Doom 3 Mac maybe not so far away...

[vraxtus]

From LinuxGames @ http://www.linuxgames.com/?dataloc=articles/ttimo/

What's the status of the DOOM 3 dedicated server and the client?

I think there's a very good chance we can get the dedicated server out with the next patch, because it's been running very smoothly in the DOOM 3 tournaments. We still need to polish it a bit, but it will get released pretty soon. I know that the server admins are waiting, and Linux gamers don't really care about it, but we have to follow our priorities. Since gold, the Mac port was definitely the big thing; it benefits both the Linux and the Mac version, but Mac had to come first. The Linux client is running pretty good, I'm getting surprisingly good performance compared to the Windows version, but I absolutely don't want to release something that's half-done or half-finished. I want to polish it; it should come together within a few weeks.


If the Linux version is only a few weeks away... and the Mac version had a HIGHER priority... we may be looking at a sooner release than we thought!

*crosses fingers*

[Sneeper]

From LinuxGames @ http://www.linuxgames.com/?dataloc=articles/ttimo/

If the Linux version is only a few weeks away... and the Mac version had a HIGHER priority... we may be looking at a sooner release than we thought!

*crosses fingers*


I wonder when "the next patch" is? There hasn't even been a first patch. Their patch cycle may be 6 months apart.

And last I heard, they don't even have a publisher for the mac version. I wonder how long it would take from game-being-done to game-being-on-the-shelves.

[keysersoze]

From LinuxGames @ http://www.linuxgames.com/?dataloc=articles/ttimo/



If the Linux version is only a few weeks away... and the Mac version had a HIGHER priority... we may be looking at a sooner release than we thought!

*crosses fingers*

That's good news... keeps the spirits up... I had started to give up hope on a timely release, what with the news of no Mac publisher and all... I'd be happy with it coming out before 2005... so a few weeks would be awesome.

[Converted2Truth]

That interview is quite interesting... Glad to hear id isn't all about the money. Maybe the mac port will run better on similar hardware... that'd be cool...

[Timelessblur]

That interview is quite interesting... Glad to hear id isn't all about the money. Maybe the mac port will run better on similar hardware... that'd be cool...

I think some one is dreaming. I do feel sorry for mac using current imacs who will not be able to experices the gloaring of the game and I feel really sorry for emac users who dont even have the system specs to even play the game

[Sneeper]

I think some one is dreaming. I do feel sorry for mac using current imacs who will not be able to experices the gloaring of the game and I feel really sorry for emac users who dont even have the system specs to even play the game

He's not dreaming.. He said on similar hardware. There are no imacs or emacs with similar hardware to what Doom 3 requires on the PC. It's all about the graphics card.

[vraxtus]

He's not dreaming.. He said on similar hardware. There are no imacs or emacs with similar hardware to what Doom 3 requires on the PC. It's all about the graphics card.


You also might want to note that the Mac build they mention was running on a Radeon card... No iMac has ever had a Radeon card, and the eMac's 9200 is basically a crippled GPU.

So at this point, I'm thinking that the only systems that will be able to run it decently are G5s or at the very least, a MDD dual.

[Laslo Panaflex]

I wonder how long it would take from game-being-done to game-being-on-the-shelves.

It only took like a 2 weeks from the "gone gold" announcement, to doom 3 being on shelves. I would imagine that the mac port would be comparable.

[Sneeper]

It only took like a 2 weeks from the "gone gold" announcement, to doom 3 being on shelves. I would imagine that the mac port would be comparable.

Possibly.. but Activision was signed on as the PC/X-Box publisher long before the game was finished.. there may be a lot of overhead work that Activision got a head start on.

[Laslo Panaflex]

Possibly.. but Activision was signed on as the PC/X-Box publisher long before the game was finished.. there may be a lot of overhead work that Activision got a head start on.

Good Point, I guess we shall see. I for one am waiting for WOW to spend what little spare time I have for gaming.

[galbis]

it's been a month since they were talking about this...so i really really hope they get it out. I've been playing my friends version of doom 3, besides that i dont know what to say.

[kilpajr]

He's not dreaming.. He said on similar hardware. There are no imacs or emacs with similar hardware to what Doom 3 requires on the PC. It's all about the graphics card.

Yes, the graphics card is going to be the biggest factor on performance. But, this is only if you have a very fast CPU. I looked at the box for PC the other day and the minimum CPU is 1.5GHz. I would like to play this on my PB but I don't think it will be fast enough for me even on the lowest settings for me to enjoy. I wouldn't have it any other way though. I'm glad the newest game engines are coming out to really push hardware to its limits.

[tom.96]

This is great news. I really hope it comes out soon, and I *really* want to know how optimised it is. I wonder how altivec will help it, and if G5s make a real difference at similar clock speeds to G4s. I don't know how OS X compares to other OS's for games support either....

I just hope those min specs don't exclude too many of the Mac faithful when they finally come out,

[James L]

Yes, the graphics card is going to be the biggest factor on performance. But, this is only if you have a very fast CPU. I looked at the box for PC the other day and the minimum CPU is 1.5GHz. I would like to play this on my PB but I don't think it will be fast enough for me even on the lowest settings for me to enjoy. I wouldn't have it any other way though. I'm glad the newest game engines are coming out to really push hardware to its limits.


I am sure you know this, but for those that don't, there is a HUGE difference between a 1.5Ghz PC processor, and a 1.5Ghz RISC PPC processor. The PPC is much faster when you compare them clock speed for clock speed.

Cheers!

[kilpajr]

I am sure you know this, but for those that don't, there is a HUGE difference between a 1.5Ghz PC processor, and a 1.5Ghz RISC PPC processor. The PPC is much faster when you compare them clock speed for clock speed.

Cheers!

I do realize this but I wasn't thinking about it when I posted. But, wouldn't this benefit be somewhat negated by the advantage of special multimedia instructions that the Intel chips have? Also, the PB has a much lower bus speed than the P4 although I'm not sure how much of an effect this will have.

I really would like to be able to play this game at a reasonable frame rate even if I have to cut down the quality settings. I hope this doesn't turn out to be the same experience I had when I got the first computer that was really mine. It cost over $3000 and had a Pentium 2 450 w/128MB of RAM and a 16MB video card. A few weeks after I got it I bought Descent 3 and had fairly low frame rates so it sometimes jerked. That really hurt. I'm trying to keep my expectations low.

[MacsRgr8]

It will be so nice to be able to compare the industry's leading game on PCs an Macs.

I have Doom 3 running on my (just in ;) ) P4 3.6 GHz, Radeon X800 XT, 1 GB RAM... and it's ab-sol-lu-te-ly GORGEOUS (and freaking scary!)! Got it running @ 1600 x 1200 rez, Ultimate quality.... WOW!

I wonder how my Dual 1.8 G5 will cope.... just waiting for my GeForce 6800.

I got the feeling that when my grfx card is comg, Doom 3 will be here for Mac in 24 hours :D (well, here's to hoping! :) )

[Dont Hurt Me]

I doubt very much we will see a Mac version of doom3 anytime soon, maybe at christmas if lucky. reason is there are just to few Macs that will run this thing. Any G4 machine will struggle and any G5 machine will need a decent video card. how many Macs have the specs to make it viable for iD to release now? not many. i think this is ids thinking waiting for the performance to reach the market then they can sell the mac version. on a AMD 3500 with a 6800gt it is very sweet with everything on high and at 1280! Awesome looking game.

[MacsRgr8]

I hope a Mac like a Dual 1.0 GHz G4 with Radeon 9700 would make it playable at least.
Not ultimate settings, but medium at the least.
Any Dual G5 with a 128 MB VRAM Radeon card should be able to handle the game at high settings.

Only the GeForce 6800 Ultra will get the settings to ultimate (on a Dual G5, that is...)

[ravenvii]

I played the demo on a friend's 1 GHz P4 PC with a 5700 LE, and it played like a champ even on high settings (not ultra) - constant 25-30 fps. If if a DUAL 1 GHz G4 can't handle it (with a good graphics card of course), I would call this an embarassment of a lifetime.

[MacsRgr8]

I played the demo on a friend's 1 GHz P4 PC with a 5700 LE, and it played like a champ even on high settings (not ultra) - constant 25-30 fps. If if a DUAL 1 GHz G4 can't handle it (with a good graphics card of course), I would call this an embarassment of a lifetime.

I never would have thought that a 1 GHz P4 could handle Doom 3 well at all. But, "played like a champ" is a little "suggestive", I would say.
But if a 1 GHz P4 can do it.... then a Dual 1.0 GHz G4 should be able to do it easily!

[benpatient]

wow raven. excellent lie. Totally unbelievable and poorly delivered, though...


and MacsRgr8, "Any dual g5 with a 128mb VRAM card should be able to handle the game at high settings" is only true if you mean "high settings" and 640x480 resolution.

Because that's about what a a dual 1.8 G5 with an ATI 9600 128 is probably going to be able to handle.

Maybe 800x600.

medium quality, 1024...maybe.

[invaLPsion]

I think my baby can handle it... ;)

(Once I upgrade the graphics it should be a well-rounded beast...)

Bring on your P4, MacsRgr8!

[invaLPsion]

wow raven. excellent lie. Totally unbelievable and poorly delivered, though...


and MacsRgr8, "Any dual g5 with a 128mb VRAM card should be able to handle the game at high settings" is only true if you mean "high settings" and 640x480 resolution.

Because that's about what a a dual 1.8 G5 with an ATI 9600 128 is probably going to be able to handle.

Maybe 800x600.

medium quality, 1024...maybe.

9600XT gets over 40FPS at 1024 by 768 at medium quality runing Doom3, tests show. Performs better than an X600XT...

Don't be such a pessimist... :p

[takao]

played the demo a bit on my computer (athlon xp 2000, geforce ti4200) on 1024x768 on high details (i think)... wasn't smooth as silk (2 occasions where it was quite choppy) but very playable...

[johnnyjibbs]

Any hope on a 12" PowerBook with 1GHz processor and nVidia 5200 Go with 32MB VRAM? Didn't think so.. :o :( :rolleyes:

[ravenvii]

wow raven. excellent lie. Totally unbelievable and poorly delivered, though...


and MacsRgr8, "Any dual g5 with a 128mb VRAM card should be able to handle the game at high settings" is only true if you mean "high settings" and 640x480 resolution.

Because that's about what a a dual 1.8 G5 with an ATI 9600 128 is probably going to be able to handle.

Maybe 800x600.

medium quality, 1024...maybe.

Gee, thanks for the personal attack.

But still, *embarrassed*, I went to use his system so I could grab a screenshot, and well turns out my comptuer-illiterate friend didn't know what he was talking about, it's actually a 2.53 GHz P4. I should've realized from playing Doom 3. Comes from not using a PC for so long I guess. Oops. :)

From Doom 3's system requirements, it seems a 1.5 GHz P4 will be able to play the game at playable levels, given the graphics card is good. So I would guess a dual 1 GHz G4 could play it (with a kickass graphics card)? After all, Doom 3's main demands is for the graphic card, not the processor.

[Converted2Truth]

I wouldn't be surprised if id waits until imac G5 revison B. ...until the 5200Ultra is history.... It won't be until then that the entry level macs will be able to run doom3. They need to make money when they put the game on the shelf. If they did that right now, they'd have nothing but angry mac users.... "I just spent 2k on my awesome imac G5, and it runs doom3 in 640x480 @ 15fps!! id doesn't know how to optimize games! This is a crappy port!!"

The new imac is a piece of shhit when it comes to games. Period. And don't anyone think of arguing that they didn't wait for entry level PC's... They didn't have to because of the size of the market! If they want to sell 10,000 games on the mac at release, then that means 10,000 ppl are going to have to have ati 9800's/9600's/6800Ultra's/et[phucking]c...

So, all you hopein to play doom3 on a mac... take a year off in Paris or something. When you get back, it will be close to release.

[kilpajr]

I was watching the screensavers tonight, and according to them, the quality settings are made for different video cards: Low for 64, Medium for 128, High for 256, and Ultra for future 512 cards. I believe this is probably true since they said ultra settings use uncompressed textures and there is no reason for them to lie. I'm sure there are some instances (such as having the minimum 1.5GHz with the best 6800 ultra) where the processor could keep someone from using the ultra settings but otherwise this makes since. The corresponding cards for different settings are probably to meet a certain fps so don't tell me, "my 1.5GHz w/ 64MB graphics can run at ultra". They, as well as I, am surprised this has not been noted by id.

[kilpajr]

I wouldn't be surprised if id waits until imac G5 revison B. ...until the 5200Ultra is history.... It won't be until then that the entry level macs will be able to run doom3. They need to make money when they put the game on the shelf. If they did that right now, they'd have nothing but angry mac users.... "I just spent 2k on my awesome imac G5, and it runs doom3 in 640x480 @ 15fps!! id doesn't know how to optimize games! This is a crappy port!!"

The new imac is a piece of shhit when it comes to games. Period. And don't anyone think of arguing that they didn't wait for entry level PC's... They didn't have to because of the size of the market! If they want to sell 10,000 games on the mac at release, then that means 10,000 ppl are going to have to have ati 9800's/9600's/6800Ultra's/et[phucking]c...

So, all you hopein to play doom3 on a mac... take a year off in Paris or something. When you get back, it will be close to release.

Your first idea, in my opinion, would be stupid. Everyone who has a capable mac (not sure if I apply) would be furious. The only reason for them to hold out would be if they were going to hold out on both pc and mac. Mac users know the game is ready since it is out on pc so for them to just wait for mac users with capable systems would not make sense.

About your second idea, I couldn't agree more. I would not care at all if the graphics card were upgradable, but to force the consumer to keep an already extremely obsolete card until they decide to upgrade computers is just wrong. The way I feel right now, I will never buy a desktop mac. To get a top end mac without display would cost around 4 grand. I know a comparable pc would not be nearly as expensive. I'm just glad they have awesome laptops for a reasonable price.

As far as your hypothetical quote, I feel sorry for those people. Unfortunately, the only thing you could tell them is, "sell your computer and buy a pc or spend another 2k and get a powermac".

[invaLPsion]

So, all you hopein to play doom3 on a mac... take a year off in Paris or something. When you get back, it will be close to release.

Or they can just release it in Q4 or early Q1 like they are planning so those of us with powermacs can play it.

I'm willing to be that the next revision of powerbooks will not perform so badly either. A 1.8GHz G4 with 1Gig DDR400 and a 200MHz FSB with a 9800 mobility should do rather nicely I think...

[Converted2Truth]

A 1.8GHz G4 with 1Gig DDR400 and a 200MHz FSB with a 9800 mobility should do rather nicely I think...
Where are you getting these specs?! Considering that the last mdd G4 desktop can only harness the power of a 9800pro retail, i seriously doubt that a powerbook could push a 9800m (aka x800m). But whatever... Either way, this specified laptop is in similitude of a midget with a sledge hammer. The bus speed is very important. Also note, that this midget with a sledge hammer will only swing twice before his Li-ion battery becomes consumable without side-effects. lol

[Converted2Truth]

Apple computer should really just start using AMD chips. IBM/Motorolla... they just don't deliver... and when they do, performance is barely equal if that... and we pay twice as much for it.

And then we could use retail ATI/Nvidia cards without a driver port. say goodbye to big endian little endian issues!

[MacsRgr8]

I think my baby can handle it... ;)

(Once I upgrade the graphics it should be a well-rounded beast...)

Bring on your P4, MacsRgr8!

He he he... I'll be waiting for you 'til Doom 3 really is actually here for the Mac ;)

[johnnyjibbs]

Apple computer should really just start using AMD chips. IBM/Motorolla... they just don't deliver... and when they do, performance is barely equal if that... and we pay twice as much for it.

And then we could use retail ATI/Nvidia cards without a driver port. say goodbye to big endian little endian issues!
AMD is x86, not PowerPC, so would require a complete rewrite of Mac OS X, making it incompatible with current Mac systems. Oh and that could potentially lead to Mac OS X on PC or Windows for Mac. Not good. :D

[Nermal]

Apple computer should really just start using AMD chips. IBM/Motorolla... they just don't deliver... and when they do, performance is barely equal if that... and we pay twice as much for it.

And then we could use retail ATI/Nvidia cards without a driver port. say goodbye to big endian little endian issues!

The CPU type doesn't dictate which video cards you can use. Other PowerPC systems such as the Pegasos can happily use 'PC' Radeons.

[MacsRgr8]

AMD is x86, not PowerPC, so would require a complete rewrite of Mac OS X, making it incompatible with current Mac systems. Oh and that could potentially lead to Mac OS X on PC or Windows for Mac. Not good. :D

Didn't we have that discussion somewhere before? :D

[johnnyjibbs]

Didn't we have that discussion somewhere before? :D
:D :p ;)

It's one of those subjects that just keeps coming up, isn't it!

[Timelessblur]

AMD would not have to make X86 chips they could make the PPC chips for apple but that not going to happen since AMD supply and ability to produces chips is already being pushed to its limits and until they get there new fab online it going to stay like that. Intel is about the only one who has massive production cablitly they are not currenly using.

[Converted2Truth]

The CPU type doesn't dictate which video cards you can use. Other PowerPC systems such as the Pegasos can happily use 'PC' Radeons.
Really? ...learn something new every day... So is it the operating system that forces firmware updated mac versions of pc video cards? or is it architecture? You're saying it's OS right?

[benpatient]

I was watching the screensavers tonight, and according to them, the quality settings are made for different video cards: Low for 64, Medium for 128, High for 256, and Ultra for future 512 cards. I believe this is probably true since they said ultra settings use uncompressed textures and there is no reason for them to lie. I'm sure there are some instances (such as having the minimum 1.5GHz with the best 6800 ultra) where the processor could keep someone from using the ultra settings but otherwise this makes since. The corresponding cards for different settings are probably to meet a certain fps so don't tell me, "my 1.5GHz w/ 64MB graphics can run at ultra". They, as well as I, am surprised this has not been noted by id.

this wasn't exactly "secret info" in fact, it was announced by id before the game was even released, and all of the subsequent previews and reviews commented on it. You've oversimplified, though. Just because you have a 128 mb graphics card doesn't mean you should play it in "medium" necessarily. You can run it in "high" quite well with a 128mb 9800 Pro and an athlon 64, even at 1280x1024 or possibly higher.

You can barely run it on "medium" at 800x600 with an nVidia 4400 128 and an athlon XP 2500+

both 128 mb cards...but in totally different classes.

Another factor is the amount of system RAM you have. If you've got 2GB of RAM, then running in Ultra mode with a 6600GT 128 would be perfectly reasonable...not as fast as a 256mb version of the card with only 512 mb of system RAM, but very close.

Basically, if you wnt to play well in 800x600, or "acceptably" in anything higher than that, then you need to be running at least an athlon 2500+ and a 128 MB 9600 Pro card.

The Mac equivalent is unknown at this point. On some games, the Mac equivalent to this computer would be a dual 2.0 G5 with a 9600 XT...on some other games it would be a dual 1.25 with a 9800 SE.

But that's really where the game actually starts to be cool. Below that, and you should wait for the console version, because you'll be running at the same resolution, and the TV blurring effect will help you get over the chunkiness...

[benpatient]

and Raven, sorry about the "attack"

We get a lot of people coming in here saying things like "My 600 mhz iMac plays Halo better than my friend's 3.4ghz PC. It's as smooth as glass at XXXXX settings"

It gets old after a while. I mistakenly thought you were one of those guys...thanks for correcting the info, and sorry.

[thatwendigo]

reason is there are just to few Macs that will run this thing. Any G4 machine will struggle and any G5 machine will need a decent video card. how many Macs have the specs to make it viable for iD to release now? not many

Once again, my nemesis proves that he knows basically nothing about the subject that he's ranting about.

Benchmarks of systems show that, beyond a certain minimum degree of performance, the limitation on Doom 3 is entirely in the GPU and not the processor. The difference in FPS has been shown to be tiny compared to changing the card being used in the system, which is hardly a surprise, since the worst part of the performance barrier is contined in the graphics card.

It's good to see that he finally did just stop complaining and bought his Alienware, though. Now if he'd just read up on a topic before complaining...

[Dont Hurt Me]

thatwendigo needs to look at John Carmacks words on the subject. its that simple. no amount of zealotry will change the fact.

[MacsRgr8]

Once again, my nemesis proves that he knows basically nothing about the subject that he's ranting about.

Benchmarks of systems show that, beyond a certain minimum degree of performance, the limitation on Doom 3 is entirely in the GPU and not the processor. The difference in FPS has been shown to be tiny compared to changing the card being used in the system, which is hardly a surprise, since the worst part of the performance barrier is contined in the graphics card.
.

Minimal requirements (www.doom3.com):
P4 1.5 GHz or Athlon XP 1500.
64 MB VRAM DirectX 9b compatible grfx card

This game is GPU and CPU limited.
If a P4 1.5 GHz is minimal, then a 1.0 GHz G4 will have a very tough time.

I think Don't Hurt Me is right.
Only the (much) faster than 1 GHz G4's have a chance, or the Dual 1.0 GHz. Not many Macs around at that speed. Besides, all the iMacs have below-par grfx cards anyway... (many 1 GHz iMacs do not even have the required 64 MB VRAM... :rolleyes: )

[vraxtus]

Been a while guys... but thought I'd chime in again on my own thread.

First, I think regardless of the min spec requirements... the only people here that should be commenting on possible performance specs are the ones that have actually TRIED the game and played it on a spec'd system.

Me, I played it on a friend's 2Ghz Athlon with a GeForce Ti4400. He actually was able to run it on 1024x768 with ULTRA detail and get about 10 FPS average (using the FPS meter). That, IMO is NOT bad at all.

Now, we should note that Athlons are superior gaming chips compared to the PPC chipset, HOWEVER this remains to be seen on OpenGL based games, since almost all PC side games are DX. My belief, based on playing it on my friend's comp, and given that id has a good history of porting well optimized games, is that it will run at least halfway decent on the Mac side ONCE code optimization for both G4 and G5s has been done.

Since most MP aware games offload some processes such as sound on the second CPU I'd expect the game to be at least playable in the 20-30 FPS range at 1024x768 with HIGH detail on a Rad 9600 at least... maybe even on a 5200FX if id goes a great job with the port. I wouldn't scoff at the potential performance just yet... because 1) the benches seem to indicate it scales well across many system configs, and 2) id has a great history of porting well optimized games.

[Timelessblur]

well the question is how much of a point is there to opimized the code for G4s. MInd you there are a small number of G4 towers out there that have a desent graphic card but they are not many of htem that will have the power. The G5 computer are the only one out that really have a legiment chance at even play the game at minmual specs

[vraxtus]

well the question is how much of a point is there to opimized the code for G4s. MInd you there are a small number of G4 towers out there that have a desent graphic card but they are not many of htem that will have the power. The G5 computer are the only one out that really have a legiment chance at even play the game at minmual specs

Yes but how much do you think Apple is willing to completely eliminate playability on Powerbooks?

[MacsRgr8]

Yes but how much do you think Apple is willing to completely eliminate playability on Powerbooks?

Only the PowerBook G4 1.5 Ghz with Radeon 9700 (128 MB VRAM) will be able to play the game reasonably, IMHO.

The question is, as always, how do you define "reasonably".
800 x 600, medium settings, 30 fps?

[vraxtus]

Only the PowerBook G4 1.5 Ghz with Radeon 9700 (128 MB VRAM) will be able to play the game reasonably, IMHO.

The question is, as always, how do you define "reasonably".
800 x 600, medium settings, 30 fps?

Doubtful. 1024x768, high, I'd expect. 20-30 FPS avg except in firefights where I'd expect to see it in the teens.

Based on the system that I played it on this would be my best performance spec. Given that the 4400Ti was blown out by the 9700, I'd think that there's a much better chance that performance will be better on a 9700 rig. Also the RISC architecture on PPC chips should help boost performance significantly.

[benpatient]

Ti4400

Running "ultra" with this card wouldn't actually, truly, run the game in "ultra" because the 4400 doesn't support DX9-level pixel shaders, etc. In other words, it probably runs "better" in frames per second on a Ti4400 than it does on a 9600 XT, but the 9600 is actually showing you all of the effects that are supposed to be seen...if you watch carefully, you'll see that a lot of the effects weren't turning on when played with a Ti4400, and some of them are "faked" with "dummy" effects that simulate the "real" effects but aren't transparent, or aren't random, or aren't properly shaded, etc.

You can't compare performance of a DX8.1-feature set graphics card with one that runs the full DX9 set of features because they just aren't apples to apples comparisons at that point. You'd need a 9500 (ATI)or better, or any FX or better (nvidia) card in order to actually turn on all of D3's features.

Turning on "ultra" with a Ti4400 is the equivalent of adding a 6th and 7th gear to a toyota corolla without adding any horsepower...

[vraxtus]

You can't compare performance of a DX8.1-feature set graphics card with one that runs the full DX9 set of features because they just aren't apples to apples comparisons at that point. You'd need a 9500 (ATI)or better, or any FX or better (nvidia) card in order to actually turn on all of D3's features.

Turning on "ultra" with a Ti4400 is the equivalent of adding a 6th and 7th gear to a toyota corolla without adding any horsepower...


You do realize that Ultra quality has nothing to do with shading and/or lighting effects, right?

Ultra quality is texture based only. The programmable shaders are run higher up by the program itself, not by the end user. Yes, while specular lighting effects may not be up to par as compared to a DX9 programmable card, texture quality settings have no bearing here. Ultra quality uses uncompressed textures only, that weigh in at about 500 MB. Now, we all no that no current gen video card has a 512 MB texture buffer, so the only reason we can even run at these settings is because the remaining textures are loaded into RAM.... that's why Doom3 benefits at a higher setting from additional RAM to make up for the lack of current gen cards having a smaller RAM buffer for texture loading. The card my friend was using was a 128 MB card, which is fairly up to spec (or at least in the middleground) of current cards.

[MacsRgr8]

I run Doom 3 at Ultra settings on my Radeon X800XT, which has (only) 256 MB VRAM.
My system has 1 GB of RAM, so that could make it a possibility (i.e. borrowing system RAM)?
I bet the 3.6 GHz makes a difference too.

If I quit Doom 3 my computer really takes some time freeing the used swap file.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I tried the ultra settings on mine and it worked (6800GT), not much different from the high settings performance wise. I hope it comes to Mac because it really is an awesome game, seems the deeper down Mars you go the fiercer it gets. you guys are going to love it. Scared the crap out of me more then once. :D :cool:

[MacsRgr8]

you guys are going to love it. Scared the crap out of me more then once. :D :cool:

U said it! :)

[benpatient]

I actually only played it for about 5 days...it's still sitting on my computer eating up a bunch of HDD space...

it was technically very impressive, and I had zero issues with bugs or graphics problems or anything. Game ran quite well at 1024 High quality with all the shaders turned on...

I only played it for 5 days because it got boring really fast...

go into room/hallway.
lights go out.
wall opens up behind you.
monster jumps out
kill monster.
lights come back on.
look at hole where monster was "hiding"
get ammo or health.
go to next room/hallway...

mix that with an in-game cut scene every...20 or so rooms.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm sorry, but after the initial shock of playing the game, it was all down hill from there. Once the human sacrifices and weird bloody growing vine things start being really common, that's pretty much the end. You've seen it all.

If you want to see what else the game has to offer and don't want to go through the trouble of repeating the above set of steps 100000 times, just find the cheat that lets you spawn specific monsters...and spawn all the big cool monsters. They are cool.

The cyberdemon rules.

It just couldn't hold my attention very well.

as to the whole "ultra" not being related to shaders and codepaths and such, yes, I know that perfectly well...the reason I brought it up is because it has a pretty big impact on performance when you turn off all the cool stuff with a DX9 card...the stuff that a Ti4400 can't display anyway....it's not fair to benchmark it's performace at "ultra" with a DX9 card because they aren't dealing with the same things...If you turn off all of the DX9 effects on a DX9 card and compare it to a Ti4400 you'd see what I mean...But honestly, I'm not very impressed with Doom3 if all that stuff is turned off...it's sorta boring without the cool heat and distortion and spectral and fog and other effects...

[Dont Hurt Me]

how far down did you get? have you crashed in the monorail?

[applekid]

Gotta get to Hell. Interesting level. Let me say that the final boss in the game is really disappointing. Let's say, it's no epic battle.

[vraxtus]

According to PlanetDoom.com, the Linux demo is available... so I suppose that's good news that the Mac demo/version isn't that far away!

[applekid]

Where is our demo? They wanted to release the Linux binaries only when the MacOS X version was ready. I was hoping that would apply to the demo, but I guess not. :(

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well iam in Hell and its a bad place for sure what amazing scenery, but as far as the Mac Demo goes its going to be awhile ......heck they dont even have the 6800 ultras shipping yet so you think id is going to release a Mac version that has to be played on low on some old stale video card? i dont think so . Chainsaw works good on bigger guys. :D

[WhiteSavage]

We could always riot...

[Nermal]

I just emailed id and asked about the Mac version. I included the quote from this first post that the Mac version has a higher priority than the Linux version.

By the way, vraxtus, not only is the Linux demo available, but the full game's available too. You just drop the .pk4 files from the Windows CDs (which I happen to have) into the same directory as the Linux executable.

[bigdz68]

I just emailed id and asked about the Mac version. I included the quote from this first post that the Mac version has a higher priority than the Linux version.

By the way, vraxtus, not only is the Linux demo available, but the full game's available too. You just drop the .pk4 files from the Windows CDs (which I happen to have) into the same directory as the Linux executable.
So does this mean the PC version can be installed on the Mac easily??

[Nermal]

Hopefully :)

[Macs R Us]

Well I loved Doom 1 and 2 but I can hope for the Next doom, I would buy it...

[Converted2Truth]

I've said it before, but here it goes again... I don't think they'll release doom3 on the mac, until apple's consumer line (imac) has the ABILITY (i mean to say the possibility to at least be upgraded) to play it respectfully.

You remember how in doom/doom2 you could press the -/+ keys to shrink the screen size and improve performance? That's what this game will look like on a brand spankin new G5.

It still amazes me that they actually came out with a new model imac with the exact same grfx card. I'm new to the mac community though... I come from a different line of though. They call the new imac G5 an upgrade? ...maybe for folding@home/seti@home. But as far as gaming goes, it's the same machine as the old one. All those freaks that say they need an upgraded imac don't understand... a 233mhz imac is all they need.... to check their email, surf the web, look at porn, whatever. This new imac is a computer for the herd... and it simply isn't enough to run doom3.

People are saying that because a pc w/5200Ultra runs doom, that a mac will. Not gonna happen. Game graphics are just slower on a mac. That's all there is too it. Hold off the quake3 benchmarks, i won't care. This is the truth.

But we can always hope... for those of us with powermacs...

[applekid]

So does this mean the PC version can be installed on the Mac easily??

No, I remember reading the Mac version would be a separated boxed version.

[invaLPsion]

People are saying that because a pc w/5200Ultra runs doom, that a mac will. Not gonna happen. Game graphics are just slower on a mac. That's all there is too it. Hold off the quake3 benchmarks, i won't care. This is the truth.


FALSE.

Doom 3 is an OpenGL game, meaning that macs should run it just as fast as it is optimized for the macintosh game engine, OpenGL. The problems come when a DX9 optimized game is played in OpenGL.

[Converted2Truth]

FALSE.

Doom 3 is an OpenGL game, meaning that macs should run it just as fast as it is optimized for the macintosh game engine, OpenGL. The problems come when a DX9 optimized game is played in OpenGL.
"SHOULD" is the keyword here. I agree with you on this...they should. But they DON'T And you're right that DX games ported to OGL run crappier. But i cannot deny that macs run OGL games slower too. I'm sure it has something to do with raw clock cycles. I don't think OGL is optimized for the risc based powerPC processors (and their special ops [aka altivec, etc]) like it is for the cisc based x86 processors(and their special ops [aka SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, etc]). Stone me if you want... but you are guilty of the same thoughts... whether you are willing to admit them or not.

[Nermal]

No, I remember reading the Mac version would be a separated boxed version.

So was Wolfenstein, which works with the Windows data files.

[applekid]

So was Wolfenstein, which works with the Windows data files.

That's sorta irrelevant. :confused: Unless I'm missing something.

[ZildjianKX]

Damn, I just want to play the game. The Xbox version won't be out before Christmas... I hope you can just copy the files from the PC version... would save a lot of time for publishing it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I've said it before, but here it goes again... I don't think they'll release doom3 on the mac, until apple's consumer line (imac) has the ABILITY (i mean to say the possibility to at least be upgraded) to play it respectfully.

You remember how in doom/doom2 you could press the -/+ keys to shrink the screen size and improve performance? That's what this game will look like on a brand spankin new G5.

It still amazes me that they actually came out with a new model imac with the exact same grfx card. I'm new to the mac community though... I come from a different line of though. They call the new imac G5 an upgrade? ...maybe for folding@home/seti@home. But as far as gaming goes, it's the same machine as the old one. All those freaks that say they need an upgraded imac don't understand... a 233mhz imac is all they need.... to check their email, surf the web, look at porn, whatever. This new imac is a computer for the herd... and it simply isn't enough to run doom3.

People are saying that because a pc w/5200Ultra runs doom, that a mac will. Not gonna happen. Game graphics are just slower on a mac. That's all there is too it. Hold off the quake3 benchmarks, i won't care. This is the truth.

But we can always hope... for those of us with powermacs...You make some nice points and fx5200 benches with faster PC cpu's have been poor. They may say you can run this on a new iMac but we all know it will look like crap. The game gets better the deeper you go i must say. looking forward to more games based on this engine. Anyone say Quake 4!!

[vraxtus]

looking forward to more games based on this engine.

Bye bye Doom 3 engine (http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml) :D

[Laslo Panaflex]

Bye bye Doom 3 engine (http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml) :D

I have to agree with you, the new unreal engine looks way better then doom 3 engine.

[ZildjianKX]

You make some nice points and fx5200 benches with faster PC cpu's have been poor. They may say you can run this on a new iMac but we all know it will look like crap. The game gets better the deeper you go i must say. looking forward to more games based on this engine. Anyone say Quake 4!!

I don't know, I'm willing to bet Quake 4 will have it's own engine. It seems that every major Id software game does besides Wolfenstein. It seems like Id software just makes games now to show off their engines.

[Timelessblur]

I don't know, I'm willing to bet Quake 4 will have it's own engine. It seems that every major Id software game does besides Wolfenstein. It seems like Id software just makes games now to show off their engines.


ding ding ding.

Doom3 is a pretty poor game after you get by the graphics. The enemy scripts well that is simplistic and stupid AIs. They relieased off of cheap placement and teleportation to make up for the weakness. After the first few levels the there is just not much new stuff and it is all the same. Yeah I think the game is great and I liked it but it got boring really fast. I have not really even finished the game yet and I have trouble making my self play it.
The money not going ot be made off of selling the game but marketing the engine for it. it is just a huge advertiment for them.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Did you finish the game? did you get to Hell and more? sure some of the earlier levels are similiar but graphics are awesome and the game is fun. i'd give it a 9 out of 10 which isnt bad. Fact is only the high end powermacs are going to run this thing like it was ment to be played. Anyways iam almost finished with it and then it will be time for IL2 Forgotten Battles gold pack. I bet not many Mac users have even heard of this one. being a PC user sometimes can be so sweet. :) neither of these 2 games have a Mac version and both are PC gamers editor's choice.

[ravenvii]

First: Quake 4 will be using the Doom 3 engine. It's not being developed by id; rather it's being developed by Raven (no, not me ;) )

Second: Yeah, PCs is where the game is at. I have a self-built PC that I game on. But in the past two years, I started to realize that my PC is quite literally a $1,000 game console. I think it will be the last top-of-the-line PC I will build/own. Macs all the way! :)

[Nermal]

That's sorta irrelevant. :confused: Unless I'm missing something.

Wolfenstein was made by id, and published by Aspyr. You can buy the Windows version, and put the data files into the freely-available Mac engine.

Doom 3 was also made by id, and will probably also be published by Aspyr. You can buy the Windows version, and put the data files into the freely-available Linux engine. Presumably you will be able to do the same with the Mac engine.

Notice any similarities between those paragraphs? :)

[a2daj]

Wolfenstein was made by id, and published by Aspyr. You can buy the Windows version, and put the data files into the freely-available Mac engine.

Doom 3 was also made by id, and will probably also be published by Aspyr. You can buy the Windows version, and put the data files into the freely-available Linux engine. Presumably you will be able to do the same with the Mac engine.

Notice any similarities between those paragraphs? :)


However, unlike Quake 3, RtCW was published by a separate company than the PC version, so buying the Windows version, and using the Mac version of the RtCW app with the Windows data files is still the same as software piracy since Aspyr is missing out on a sale. Also, I don't know of any 'freely-available' Mac version of RtCW. The updates that have been released have been in patch form so you need the original Mac files to patch, which I believe only com on the Mac retail disk.

[applekid]

However, unlike Quake 3, RtCW was published by a separate company than the PC version, so buying the Windows version, and using the Mac version of the RtCW app with the Windows data files is still the same as software piracy since Aspyr is missing out on a sale. Also, I don't know of any 'freely-available' Mac version of RtCW. The updates that have been released have been in patch form so you need the original Mac files to patch, which I believe only com on the Mac retail disk.

The boldface is what I was trying to get at. The binaries weren't exactly free, in a sense. I think id still wants to keep a pulse on the Mac market. That may explain why they want to sell a boxed version to the Mac users.

[a2daj]

I think some of it is money. Not all of the PC publishers make more money based on Mac sales. Many of the publishing contracts for Mac ports are set fees. If id gets a Mac publisher then they know they can get a set amount of money upfront and not necessarily have to worry about sales bombing since they would already have their money.

[Nermal]

Also, I don't know of any 'freely-available' Mac version of RtCW. The updates that have been released have been in patch form so you need the original Mac files to patch, which I believe only com on the Mac retail disk.

No, you don't need the original Mac files. The latest patch will install onto a 'clean' system, with no version (Mac or Windows) of Wolfenstein already installed. You can then drop in the Windows data files (which I suspect are identical to the files on the Mac CD) and play the game.

I'm not trying to say whether this is 'right' or 'wrong,' just that it's doable. I'm also just assuming that Doom 3 will work the same way. That's all this is - just a guess, based on what I've already seen. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I'm just pointing out what I know, and what seems to (in my opinion) logically follow on.

[skyfex]

Okey.. First about the
"Bye, Bye doom engine" remark by vraxtus..

If you look closely there's not much the new Unreal engine can do that Doom 3 can't. The screenshot looks so stunning simply because the texture and model quality is so insane, and the shaders so complex. These are elements that have nothing to do with the engine but with the actual game data. Though I must admit the soft shadows were nice. Doom 3 also has a few tricks up its sleeves we haven't seen yet. Simply because our computers can't handle them yet. Quake IV will supposedly sport both big outdoor arenas and vehicles.

Now as for Graphics Card on PC versus Windows.. Yes, most DirectX 9 games run much slower on mac. And yes, even some OGL does. Converted2Truth was right about the PPC optimizations, Altivec is the key here. So it all depends on whether Doom 3 will use Altivec or not, and I say it probably will. And it helps a lot. The latest Quake 3 binary runs faster on my powerbook than on my old PC, which has basically the same specs (faster HDD though). Quake 3 is probably the best Mac optimized game I've seen too, and I'm guessing that will affect the Doom 3 port.

Now we just have to sit and wait until "it's ready". Hopefully before christmas.

[MacsRgr8]

Now as for Graphics Card on PC versus Windows.. Yes, most DirectX 9 games run much slower on mac. And yes, even some OGL does. Converted2Truth was right about the PPC optimizations, Altivec is the key here. So it all depends on whether Doom 3 will use Altivec or not, and I say it probably will. And it helps a lot. The latest Quake 3 binary runs faster on my powerbook than on my old PC, which has basically the same specs (faster HDD though). Quake 3 is probably the best Mac optimized game I've seen too, and I'm guessing that will affect the Doom 3 port.


I would like to add the importance of SMP compatibility. as many PowerMacs have two G4s or G5s.
That also is an advantange over the "usual" gaming x86 machine.

[vraxtus]

Okey.. First about the
"Bye, Bye doom engine" remark by vraxtus..

If you look closely there's not much the new Unreal engine can do that Doom 3 can't. The screenshot looks so stunning simply because the texture and model quality is so insane, and the shaders so complex. These are elements that have nothing to do with the engine but with the actual game data. Though I must admit the soft shadows were nice. Doom 3 also has a few tricks up its sleeves we haven't seen yet. Simply because our computers can't handle them yet. Quake IV will supposedly sport both big outdoor arenas and vehicles.

In case you're wondering, it's not just the polycount that is different in the engine. *IF* you read the entire technology site, you'd see that they developed a way to create 3D textures, i.e. brick layers with protrusions out of a wire frame polygon mesh. In other words, they've found a way to create 3D surfaces without the actual use of polygons to make the 3D effects... a flat wall will appear to be laid with bricks, wood, or whatever materials. Also, if you've seen other screens, this engine completely blows away the D3 engine in terms of complexity. Carmack's engine has simply reiterated and expanded upon the use of common bumpmapping and dynamic lighting/perpixel shading techniques... whereas UE3 has developed completely new techniques for lighting, texturing and polygon mesh design.

So,

how can you say this has nothing to do with the game data... when it's the actual engine that's doing the manipulation?

Frankly I think it's a rather moot point since the game data is what defines every game. The game data is what holds the engine. But it's how the engine is built to deal and manipulate the data that separates engine from engine.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well i just finished the game and thought it was Great, the engine is awesome and produces the most realistic enviroment i have ever seen.Game had plenty of levels,action and a few puzzles. you will wish you had a map. For those waiting for the Mac version a spoiler if you will, dont loose that Soul Cube! Nice Job by id

[applekid]

Well i just finished the game and thought it was Great, the engine is awesome and produces the most realistic enviroment i have ever seen.Game had plenty of levels,action and a few puzzles. you will wish you had a map. For those waiting for the Mac version a spoiler if you will, dont loose that Soul Cube! Nice Job by id

I still say that last fight was no "epic battle." Run a around, throw the Soul thingy, and repeat. Not much to it.

That won't ruin it for anyone. Honestly, I'm not spoiling it.

[applekid]

Now as for Graphics Card on PC versus Windows.. Yes, most DirectX 9 games run much slower on mac. And yes, even some OGL does. Converted2Truth was right about the PPC optimizations, Altivec is the key here. So it all depends on whether Doom 3 will use Altivec or not, and I say it probably will. And it helps a lot. The latest Quake 3 binary runs faster on my powerbook than on my old PC, which has basically the same specs (faster HDD though). Quake 3 is probably the best Mac optimized game I've seen too, and I'm guessing that will affect the Doom 3 port.

Now we just have to sit and wait until "it's ready". Hopefully before christmas.

Well, yes DirectX 9 will run slower than a well-written OpenGL-based game. Because there is NO DirectX on the Mac! The whole porting process in those cases require a major re-write of anything that deals with graphics.

Altivec is not an instant solution to speed, people. Get it straight. It's for optimizing which may only make frames for a difference.

SMP should be more important for all of us. id has been known the utilize dual processors pretty well on the Mac and PC. If Doom 3 can do it, we'll see some nice advantages.

[hjhhjh]

wut u think the requirments of doom 3 on the mac will be?

will it run on a 1.33 ghz G4 powerbook with 768 mb ram, ge force fx 5200 gO ?

[vraxtus]

wut u think the requirments of doom 3 on the mac will be?

will it run on a 1.33 ghz G4 powerbook with 768 mb ram, ge force fx 5200 gO ?

Min PC specs are 1.5 Ghz Athlon with a 5200 and 512 MB. You will probably be able to run it with specular lighting off at 30 FPS.

[hjhhjh]

Min PC specs are 1.5 Ghz Athlon with a 5200 and 512 MB. You will probably be able to run it with specular lighting off at 30 FPS.

first off - the min requirments for vid card arent 5200 there lower

and on what graphics level are we talking? - with no other progs open - and all the cpu and ram doom 3 wants to eat up on my comp

[vraxtus]

first off - the min requirments for vid card arent 5200 there lower

and on what graphics level are we talking? - with no other progs open - and all the cpu and ram doom 3 wants to eat up on my comp


Sorry it was a GeForce 3, I've had friends running it on that, however only with the .pak files uncompressed.

[hjhhjh]

Sorry it was a GeForce 3, I've had friends running it on that, however only with the .pak files uncompressed.

will i get 30 fps running on average detail, with no other progs what sover open?

[vraxtus]

will i get 30 fps running on average detail, with no other progs what sover open?

On what computer?

[hjhhjh]

On what computer?

powerbook 12" 1.33 ghz G4, 768 MB DDR RAM @ 333 mhz, GE ForCE FX 5200 gO?

with no progs open, but doom 3

[vraxtus]

powerbook 12" 1.33 ghz G4, 768 MB DDR RAM @ 333 mhz, GE ForCE FX 5200 gO?

with no progs open, but doom 3

If you're lucky!

I get 20 avg on UT2K4 on my Rev B, which is only slightly under spec compared to your comp (800x600, normal settings, 32 bit color).

On my G5, UT2K4 dips down significantly, with a Rad9800 (to about 20 on some Onslaught maps).

Honestly, PBs have never been meant for gaming, and with a sub par card like the 5200 I'd be very doubtful you'll be able to maintain 30 FPS at 1024 with normal detail. I'd expect in the teens, average, with highs at 30 and lows in the single digits.

[hjhhjh]

If you're lucky!

I get 20 avg on UT2K4 on my Rev B, which is only slightly under spec compared to your comp (800x600, normal settings, 32 bit color).

On my G5, UT2K4 dips down significantly, with a Rad9800 (to about 20 on some Onslaught maps).

Honestly, PBs have never been meant for gaming, and with a sub par card like the 5200 I'd be very doubtful you'll be able to maintain 30 FPS at 1024 with normal detail. I'd expect in the teens, average, with highs at 30 and lows in the single digits.

on ultra hihh everything possible including resolution, will it run at around 1-3 fps? thatd be sweet lol, just wonderin

[MacsRgr8]

on ultra hihh everything possible including resolution, will it run at around 1-3 fps? thatd be sweet lol, just wonderin

The Doom 3 slide show

:D

[James L]

It is uterly pointless to ask what the performance of Doom 3 will be like on a Mac, unless you are asking an ID software employee under NDA.

It is all speculation at this point.

[Furrybeagle]

The topics been beaten to death but if it runs at 800x600 with low settings on a PC (1.6GHZ Pentium 4 Mobile, Radeon 9000 with 64mb) and gets 20-30 FPS (not the best, but not as bad as 10-20), shouldn't run atleast somewhat faster on, say, a Radeon 9700 128MB on a Powerbook G4? Also I'm talking about none of the actual effects turned off either, such as shadows, specular, etc.

Note that the difference between low and medium settings is the texture size, and the difference between medium, high, and ultra/very high is the texture compression (which textures are compressed if any at all). They've made it so there isn't any way for it to be meant to be played. The only time it won't look "normal" is if you have a really low-end videocard, much lower than a 5200 (since people keep asking).

So, either way:
64 meg cards: Low
128 meg cards: Medium
256 meg cards: High
512 meg cards: Ultra High (this setting is meant for future video cards, obviously)

Therefore, the setting it to medium on a 64meg card wont do anything visually, and the performance effects will be neglable, since you can't really have it on medium, it wont do anything, because it cant.

Now for comapring a pretty good powerbook and the above mentioned system. The CPUs are about the same (actually, they're not, but they're way to fonfusing for this). Now look at the Videocards. One is a Radeon 9000, capable of Pixel Shader 1.x (DirectX 8 or Open GL 1.4 if it means anything to ya). The other is a Radeon 9700, a much faster video card, with twice the VRAM, and Shader 2.0 (directX 9 or OpenGL 2.0). I think you people are speculating much too low. And furthermore, if the PB was not meant to do things LIKE gaming or gaming itself (its definately not sold on the basis of a gaming system), then why can you get a Radeon 9700 128MB, which is a fairly decent videocard in desktop machines, and near high-end for laptop machines.

It will likely run pretty good on a 5200. Like I said above, the 5200 is a faster video card than the 9000, and the 9000 does to that bad.

Now of course, comparing PCs to Macs is like oranges and apples. But you'd think a much faster video card would give an advantage to the laptop system i mentioned above.

And lastly with a PowerMac G5, there is no question that is should run pretty decently.

[SPUY767]

here's the scoop. I have a PC. Reasonably fast. I have a mac, very fast. PC 2.4 G p4 1g ram, nVidia 5600FX 256, 400 mhz bus. (Should be noted, ram on said machine is all PC133. Halo on this thing runs like ****. 640 at low detail i might crack 18 frames. doom, on the other hand is respectable, 25 FPS, 1024, 2xFSAA, high detail. Well, that's until the unavoidable barrage of spyware chokes the machine to death. Alright, the mac steps up to the plate. 2x2.5 G5. 512 ram, 1.25g bus. nVidia6800 256. Halo smokes, and I mean smokes. I hit vsync at 1280 with 9X FSAA, (that's 75 FPS on my particular setting), I will admit that there are some buggy areas where the game tries to calculate inconceivable things. IE, a gun being stuck in the floor, the game keeps trying to calculate collision data, and in tries to calculate this data thousands of times a second and chokes the FPU. But in most situations It runs fast as hell. It is of note, howeever, that there is an FSAA bug that causes radar and zoom to render incorrectly. Absolutely inexcusable for a patch that's been out, what, a month now? So if the chunky ass halo code runs my PC into the dirt, and mmy PC is bottlenecked on so many levels it's sickening, but Doom3 is very playable, and decent on the GFX. Then one can only assume that Doom3 will be playable on slightly older macs, and that it will absolutely scream on the cream of the crop. I can personally guarantee you that id will not screw around, they use macs extensively in their development and modelling processes and they have a very good idea of core optimizations I'm sure. I'm banking on a good show from the boys at activision. Cheers. Oh, no word on a release date tho.

[vraxtus]

here's the scoop. I have a PC. Reasonably fast. I have a mac, very fast. PC 2.4 G p4 1g ram, nVidia 5600FX 256, 400 mhz bus. (Should be noted, ram on said machine is all PC133. Halo on this thing runs like ****. 640 at low detail i might crack 18 frames. doom, on the other hand is respectable, 25 FPS, 1024, 2xFSAA, high detail. Well, that's until the unavoidable barrage of spyware chokes the machine to death. Alright, the mac steps up to the plate. 2x2.5 G5. 512 ram, 1.25g bus. nVidia6800 256. Halo smokes, and I mean smokes. I hit vsync at 1280 with 9X FSAA, (that's 75 FPS on my particular setting), I will admit that there are some buggy areas where the game tries to calculate inconceivable things. IE, a gun being stuck in the floor, the game keeps trying to calculate collision data, and in tries to calculate this data thousands of times a second and chokes the FPU. But in most situations It runs fast as hell. It is of note, howeever, that there is an FSAA bug that causes radar and zoom to render incorrectly. Absolutely inexcusable for a patch that's been out, what, a month now? So if the chunky ass halo code runs my PC into the dirt, and mmy PC is bottlenecked on so many levels it's sickening, but Doom3 is very playable, and decent on the GFX. Then one can only assume that Doom3 will be playable on slightly older macs, and that it will absolutely scream on the cream of the crop. I can personally guarantee you that id will not screw around, they use macs extensively in their development and modelling processes and they have a very good idea of core optimizations I'm sure. I'm banking on a good show from the boys at activision. Cheers. Oh, no word on a release date tho.


Retarded??? ROFL.

Apples to ORANGES bud.

[Corrupted]

Does anyone know if DOOM 3 is still coming to the MAC. Its been awhile since ID has mentioned it and stated that Activision is not going to publish it nor do the have anyone else to publish it. It seems there has not been anything mentioned since.

[applekid]

WHEN IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!

[hjhhjh]

WHEN IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!

the game will require

1.0 ghz g4 or g5
256 mb ram
32 mb vid card, ATI radeon 9000 minimum or geforce 3
roughly 6 gigs space

recomended for smooth gameplay

1.33 ghz g4 or g5
640 mb ram
64 mb vid card min, 128 recomended, geforce 4 or ati radeon 9200 64 mb min

recomended for unbelievable graphics/gameplay (peaking 60 fps - this is the max)

dual 2 ghz g5 or dual 1.67 g4 (upgraded) powermacs only
2 gig ram
256 mb geforce 6800 ultra or ati radeon 9800 pro 256 mb

for insanley high preformance which is totaly pointless
dual 2.5 ghz g5 powermac
8 gb ram
256 mb geforce 6800 ultra

[vraxtus]

the game will require

1.0 ghz g4 or g5
256 mb ram
32 mb vid card, ATI radeon 9000 minimum or geforce 3
roughly 6 gigs space

recomended for smooth gameplay

1.33 ghz g4 or g5
640 mb ram
64 mb vid card min, 128 recomended, geforce 4 or ati radeon 9200 64 mb min

recomended for unbelievable graphics/gameplay (peaking 60 fps - this is the max)

dual 2 ghz g5 or dual 1.67 g4 (upgraded) powermacs only
2 gig ram
256 mb geforce 6800 ultra or ati radeon 9800 pro 256 mb

for insanley high preformance which is totaly pointless
dual 2.5 ghz g5 powermac
8 gb ram
256 mb geforce 6800 ultra


Lies.

[MacsRgr8]

Does anyone know if DOOM 3 is still coming to the MAC. Its been awhile since ID has mentioned it and stated that Activision is not going to publish it nor do the have anyone else to publish it. It seems there has not been anything mentioned since.

Looks like they forgot.... :rolleyes:

Or maybe.... just maybe.... they are put off by the massive piracy. Doom 3 was on the torrent sites before it was in the stores. We have heard this story before.... ;) :D

[benpatient]

hjhhjh, you're making crap up, and you're being quite optimistic.

[tom.96]

hjhhjh, you're making crap up, and you're being quite optimistic.


Yes I agree. Those specs do seem very very optimistic. I would be interested if they were based on anything other than speculation. My own personal view is that it is unlikely that it will run on anything under a 1.5ghz machine with 64mb graphics, and thats a minimum. I might be wrong (probably will be) but that seems like a more realistic minimum spec.

[hjhhjh]

Yes I agree. Those specs do seem very very optimistic. I would be interested if they were based on anything other than speculation. My own personal view is that it is unlikely that it will run on anything under a 1.5ghz machine with 64mb graphics, and thats a minimum. I might be wrong (probably will be) but that seems like a more realistic minimum spec.

it will say 1.5 but will only require 1 ghz like the pc

[applekid]

From the IMG Doom 3 thread:

A few tidbits about Doom 3 system requirements...

- The preliminary Mac requirements (which is what these are) are basically the same as the PC system requirements. They may change, or they may stay the same. There is no magic that will make the Mac version run twice as fast as the PC version that wants a 1.5 GHz processor minimum.

- Doom 3 is not optimized for dual processors or SMP. This is a major architecture issue, not 'lazy programmers'. The SMP code from Quake 3 never made it into Doom 3 in any real way, so it's very unlikely the entire game engine will be rewritten on the Mac to take advantage of SMP.

- Right now there isn't anything preventing you from running Doom 3 on a G4. But until we are sure it will be playable on a G4 1.5 (or whatever speed), we aren't going to say it will. Can you imagine the uproar if we released prelim specs as 1Ghz G4 and then a month later moved them to G5 1.5? Of course we are working with id, Apple, ATI and nVidia to optimize the game as fully as possible so it will run on as many machines as we can. Then we'll set the final system requirements accordingly.

- Something everyone needs to understand on Mac game performance is that high end games like this generally start out at a 30-40% slower frame rate right off the top from running on the Mac. There are a variety of reasons for this, from compiler code generation to OpenGL differences between PC and Mac. So for most games it is a HUGE optimization effort to even get the Mac version to run close to as fast as the PC. It's not a fun fact, but it's there. And it's something Aspyr spends an incredible amount of time worrying about and working on for each game.

Hopefully this gives at least a little more information...

Glenda

[Dont Hurt Me]

Glenda dont play, there it is. Fact.