be. The other port is where you would normally have a normal PCI slot but it needs this for an inlet/exhaust for the fan and cooling. Therefore they say two slots even though it is technically incorrect to do so.

Jeffx342
Nov 20, 2002, 04:05 PM
if you guys want me tp upload more doom 3 shots I will,

beez7777
Nov 20, 2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Jeffx342
if you guys want me tp upload more doom 3 shots I will,

sure, go for it. itll be the closest ill get to the game,:( damn geforce 4 mx

FattyMembrane
Nov 20, 2002, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by beez7777
itll be the closest ill get to the game,:( damn geforce 4 mx
boohoo, my rage128 and i feel so sorry for you :p

MacBandit
Nov 20, 2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Jeffx342
if you guys want me tp upload more doom 3 shots I will,

You have posted some details here and there about your system and all. What I would like is a detailed break down of your system and the performance you are getting with Doom 3 at what qualities.

GetSome681
Nov 20, 2002, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


You have posted some details here and there about your system and all. What I would like is a detailed break down of your system and the performance you are getting with Doom 3 at what qualities.

I played this "leak" about 3 weeks ago. The system that I played it on was...

Athlon XP 1.4 Ghz(1600+) running @ 1.8 Ghz
ASUS A7V8X Motherboard
512 MB Corsair Xtreme Performance Ram - PC3200 (DDR400)
GF4 Ti 4200 64 MB 250Mhz clock @ 280 Mhz
WD 120 GB 8MB buffer


I think that's all the important vitals. The thing is, there are two ways to play the "leak."

1. Jumping right in. This means that on every map you play that when something knew comes up, it must do some "binding" and such to bring those files into memory. I'm not explaining this totally correct so don't kill me, b/c it's been 3 weeks since I looked at it, and read the file someone gave me about it.

2. Spending some significant time previously to "bind" some files so that when new objects appear in the map (as in your getting to knew objects) the game doesn't slow down significantly.


Playing via Method #1 I would receive anywhere between 4 - 24 fps depending on where I was in the map. The 4 obviously represents the extreme where I'm firing and running around like crazy, with new objects being introduced.

Playing via Method #2 I received pretty much 20 - 27 fps. There's a much noticeable difference in terms of just jumping in.


The reason for this is that it is still quite an early build, and what was passed around was NOT solified very well. True there will be more options to turn things off, and that should help the game. Also, this "leak" did not have any options to adjust settings enabled, so it basically ran at 800 x 640, and whatever else they have it set to.

MacBandit
Nov 20, 2002, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by GetSome681


I played this "leak" about 3 weeks ago. The system that I played it on was...

Athlon XP 1.4 Ghz(1600+) running @ 1.8 Ghz
ASUS A7V8X Motherboard
512 MB Corsair Xtreme Performance Ram - PC3200 (DDR400)
GF4 Ti 4200 64 MB 250Mhz clock @ 280 Mhz
WD 120 GB 8MB buffer



Thanks that helped a lot. I do have an off topic question though.

DDR400 with a 1.4GHz Athlon?

Seems to me that you have a very new board with an outdated processor. Am I wrong or how did this happen?

GetSome681
Nov 20, 2002, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


Thanks that helped a lot. I do have an off topic question though.

DDR400 with a 1.4GHz Athlon?

Seems to me that you have a very new board with an outdated processor. Am I wrong or how did this happen?


Well, the ddr400 is not really being totally utilized. I just bought the ram b/c it's close to the best you can get, although not the most compatible. My board though does take it.

The reason I have the 1.4 Athlon xp is the following:

1. It's an AGOIA core of the chip, which basically was a group of athlon xp chips that overclocked extremely well.

2. I got the chip for a whole $50.

Basically this means I'm getting Athlon 2200-2300+ performance from a 1600+, $50 chip. Considering that AMD only just released their 2600 I believe, then I'm really not too far out of the times.

Also, the chip is running at I believe 170x2 fsb.

Basically I'm getting some overall killer performance from a $50 chip.

MacBandit
Nov 20, 2002, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by GetSome681



Well, the ddr400 is not really being totally utilized. I just bought the ram b/c it's close to the best you can get, although not the most compatible. My board though does take it.

The reason I have the 1.4 Athlon xp is the following:

1. It's an AGOIA core of the chip, which basically was a group of athlon xp chips that overclocked extremely well.

2. I got the chip for a whole $50.

Basically this means I'm getting Athlon 2200-2300+ performance from a 1600+, $50 chip. Considering that AMD only just released their 2600 I believe, then I'm really not too far out of the times.

Also, the chip is running at I believe 170x2 fsb.

Basically I'm getting some overall killer performance from a $50 chip.

Thanks for the details. That fills in the gaps on your overall performance along with the fac that you are trying to run a prerelease that isn't fully compiled or optimized.

GetSome681
Nov 20, 2002, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


Thanks for the details. That fills in the gaps on your overall performance along with the fac that you are trying to run a prerelease that isn't fully compiled or optimized.

no prob.

cool avatar by the way.

MacBandit
Nov 21, 2002, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by GetSome681


no prob.

cool avatar by the way.

Thanks but I can't take credit for it. It was created by someone on SpyMac.

couch potato
Jan 20, 2003, 06:29 PM
only the high-end macs will be able to play it. good thing i built me a 2.4ghz P4 with GF4Ti 4400 for gaming:D

but I still prefer to play on my mac, even though it has a hardware set-back compared to my PC.

Jimong5
Jan 20, 2003, 06:43 PM
When(if?) It comes to the Mac, Would my Radeon 9000 be enough, or do I have to go up to at least a 9700 to play it at a repectable rate? I have a Dual 867.

Jeffx342
Jan 20, 2003, 07:20 PM
There are 970 people that viewed this forum. I have figured out how popular this forum was, so I decided to make a doom3 part 2 forum which will have even more screenshots. And help for those people who do have the Alpha demo

couch potato
Jan 20, 2003, 09:35 PM
could you make those screens jpg. please:D the ones you just displayed are php. which i cant view:rolleyes: yes, MORE SCREENS:D :) PLEASE

couch potato
Jan 21, 2003, 09:30 AM
BAH! you people and your fancy ATI cards:o just wait 'till the NV30 comes out. THEN WE SHALL SEE WHO IS THE GRAPHICS CARD KING> WOOHOO:D

Delboy
Jan 22, 2003, 12:10 PM
In the past, Carmack has made his code easily executable on Mac Platform with few changes required. Carmack himself was a fan of the PlatForm and has talked about moving his development kit across to it.

frescies
Jan 24, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Chisholm
Man, those screen shots look scary. I'm afraid I'd pee myself if you added 5.1 setup and a dark room!

cheers!

I remember I almost pee'd myself playing the original Unreal. Heh, I can't play certain video games in the dark. Thats a rhetorical "can't" of course... since i play them in the dark anyway and love it.

Tell me if you feel the same way:

When I turn a corner in a quite environment inside an "intense fps" to find a monster practically right in my face, I immediately feel this primative, instinctual surge of adrenaline, accompanied by a split second of venerability and terror. Then as my hippocampus makes the distinction between the pixels in front of me and reality that my prefrontal lobes cannot, it goes away (though leaving me somewhat stired).

Now I am a fan of gameplay over graphics, sound, and whatnot but in this particular genre I'd love the real rush of a game that can postpone the time I realize its not real. 5.1 sound.... maybe. Playing in the dark.... yeah. I donno.... Something might be missing. What else can they think of besides mail in rebates for psycodelics included in the box of these games?

job
Jan 26, 2003, 12:39 AM
I hear ya frescies...

I played Undying at around midnight last summer. I nearly **** myself several times.

Playing single player RtCW late has also had that effect on me (espec. in the catacombs.)

:D

pgwalsh
Jan 29, 2003, 01:28 AM
Those Doom 3 shots are incredible. Not being a gamer are there other games that have that much detail and look that realistic? Very impressive.

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by couch potato
BAH! you people and your fancy ATI cards:o just wait 'till the NV30 comes out. THEN WE SHALL SEE WHO IS THE GRAPHICS CARD KING> WOOHOO:D

Ahhh look the wittle ittle NV30 is strugling to surpass the ATI9700. Just wait until the R350 (new ATI) comes out the month right after the NV30.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Those Doom 3 shots are incredible. Not being a gamer are there other games that have that much detail and look that realistic? Very impressive.

No, no game even comes close to the screen shots and previews of Doom3.

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by couch potato
could you make those screens jpg. please:D the ones you just displayed are php. which i cant view:rolleyes: yes, MORE SCREENS:D :) PLEASE

They are jpg just rename the extension to jpg and they should work fine.

job
Jan 29, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
No, no game even comes close to the screen shots and previews of Doom3.

Yes, but good graphics does not make up for poor execution.

I'm looking forward to Doom 3, but remember the original release of Q3? Nice visuals, second rate gameplay.

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by hitman


Yes, but good graphics does not make up for poor execution.

I'm looking forward to Doom 3, but remember the original release of Q3? Nice visuals, second rate gameplay.

Yup, I remember. Though even if the execution isn't perfect I will still want to play a game like that just for the graphics. At least until the other game makers catch up.

job
Jan 29, 2003, 05:33 PM
btw thanks for the great link on the geforce fx vs 9700 pro.

im reading it right now. :)

hvfsl
Jan 29, 2003, 05:52 PM
No one with a Mac will be able to run Doom 3 unless they have at least Dual 1Ghz G4 and at least a Geforce 4Ti (So no currently avaliable ATI cards for Mac). Anything slower would probably result in an unplayable game on the Mac. UT 2003 will require only a little less than this because it will run on slower video cards. I got these specs by looking at the Quake 3 frame rates on PCs VS Macs and then looking at what is needed to run Doom3 on the PC and then working out how fast a Mac would have to be. It is just Macs are sooooooo much slower than PCs at games. So if you want to get a Mac to play Doom3 on, you going to have to fork out for a top of the range model.

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
No one with a Mac will be able to run Doom 3 unless they have at least Dual 1Ghz G4 and at least a Geforce 4Ti (So no currently avaliable ATI cards for Mac). Anything slower would probably result in an unplayable game on the Mac. UT 2003 will require only a little less than this because it will run on slower video cards. I got these specs by looking at the Quake 3 frame rates on PCs VS Macs and then looking at what is needed to run Doom3 on the PC and then working out how fast a Mac would have to be. It is just Macs are sooooooo much slower than PCs at games. So if you want to get a Mac to play Doom3 on, you going to have to fork out for a top of the range model.

Wait until there is a finished product before you make rash all encompassing statments like this, big guy.

job
Jan 29, 2003, 06:35 PM
Didn't Carmack say something about the 9000 being able to run Doom3?

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by hitman
Didn't Carmack say something about the 9000 being able to run Doom3?

I think he did. The only reason for that is that it supports the shaders and such that Doom 3 needs to be all pretty. I supect that it will run fine on older cards not supporting the shaders and such. It will just look less pretty like the current games.

jonmichael23
Feb 3, 2004, 09:26 PM
i have a question. i have halo on my mac (imac, geforce 4 mx 64 mb vram, 512 mb ddr sdram) and it doesnt look half as good as it does on the xbox version, which i have of course. I am selling my imac and ibook soon, and hope to get 2,300 dollars all together. Im guessing halo looks so bad because geforce 4 mx doesnt have support for shaders or anti-aliasing? Anyways, with that money i have 3 mac choices ( i dont want a pc, no matter how good they can play games, i could never use windoze again) First, i can get the Dual 1.25 ghz powermac g4 (ati radeon 9000 pro, 64 mb vram, 512 mb ddr333 sdram) with the 20" apple cinema display........this is possible through buying it at www.macmastershop.com, which has discounted prices on both these items. Next, i could get the 1.6 ghz g5 (ati radeon 9800 pro, 128 mb vram, 512 mb ddr333 sdram.......which is possible if bought through education, which applies to me and thats how i bought my imac, with NO APPLE DISPLAY, id have to use my stupid emachines crt :( ) . Lastly, i could get the single 1.8 ghz g5 (nvidia geforce fx 5200 ultra, 64 mb vram, 512 mb ddr400 128-bit sdram...which also has a 160 gb hard drice compared to the 80 gb hd's of the 1.6 g5 and dual 1.25 g4, again with no display) Would the g4 i could get with the ati radeon 9000 be able to play doom 3 with the pretty graphics and all ( in the last post it was stated this card has support for shaders, anti-aliasing) so i could have my display, or would it really just be a better choice to get one of the g5's and have to wait a loooong time to get any apple display, much less the 20"........if the g5 would be a much better choice, which one do i go with? Thanks for any help, and i cant wait till doom 3 comes out! bestbuy.com says april 1st for the pc version! hopefully well have it on mac by march?! :D (note the sarcasm, it probably wont be late may, early june if the pc version does in fact come out april 1st)

Jon

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 3, 2004, 09:45 PM
Those screen shots are awesome, this game is going to make a lot of Mac users cry when their current machine cant run it. My advice for jonmichael would be to go for a G5 and get the most you can. As far as halo goes its garbage code coming from microsoft so what do you expect.

Nermal
Feb 3, 2004, 10:08 PM
I'm looking forward to Doom 3 but I expect that I'll have to upgrade my video card. I've got a Radeon 9000 in my high-end G4 at the moment, although I do remember someone (Carmack?) saying that the game can auto-sense the capabilities of your card and adjust itself for best performance.

Declan
Feb 4, 2004, 02:43 PM
I played the leaked demo about, 6 months or so ago, cant remember exactly. I have just recently switched to being a Mac only user but at the time i had a Athlon 2000XP, 512MB, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128MB and got about 19 - 25 fps and boy was it playable, and scared the sú$t out of me, playing with headphones, in the dark. But at the time the leaked version was not very optimized for general PC configs but only optimized for the rig that they originally did the demo on. I am hoping that its released for the Mac but i think that on both PC and Mac, it will be the video card you have that will make it shine not so much the processor, though they are quoting a 2ghz PC for middle ground spec. But i have to say that when this game is released, i shall built a PC just to play it, the leaked demo i played was that good, belief me....and i wanna play it the day its released.. Was it 12 months, how time flys., thinking about it i remember now.

Mav451
Feb 4, 2004, 03:02 PM
heh, actually the alpha demo was available almost 12 months ago...perhaps a better, less rough demo is out now?

With my 2100XP Oced to 2.231ghz (you could say it's 3200-3300+ equivalent).

Of course, i only have a Radeon 8500, which is basically a geforce3 equivalent. I got 45-60fps...and YES. This game is awesome. There are only 3 demo maps to play on, but this game is for real.

You're definitely gonna need a high-end proc and a 9600pro or better to feed it :)

I'm sure a 2.0 G5 would easily run this the question is whether it will be ported -_-