Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by Mac n' Steve, Dec 10, 2002.
I think Unreal Tornament is great...What do you think and like or hate about it?
yes, UT is an amazing game...i like it cause it runs well on my relatively slow machines...i don't like it cause i was having trouble getting it to work for os x. Its so fun if you want to take a break from homeworks and just mutilate some bots!. I like games you can just start and play and quit just as easily. While i do like games that you get into deeply its kinda a waste of time to be playing a game for that long of a time.
Actually Unreal Tournament barely runs on any mac due to a poor port. Check out the frame rates they are very slow no matter what your settings on any mac. Quake Arena is a much better port and runs very well on almost any mac.
I have both and I really like Unreal but I would have to say since I'm using X now Quake is the one to have.
I agree, but only recently. Ever since 10.2 came out, it has rendered UTX unplayable. Q3 is great because they are still developing it, where as UT is kind of a dead project, especially for OS X. Glenda Adams keeps saying that she's going to finish it but she can't find the time. That was a LONG time ago. If she ever finishes it, that would be great, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
i could fill a book with my complaints about utx. i get about 30 fps in os9 (imac 500 rage128/16meg, 640x480 high quality textures) and about 25 fps in 10.2. not the kind of performance i'd expect from a 4 year old game. i really like it, but the poor quality of the osx port makes it unusable. does anyone else have fps counts from similar mahcines or from comparable pcs? i'm sure a pII 233 with a 4meg card gets about twice as many frames as my computer does (i hate crappy ports)
is quake3arena that much more playable? i would have bought that one instead, but it's still $30 (although ut is still $20, and nolf is $40, and...)
Q3A's OS X port runs perfectly on my machine. At 1024x768 and everything on high, I get about 90 fps, where as UTX under 10.1.5 got about 30-45 fps. Also, Amazon sells Q3 Gold for $25. Hope this helps.
Yeah exactly. I play a practice game for 20-30 minutes and go back to real life.
I still don't see a problem with how it runs on either the G3/400 or the dual G4/800. It's somewhat faster on Mac OS 9.x but smoother on Mac OS X. Quake III is much faster because they took time to do it right, esp. on the dual processor machines.
hmmm... i may have to download the quake 3 demo and try it out. alice ran rather slowly in 10.2 and 9.2 and the rtcw multiplayer demo was "playable" for me under 10.1 only with all of it's settings on the absolute lowest they would go, but i'm guessing that both of those games added things to the engine that slowed it down. wasn't there some tip on xlr8yourmac a while ago about setting a "chunk size" or something like that to improve fps in quake3? if anyone knows what i'm talking about (i'm not sure i do ) please let me know.
I noticed that the Aspyr/Raven version of the Quake III engine does not run as well as the id version, for whatever reason. This is why I don't like the performance of Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force or Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast as much as the id games coming out about the same time. Alice is from Aspyr and I bet it's using the Raven version of the engine.
UT for me is different.
in 9 i get 70-80 FPS on 1024x768
in X i get 60-75 FPS on 1280x1024
this with a Dual 867/ Rad 9k
Remeber the RtCW MP Test for X?
It was written in Cocoa by iD.
Why, oh why wan't the final release a X-only Cocoa port?
Just think of the performance increases!
Damn you Aspyr!
It seems to me that UT runs better on ATI cards then on nVidia cards. Anyone who is currently able to play UTX in 10.2 has an ATI card. For the rest of the people with nVidia cards, it renders UTX unplayable with tons of dropped frames and incredibly skippy play.
Well, it doesn't have to be using the Cocoa framework to be fast. Carbon is working quite nicely but both need tuning still.
As for ports, I think most will still be Carbon as most Windows-based games are written in C++, not Objective-C. (None are likely to be written in Objective-C. ) Apple's willingness to create the Objective-C++ hack has helped, but there's a lot of mess trying to mix languages.
excellent point. it is possible, in some instances, for carbon to be faster than cocoa, but mr. welch from ambrosia said it best when he noted that you can make a fast or slow carbon app and a fast or slow cocoa app. sadly, most carbon ports are horribly slow and this is especially true for games. i think the only carbon game that has actually had an increase in speed in osx is sixtyforce (which has been dormant for months) and other than that, i've yet to see a game that runs in both 9 and x and at least gets the same fps. so when games are ported over you have a crappy job on the port to the mac (which means a speed hit) and a crappy job on the port to carbon (which means a speed hit). it's no wonder mac gamers need the fastest powermacs available to run 4 year old pc games. but enough of my rant...
If you use the Carbon event model, Mac OS X is happier and every application goes a little bit smoother. You ask for notification of a certain event and go to sleep basically. Once the even happens for that application, the system notifies Carbon and Carbon notifies the application...everyone's happy.
Old Mac OS apps. use an event loop which drains processor usage because it keeps asking over-and-over..."are we there yet?" This does not work well in Mac OS X (or other pre-emptive multi-tasking systems.
Also, the old performance tweaks work against the application in Mac OS X, further degrading the experience.
Cocoa really is a slower application framework, due to its dynamic nature. It's just that since it's so much tried-and-true NeXTStep code, it doesn't need as much tuning. Carbon should be particularly fast, since it's lightweight. Perhaps, those applications using PowerPlant from MetroWerks are part of the issue because PowerPlant needs tuning too.
It has nothing to do with a poor port. UT is incredibly CPU intensive, whereas Quake 3 relies more on your GPU. PC framerates cap out far lower on UT than on Quake 3 just like on your Macs. Sometimes I think you guys just pull "facts" out of nowhere.
I believe you about the PC. I initially thought that it was a bad port until I saw it running on a PC at CompUSA. The PC was far stronger than my PowerMac but the initial fly-by was just as rough as it was on my machine. Would they have picked a poor machine to showcase that software? Not at all.
i'm having trouble running ut on os x, i keep getting this error
Class Actor Member Owner problem:
thats it...it works fine in os 9, and the frame rates are great. quake 3 in os x has given me really really bad frame rates. anyway, does anyone know where i can get an updated patch for ut? has anyone else had this problem?
make sure that you've upgraded to the 4.33 version and are using the UnrealTournament.ini and User.ini files that came with the osx version, not the classic version.
unreal tournament was an excellent game, too bad i lost the CD, that brings me on to a good point, anybody want to give UT...?
Yeah I have no probs with UTX (except for the occaisional crash) and I have an ATI 8500 on a Dual 450 with 512mB. While the framerates are better in Quake. I still enjoy UT. I also agree that it makes a difference if the game can be played in 9 and X or just X
I think its the 4.36 version
Is this thread about Unreal Tournament or UT 2003?
UT Since U2k3 isn't out for mac yet
i somehow overlooked this little tidbit until tonight.