Red Alert 3 Graphics Issue

Turn the AA off and see how that helps.... it is always a frame-rate killer!

puremenace said:

I'm Running Red Alert 3 on the top spec 3.06Ghz 24" iMac with the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS 512mb and 4GB RAM.

Am experiencing a problem with the graphics when set on "HIGH" or "ULTRA HIGH". The frame rate and response seems to drop considerably to the point that the game is un-playable, but seems fine set on "MEDIUM".

This seems like a glitch taking into account the difference in performance between medium and high, and considering i have the highest spec graphics card an iMac can hold! :/

N e one else got this issue?
Sucks huh?!

Click to expand...

I just bought and downloaded the game and have the exact same iMac and same issue. (3.06 / 8800 GS / 4 Gig)

Setting it to anything over Medium makes the game unplayable. What Mac and video card could they possible expect would be able to run it at High or Ultra-High?

Figure anything out on this yet?

FreedomFighter said:

Turn the AA off and see how that helps.... it is always a frame-rate killer!

Click to expand...

AA is set to off and actually that is the only possible option in the settings.

Are you new to Macs?

Gaming on the Mac has always sucked compared to PC.

I quit wasting money on games for Mac a long time ago.

I had a similar issue but after fiddling with the settings, figured that the shader detail and AA are too much for this game

Put Shader to Medium and turn off AA. It gives me the performance I expect, but it still slows down a bit in huge battles.

cmcbridejr said:

Are you new to Macs?

Gaming on the Mac has always sucked compared to PC.

I quit wasting money on games for Mac a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Uh, no not really. It depends on the publisher. For example, Blizzard's World of Warcraft is pretty awesome on the Mac.

Agreed, that there is a pretty big lag but once again this is on developers.

Not spending money on Mac versions of the games only makes the problem bigger.

Now, do you have anything on the RA3 issue or no?

masterofbuckets said:

I had a similar issue but after fiddling with the settings, figured that the shader detail and AA are too much for this game

Put Shader to Medium and turn off AA. It gives me the performance I expect, but it still slows down a bit in huge battles.

Click to expand...

My AA setting only has the OFF option but keeping the Shader at Medium allowed me to crank up the other options. It looks like the shader setting is the key one.

NightOne said:

Now, do you have anything on the RA3 issue or no?

Click to expand...

Not version 3, but every other version of C&C on the Mac has always sucked compared to PC. I don't see why RA3 would be any different from the past.

I have been playing the C&C series since the mid 90s and have purchased a few versions of the Command & Conquer series for Mac, as I am a huge fan of the series. However, the PC versions of C&C are always way, way better than the mac versions.

I quit buying the Mac versions of C&C after the frustrating lag in Tiberium Wars. In fact, I quit buying games for the Mac altogether because it's just not worth $50 to have a game that won't work properly on a $2,500 computer.

Your excuse that it is somehow my fault that the game sucks because I quit buying games for the Mac is a weak argument.

cmcbridejr said:

Your excuse that it is somehow my fault that the game sucks because I quit buying games for the Mac is a weak argument.

Click to expand...

Sorry, wasn't trying to be personal. My point was that if we all abandon the Mac versions of the games then it continues to send the message that the Mac market isn't big enough to develop for.

However, I agree with you. Having a sub-par version of the PC equivalent would be unacceptable as well.

I think the ultimate solution lies in the development tools. If a developer can code once and support multiple platforms without a bunch of hassle then they have no reason not to do so. Porting is bad in the sense that it takes a lot of time, causes delay, and tax performance. Obviously, I'd rather see less ports and more natives dual-platform releases. Blizzard does it best in my opinion.

NightOne said:

I think the ultimate solution lies in the development tools. If a developer can code once and support multiple platforms without a bunch of hassle then they have no reason not to do so. Porting is bad in the sense that it takes a lot of time, causes delay, and tax performance. Obviously, I'd rather see less ports and more natives dual-platform releases. Blizzard does it best in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I have read several articles in the past with interviews of game developers saying that Apple does not provide much support for them or show any real commitment to gaming. They say that Steve Jobs does not care about gaming (and, after all, he is the "God of Apple").

Here are just two examples:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/08/industry-pros-doubt-jobs-commitment-to-iphone-gaming.ars

http://themacgamer.com/2008/08/06/john-carmack-steve-jobs-doesnt-care-about-games/

Apple parades game developers onto the stage at keynotes to show off to the media and shareholders that they are all gung-ho for game development on the Mac and that everyone needs to keep spending money, but behind closed doors, I think it is a different story. What ever happened with EA's commitments to Mac gaming that they made at previous keynotes? Seems to me that they gave up on their promises.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk in my previous posts, it's just that I am frustrated at the fact that I have purchased hundreds of dollars worth of games for the Mac in the past and all of them completely suck compared to the PC counterparts.

Simply put, I don't think Apple cares about gaming. Therefore, neither do most of the game developers (which is why an increase in game performance rarely happens on the Mac). For example, look at C&C Generals. How long ago was that released? It still sells for around $50 and still lags like hell compared to the PC version. Even the newer C&C Tiberium Wars sucks compared to PC.

Games are more expensive on the Mac, compared to PC, yet they don't ever receive updates that increase performance. What's up with that?

I tried supporting Apple gaming in the past and I got burned. I'm done wasting my money with gaming on the Mac.

Good luck with C&C Red Alert.

cmcbridejr said:

What ever happened with EA's commitments to Mac gaming that they made at previous keynotes? Seems to me that they gave up on their promises.

Click to expand...

Good question. I had forgot all about it until your mention.

Unfortunately, iPhone is the new baby and I worry that even developers who were dedicated to Mac will move to iPhone for the revenue:

http://tr.im/jXlz

Sadly, you may be right and I might just have to setup a bootcamp drive if I really want in on some of the top notch games.

The new 4850 iMac can run Red Alert 3 very good at max settings.
It also runs Dawn of War 2, Left 4 Dead, and Bioshock, from what I've seen, perfectly on high/max settings. It even runs Crysis well on high settings. Of course, there is that freezing issue, but Apple reps have started saying that there will be a fix for that coming "soon."

MyDesktopBroke said:

The new 4850 iMac can run Red Alert 3 very good at max settings.
It also runs Dawn of War 2, Left 4 Dead, and Bioshock, from what I've seen, perfectly on high/max settings. It even runs Crysis well on high settings. Of course, there is that freezing issue, but Apple reps have started saying that there will be a fix for that coming "soon."

Click to expand...

Um thats windows so obviously it will run games great.

The MacPro with ATI 4870 plays RA3 ( Mac version ) smooth as butter

masterofbuckets said:

The MacPro with ATI 4870 plays RA3 ( Mac version ) smooth as butter

Click to expand...

Nice to know that you have to spend close to around $3,000 (monitor not included) just to get games to run at a decent setting on an Apple computer.

You could probably spend around $2,000 on a gaming PC with better performance and use the extra $1,000 to purchase a nice library of games.

If it wasn't for me doing so much video editing and audio recording, I would probably be very happy with a nice PC. However, video editing and audio recording just isn't that great on PC, like gaming is.

cmcbridejr said:

Nice to know that you have to spend close to around $3,000 (monitor not included) just to get games to run at a decent setting on an Apple computer.

Click to expand...

Welcome to Apple gaming.

cmcbridejr said:

You could probably spend around $2,000 on a gaming PC with better performance and use the extra $1,000 to purchase a nice library of games.

Click to expand...

Well, apple isn't known for 'cheap' products so value for money comes from the OS and the apps, not the hardware imo.

cmcbridejr said:

If it wasn't for me doing so much video editing and audio recording, I would probably be very happy with a nice PC. However, video editing and audio recording just isn't that great on PC, like gaming is.

Click to expand...

I have seen PC audio/video recording professionals too doing their stuff with ease. Mac is the standard because it used to be one before. And it hasn't changed.

cmcbridejr said:

Not version 3, but every other version of C&C on the Mac has always sucked compared to PC. I don't see why RA3 would be any different from the past.

I have been playing the C&C series since the mid 90s and have purchased a few versions of the Command & Conquer series for Mac, as I am a huge fan of the series. However, the PC versions of C&C are always way, way better than the mac versions.

I quit buying the Mac versions of C&C after the frustrating lag in Tiberium Wars. In fact, I quit buying games for the Mac altogether because it's just not worth $50 to have a game that won't work properly on a $2,500 computer.

Your excuse that it is somehow my fault that the game sucks because I quit buying games for the Mac is a weak argument.

Click to expand...

I never really had those problems personally, but what did annoy me was how the extras (like the world builder in Generals) are always left out.

Kinda off topic,

Do you think i'm better off buying the mac version of the game or the windows version with the expansion pack?

There's only one obvious reason why Red Alert 3 is not running well on any Mac, and I'm surprised no one said it yet: It's a Cider port, meaning it's running through a Windows emulator. Don't waste your money for any Cider ports (like anything from Gametreeonline or EA).

Proper native Mac ports are fine, like Blizzard or Aspyr's games. I have C&C 3, BF 2142 (Cider) and they run awful, but games like Call of Duty 4 and WoW run great.

That is interesting about the cider port, didn't know those were emulations... but seems like the 2 above people with the latest hardware and ATI cards were able to play Red Alert 3 ultra high settings fine...

I always thought its the drivers on the Mac. All these talks about PC cheaper and better for games, why not just use boot camp and run Windows, the hardware on the Mac should be fine and if you ran a window's (w/ bootcamp) version of Red Alert 3 with the poster's hardware, 8800GS, I bet you will run it fine.

I do agree windows is much better for playing games because its a Much bigger market for them. Mac games market is quite small in comparison. So if you do want to play games on your Mac, I'd say do bootcamp Windows would be your best option. Best of both worlds.

I mentioned it in another thread but I will say it again.

Unless the developer itself start their development with Mac in mind AND do it natively and simultaneously, there will always be a price to pay ( performance/stability etc wise) when the game is ported, be it a Cider port or a native port. Blizzard started with that philosophy and never looked back.

The drivers i think are beginning to improve considerably with the new graphics cards and i hope things continue on that track.

Sometimes, people also have unrealistic expectations from their crappy hardware ( ie Intel graphics chips, 128 MB VRAM chipsets). I have seen some people complain that EVE gives only 70 fps on MacPro while it gives 130 fps on Windows. I guess they can tell the difference of performance when playing without running the fps counter.

Thing is, as long as games perform well ( as in smooth framerate, at recommended settings) depending on my system's capability, I am a happy customer and look forward to more Mac games.

Maybe u need a Mac Pro!