Mac UT2004 v3334 Demo released!

Discussion in 'Games' started by CannonFodder, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. CannonFodder macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #1
    For those interested in a newer Demo for UT2004, you can find it Here!

    The demo contains 7 maps (AS-Convoy, ONS-Torlan, ONS-Primeval, DM-Rankin, CTF-BridgeOfFate, CTF-Face Classic, BR-Colossus), 7 game modes (Assault, Onslaught, Deathmatch, Capture The Flag, Team Deathmatch, Bombing Run, Instagib CTF)
     
  2. veedubdrew macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #2
    I downloaded this demo last night just for the heck of it. I had heard for so long on these boards about how much Macs suck for gaming, so I've never really bothered trying.

    Well, UT runs beautifully! I turned up all the settings and it looked spectacular. Obviously I'm no pro gamer, but UT2004 demo looked just great. Can I expect similar performance with the full game? I might just have to hit the Apple store and pick it up.

    Maybe Macs don't suck so bad for gaming after all. If 10.3.6 does indeed have new ATI drivers, and if developers recompile their apps using GCC 4.0 for better vectorization, maybe things will get even better.

    On a side note, now that I'm not so scared of gaming on my Mac, does Sim City 4 run okay? I always loved that game on my PC.

    -Drew
     
  3. Elan0204 macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #3
    According to BareFeats, this version of the demo runs 49% to 64% better than the original depending on the settings used. I don't know if similar performace improvements are acheived when patching the full UT2004 game to version 3334. Anyone with the full version want to weigh in?
     
  4. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #4
    i think you'll find SimCity 4 frustratingly slow on your machine....but I may be wrong.
     
  5. javabear90 macrumors 6502a

    javabear90

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #5
    I didn't sign up so I found another link on filefront.... here have fun... still dl'ing
     
  6. ijimk macrumors 6502a

    ijimk

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Here
    #6
    I play reatil unreal 2004 on my mac at 1680 by 1050 with all settings turned up and it runs beautifully. :D
     
  7. WhiteSavage macrumors regular

    WhiteSavage

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Location:
    Here.
    #7
    Yeah, that seems to be a common rumor, that Macs can't play games. lol, I have a whole bunch of popular games, ranging from Call of Duty to Unreal Tournament 2004. I never have problems :\. I run a 4 year old Dual 1 Ghz G4 with 1.5 GB SDRAM.
     
  8. JeDiBoYTJ macrumors 6502a

    JeDiBoYTJ

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    #8
    cool, i assume this new demo fixes the problem with the old demo having lower framerates than the real game? if so im all over it.

    also to the person asking about sim city 4, I find it to run decently on my machine (similar to yours, just with 64VRAM), but if you city ends up taking up the entire screen, with like 50,000+ population, you will notice a bit of a slow down unless you turn settings down, but at first I was running the game beautifuly at full settings... until my city grew massivly
     
  9. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #9
    That depends upon your definitition of beautiful...

    I don't see how you could ever get over 40 FPS on Torlan Onslaught...

    As for the new Demo, it decreased performance by 50% on my G5... :cool:
     
  10. Elan0204 macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #10
    I had been trying without luck to download the file from MacGameFiles. So, I bothered to sign up at the link in the original post, and got download speeds of over 400K/sec. The whole file was done in about 11 minutes.
     
  11. Elan0204 macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #11
    Yeah, I seem to be finding mixed reports about this. Barefeats reported great increases in speed, but I have seen reports like yours saying performance was reduced by about the same BareFeats claimed it was improved (49%-64%).

    I haven't tried the demo yet, but don't have any old fps numbers to compare to anyways.
     
  12. iZzle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana
    #12
    Wow! New maps and much faster and I notice better graphics. A+! :D
     
  13. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #13
    People used to say that the full, retail version of UT2004 was better than the demo but I'd say that they're about the same and the patch number is actually higher on the demo now.

    I get acceptable bot match performance, esp. on my busy system even with outdoor maps, except when there is rain. However, onslaught and certain games with rain really drag my machine down and I have to stop folding@home to play well.
     
  14. javabear90 macrumors 6502a

    javabear90

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    I think it's great!! so much better than the other demo. I can now acually play it wit 25 - 100 fps!!! (instead of 5) :D
     
  15. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #15
    Playable Onslaught! On my powerbook! (12" 1.33 Ghz 768MB Ram) I didn't play to much but I pick onslaught and was in some sort of jungle. 20-30 fps! very nice. Deathmatch was 50-70 fps :)
     
  16. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #16
    Sounds like the new demo has some kind of G4 optimzation... :)
     
  17. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #17
    Works Great

    On my hardware (Rev B. Dual G5 1.8, 256 MB ATI Radeon 9800 XT, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD, 20" AL ACD) the full version of the game runs great at 1680 x 1050 all settings on there highest. If there is any slowdown I don't notice it, no matter what map I'm on.

    As for Macs not being able to play games:

    huxley:~ risc$ ls -1 /Applications/Games/
    Activision Anthology
    Airburst Extreme Folder
    Battlefield 1942
    Call of Duty
    Dungeon Siege
    GameRanger
    Knights of the Old Republic
    MacMAME
    Neverwinter Nights
    UT2004_EULA.txt
    Unreal Tournament 2004.app
    Warcraft III Folder
    huxley:~ risc$

    Looks like a nice gaming platform to me, but then I come from Linux where TuxRacer is king. Bring on World of Warcraft and Call of Duty : United Offensive I can't wait!
     
  18. DuhMacDude macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #18
    true, there are many games for the mac.
    But how many is many? Has Doom 3 for mac come out? no...Is half-life 2 coming out on the mac? no... gta san andreas? rome: total war? far cry? what about racing games? yes...there's that ford racing game...but how does it compare to need for speed underground 1 & 2?...or any of the need for speeds? none of them have come out on the mac platform before...
    Additionally, what is a "good" gaming machine? a 1.8 DP G5 or above, right? how much does that cost? about $2499 (with a 9800XT and a extra stick of ram)--and this doesn't include the monitor.
    how much does a comparably better pc gaming system cost? Well, a dell dimension XPS costs about $1499, and after adding an awesome gfx card (x800XT PE), it still only costs $1769. AND it includes soundblaster audigy 2 zs, 19 inch lcd, AND a prbly better cpu--pentium 4 3.4 ghz, with HT technology.
    I'm not trying to be anti-mac or anything (i use a mac myself), but the fact is that macs are good for their main audience--creative professionals: graphics design (photoshop), 3d animation (cinema 4d, lightwave, etc.).
    Additionally, a pc prbly runs faster on games (even with the same specs) because it has a sound card (even integrated counts)--the mac does all the sound work on its cpu. aditionally, ati and nvidia rarely update their mac drivers, so games and drivers arent optimized that well for the mac (i think quake III was the only well-optimized game for the mac, but it's OLD). For example, xlr8yourmac.com has a review of the new geforce 6800 for the mac, and it outperforms the 9800xt by only a small margin. Whereas, on the pc side, the 6800 seriously kicked ass compared to the 9800xt (like 2x the speed or more).
    also...the G4 sux when running games! 20-30 fps? Thats LOW okay? if you're running doom 3, i can understand. but UT 2004 is an OLD game! and somebody said they can run many games on a dual 1.0 ghz g4?!?! with an agp 4x gfx card or less? what, at 10-15 fps?--is that even playable??!

    bottom line: stick to a pc for gaming. Use ur mac for graphics work.
     
  19. Bob21 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
    #19
    ONS Torlan is unplayable on my G5 now, getting around 5-10 fps :eek:
    Back to the original demo for me.
     
  20. Mr_Ed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    North and east of Mickeyland
    #20
    A lot of folks are reporting better performance for this demo on G4 systems than on G5. What gives?! Someone posted a comment that perhaps the demo has some kind of G4 optimization. Who knows. Could it somehow be optimized for whatever strengths NVidia hardware may have?

    I am getting 23-25 fps on the ONS Torlan map just moving around, and 14-18 fps in the middle of action. Not great by any means, but I would expect a G5 to do at least as well.

    I run in a dual 1GHz G4, 1GB RAM, NVidia GeForce 4MX (64MB) using a resolution of 1280x1024, and "character shadows" turned on. I noticed some hesitation or jitter in a couple of instances but it was still "playable" (of course, I I'm sure I would like it a whole lot more on a better GPU :)) I would expect a little better frame rate if I used lower resolution and/or turned off character shadows.

    I got around 30fps pretty steadily on the Deathmatch game with peaks near 60 (57) at times.

    I was not on-line, just the "Instant Action" game.
     
  21. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #21
    That's a very narrow minded view of the world. I'm not a gamer I happen to be a UNIX geek who uses a Mac because it is the best UNIX desktop out there, I also happen to like games. If I was a gamer and I was dumb enough to shell out thousands of dollars to do nothing but game I'd just buy an Alienware box, but I have no interest in using Windows XP (the same as I have no interest in Mac OS9 or below).

    It's all about UNIX here, and the Mac is the best UNIX gaming platform out there!


    I have to be honest I haven't really seen many dual 64 bit PC gaming boxes outside of Alienware. Maybe these single CPU boxes you are talking about are cheaper and run games faster, but do they run OS X?

    The PC versus Mac thing is pointless. If you want a Windows PC for what you do buy a Windows PC, if you want a Linux box get one, if you want a Mac OS X box buy a Mac. If it does what you want use it, but in all honesty comparing a dual 64 bit UNIX workstation to a Windows PC is a bit weird unless all you do with it is game and use Office.
     
  22. UnixMac macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #22

    don't waste your time risc...

    What he doesn't seem to know is that the reason there aren't many mac games is that people like him have sold off the mac for games... if we as consumers demanded (with the dollar vote) better and newer games, we'd get them.

    I for one am sick of game makers porting (haphazardly) games from PC code and DirectX to Mac and OpenGL...

    A Mac with it's superior performance and architecture should smoke a PC.. but there is apparently no money in Mac games otherwise the developers would invest the money in properly coding these games for MultiProcessor and other Mac advantages...
     
  23. hjhhjh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    #23
    hell yah my g4 powerbook 1.33 ghz 768 mb ram rujns it like double the fps than b4, i get up to 90-100, but avg is 40-60ish 70 ish if im lucky
     
  24. UnixMac macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #24
    Well I basically max(ed) out all of the settings and ran it at 1200X resolution and it was like glass.... pretty darn good... never once did I get a skipped frame or anything! I'll try max res next...
     
  25. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #25
    [OT Kind of] FSAA

    By the way how do you enable FSAA in UT2004? I've got a 9800 XT so it should be possible?
     

Share This Page