PDA

View Full Version : Halo 2.0.4 unplayable on my G4 MDD




Nova77
Nov 27, 2012, 09:40 PM
So I finally decided to try Halo after all this time.
Installed the UB version because it was required for the latest patch.
It plays terribly bad.... very very slow.
I tried with shadows turned off and graphics at lowest settings possible @ 640X480 and it still feels sluggish. I don't know how to turn on FPS meter but from what I can tell its below 30. It lacks enough frames to give me a headache.

I've heard of people playing this on their PowerBook Titanium 800 mhz. Geez. How? Is it just me that can't stand playing a game that isn't close to 60 FPS or what?

I'm using a PowerMac G4 dual 1.58 Ghz with a Geforce 7800 GS 256 MB.

Does that mean that it would run better on my 1 Ghz TiBook???


Guess I'll stay with that good old Quake 3 engine for now...
(By the way, by tweaking the config file I was able to unlock higher graphic quality unavailable in the menu, from what I can tell it looks 2X better than Halo at max quality -- PM me if interested)



Zotaccian
Nov 28, 2012, 06:38 AM
It should definently run with Dual G4 1.58Ghz, I played it with my iBook G4 1.42Ghz with Radeon 9550 and while it was of course far from great (had to tone settings down etc.) it was playable, if I remember correctly I had 1024 x 768 resolution but lots of options set to Off.

You have overclocked CPU's and I suppose flashed 7800GS, those two can be the reason for strange behaviour. Have checked temps? Applications stress CPU's differently, however if you have done encoding etc. I think you have tested stability very well already. When I played Halo, I had 10.5.8 so I'm guessing the OS is not the problem.

Nova77
Nov 28, 2012, 10:39 AM
It should definently run with Dual G4 1.58Ghz, I played it with my iBook G4 1.42Ghz with Radeon 9550 and while it was of course far from great (had to tone settings down etc.) it was playable, if I remember correctly I had 1024 x 768 resolution but lots of options set to Off.

You have overclocked CPU's and I suppose flashed 7800GS, those two can be the reason for strange behaviour. Have checked temps? Applications stress CPU's differently, however if you have done encoding etc. I think you have tested stability very well already. When I played Halo, I had 10.5.8 so I'm guessing the OS is not the problem.

OC is not the issue, I've been running it this way for more than a month and stressed tested it the first night. It can run at 100% CPU load without problem. Temp cannot go higher than 47-48 degrees celcius because I hacked the fan system kext (20-21 degrees inside the house).

Somehow Doom 3 @1280x1024 and medium graphics just plays way smoother than Halo @ 640X480 very low graphics. Doom 3 IS playable (40-60 FPS, only slight lag when entering areas), Halo IS NOT. Was Halo meant to look terrible?

Goftrey
Nov 28, 2012, 10:53 AM
I run Halo maxed out on my G5 with a smooth 35-50fps (6800 Utra). It even ran with medium settings smoothly enough on the FX5200. However I run the PowerPC version. So maybe it's the binary or maybe the fact you have a flashed card and it just isn't getting on, or a mixture of both?

If you have a stock card lying around somewhere I'd give that a twirl & see if it comes out with better/smoother results.

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 29, 2012, 12:12 AM
It runs fairly smooth at 720p for me at medium high details, this is on a dual 1.8 G5 with a Radeon X800 XT ~

Nova77
Nov 30, 2012, 09:14 AM
Funny how everybody puts the fault on my video card... if its the card why is Doom 3 running OK and not Halo?... Doom 3 has higher min requirements than Halo, yet runs a lot better. I tried the PPC version too. Wasn't any better. I mean... both are playable if you get passed the headache due to low FPS.

Could it be that.....
Halo - 2001 - PC game wrapped for mac
Doom 3 - 2005 - Actually had real development for mac

----------

I run Halo maxed out on my G5 with a smooth 35-50fps (6800 Utra). It even ran with medium settings smoothly enough on the FX5200. However I run the PowerPC version. So maybe it's the binary or maybe the fact you have a flashed card and it just isn't getting on, or a mixture of both?

If you have a stock card lying around somewhere I'd give that a twirl & see if it comes out with better/smoother results.

35 FPS for a 2001 game on a G5? And you call that smooth?? You gotta try Quake 3 Arena on your G5 if you want to learn what smooth really is.

Goftrey
Dec 1, 2012, 07:56 AM
35 FPS for a 2001 game on a G5? And you call that smooth?? You gotta try Quake 3 Arena on your G5 if you want to learn what smooth really is.

Well considering the human eye can only view at 24 frames per second then would I call that smooth? Yes.

Jethryn Freyman
Dec 1, 2012, 08:55 PM
Well considering the human eye can only view at 24 frames per second then would I call that smooth? Yes.
What?!

If you can't tell more than 24 FPS then your eyes are doing it wrong.

I can tell easily the difference between 30 and 60FPS video shot with an iPhone, and 50Hz vs 100Hz TV sets.

Also, framerate in games must be much higher than a movie to give a comparable quality of experience.

Nova77
Dec 4, 2012, 10:07 PM
What?!

If you can't tell more than 24 FPS then your eyes are doing it wrong.

I can tell easily the difference between 30 and 60FPS video shot with an iPhone, and 50Hz vs 100Hz TV sets.

Also, framerate in games must be much higher than a movie to give a comparable quality of experience.

Just what he said, minus the iPhone part. (Y)

For me, when it drops to 30 FPS in a video game, I call it lag. 24 FPS for a movie is fine, it gives it a special feel the same way film grain does. But if like me you were curious enough to set a game to 24 FPS max... it might result in a painful headache or inability to aim proprely.

wobegong
Dec 4, 2012, 11:21 PM
If Doom 3 is playing better than Halo then it has to be something to do with the installation I would have thought because thats crazy.

76ShovelHead
Dec 5, 2012, 05:11 AM
If it's not your processor, not your ram, not your graphics card, etc. Then it must be your installation. Using something like AppCleaner (Free, just find an older version that supports PPC) to clean out the installation entirely and start from scratch.

Good Luck ;)

goMac
Dec 5, 2012, 06:59 PM
Halo was pretty badly optimized from the start. I remember having issues with it on my Powerbook G4 1.25 back in the day, and that was a top of the end machine. The performance you are getting is pretty similar to what I got on the PowerPC version.

Nova77
Dec 7, 2012, 02:41 PM
Halo was pretty badly optimized from the start. I remember having issues with it on my Powerbook G4 1.25 back in the day, and that was a top of the end machine. The performance you are getting is pretty similar to what I got on the PowerPC version.

Thanks, finally someone that confirms what I thought. And yep, thats crazy that Doom 3 runs better, but I guess its "normal".

rampancy
Dec 8, 2012, 12:40 PM
So I finally decided to try Halo after all this time.
Installed the UB version because it was required for the latest patch.
It plays terribly bad.... very very slow...


IIRC, the UB version was never really good on PPC; from what I recall, the UB version was practically almost a ground-up rewrite of the game to get performance back up on Intel Macs, since Westlake Interactive's original conversion had aggressively optimized the game for PPC (even though the game itself still ran poorly regardless) – which is the reason why they charged $5 for it.

I'd recommend sticking with the original PPC release fully patched to 1.05 (the last version before the 2.0 UB release) if you're playing on PPC. I remember that on my old Dual 1.25 Ghz MDD with a 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti, the game ran...reasonably well with most of the graphics options at medium settings. In contrast, the UB release didn't fare as well on my 2006 MacBook Pro with a 128 MB RM X1600.