Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo Released

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by Akira
Gamepad??
Did you just say gamepad, as in controller, which comes with a gameconsole??

You're the first person I've ever heard saying they want a gamepad to play a First-Person-Shooter.

LOL no kidding. No one point this thread out on a PeeCee gamers forum - they'll have a whole lot to laugh about!

1) We're talking about a game that on comparitively priced PeeCee hardware would be getting 100fps with 16 players in view.

2) We're saying that we can (or prefer) to play with trackballs and game pads!

Now THAT's funny. We all look like a bunch of noobs...

 

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Codemonkey
LOL no kidding. No one point this thread out on a PeeCee gamers forum - they'll have a whole lot to laugh about!

1) We're talking about a game that on comparitively priced PeeCee hardware would be getting 100fps with 16 players in view.

2) We're saying that we can (or prefer) to play with trackballs and game pads!

Now THAT's funny. We all look like a bunch of noobs...

for some reason, I don't mind knowing I use my computer to make $$, instead of waste time (although, it's good for that, too.) I just choose to use it productively. I don't really care that I can get 100 fps in Photoshop...😉

 

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by Mudbug
for some reason, I don't mind knowing I use my computer to make $$, instead of waste time (although, it's good for that, too.) I just choose to use it productively. I don't really care that I can get 100 fps in Photoshop...😉

Good for you.

What thread is this again?

 

[Raiwong]

I'm getting 14fps avg with everything set to normal but physics which is at high.

All decals, foliage, etc. are turned off.

Mind you, only 256mb of ram might have something to do with it...

whoever ran this on their ibook, could you give me more details?

I ran it on my 800mhz ibook with 384mb RAM with 32mb radeon 7500, it shocked me I can't believe it runs at decent speed.

I switched everything on and world detail to highest and I still managed on 20-25fps when playing if lucky I can get 29fps on standby at 1024X800.

I'm relieved I though it would lag like crap, I wonder how it runs on a 12 inch PB

For those people questioning the differen in results:

- restarting your computer will make it faster if u didn't shut it down for long

- RAM matters

- Laptops on battery power will clock down the proccesor to conserve battery make sure you check power saving

- IBM G3 in ibooks are faster in non-altivec comparisons to G4 of the same mhz

on a fresh restart my ibook with power plugged in my ibook can get 27-29 average fps

 

[arvidvdb]

Am I the only one around here who doesn't give a #@$# about first person-shoot-em-up games, but still is very addicted to Ambrosia's magnificent Bubble Trouble?

(wonder how much fps that would run on a 970)😀

 

[TrenchMouth]

alright so here is my story;

i dl'd it last night and got about 25k/s so it finished around 3am. so i played for about 30min before going to bed with all the default settings. then today i checked it out again and decided to throw all the settings as high as they allow in the demo (i think in the retail that there will be some changes) and ran it and it was pretty abismal.

i have a 800mhz iMac 17in w/384megs. the fact that this is a relatively new computer, although i do like the new 1ghz imacs, and it runs as slow as it does on the high end section is a little off putting. compairatively, a friend of mine has a winblows compatible computer that he bought around the same time for less money that rocks this game hard, getting twice the frame rate i am getting (wich is averaging around 16 fps jacked up) at the same levels of detail. also there is something going on with the mouse sensitivity that i am not sure i like, but i bet that is easily fixed i just need to mess with those settings as well.

my point is: that the mac has a long way to go in the real game department. i still love my mac more than any wintel machine, and i wouldnt trade it for any of them, but there is some serious work to be done in this area if Apple wants to attract the HUGE market of people that just sit around and play games. i can live with it as is, i am not a huge gamer, but it would be nice to throw up a lan game with some friends and frag the crap out of each other at better than 10fps on a relatively new computer. kinda heart breaking.

970....please hurry.

on a side note, my other computer is a 500mhz ibook, and i am not even goign to try, i like that machine and i wouldnt do somthing like that to it.

 

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by TrenchMouth
alright so here is my story;

[SNIP]

970....please hurry.

AMEN! Good post, and my sentiments exactly. Here are some stats of a windows box that gets 400fps with no action (100 fps w/16 players on screen) in Q3 (feel free to even half those numbers if you feel the UT03 engine is that much more taxing...)

AMD 2100+ XP
A7V333 Motherboard
GeForce4 Ti4600
512mb DDR (333Mhz)

Cost 6 months ago: $2100 CDN (cost of a new PM: ~$2500 CDN). I'm betting all that hardware can be had for under $1500 now.

It was hand-rolled, but we're talking performance here, not warranties or cool UI's...

Because we're Mac users, I find that we "put up" or "tolerate" the Mac with games, and that's ok, because it gets us through.

Incidentally, I'd still never buy a PeeCee just for gaming, it doesn't make any sense when any of the new consoles are faster than almost any consumer computer for sub-$300.

 

[mangoman]

Originally posted by arvidvdb
Am I the only one around here who doesn't give a #@$# about first person-shoot-em-up games, but still is very addicted to Ambrosia's magnificent Bubble Trouble?

(wonder how much fps that would run on a 970)😀

I'm also addicted to Bubble Trouble, and yes, you are the only freak in here who doesn't give a #@$# about first person shoot-em-up games.

If you're UT2K3 character looked like the fish, would that sway you?

 

[Jimong5]

My Dual 867 1 Gig RAM Radeon 9000, gets 25-60 FPS with everything set to max and running at 1280x1024. I'm in love with the gameplay, much better then UT IMO.

My friend got it on his 667 Ti 32 7500, And He reports getting 25-45 at 800x600, not bad I think. Gonna have my friend with his 600 iMac give it a spin next. see how that turn out, the Ti Owner says even at low FPS, the game is still playable, compared to UT which was bad at low FPS.

 

[arvidvdb]

Originally posted by mangoman
I'm also addicted to Bubble Trouble, and yes, you are the only freak in here who doesn't give a #@$# about first person shoot-em-up games.

If you're UT2K3 character looked like the fish, would that sway you?

Haha, you're on to me.. that WOULD sway me
My aversion to first-person-shooters is just a counter-measure to my addiction wich I would, nou doubt, develop in the first minute after launching such a game...
😀

cheers

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by hvfsl
There are people wanting to get a new iMac soon to play this game on, I just have to say don't. To play UT2003 at a desent speed you will need a fast PM G4 or maybe a PPC970 if it comes out. Don't forget Doom3 is just around the corner and will require a 1.8Ghz PC to run will, so it will require about the same on the Mac.

The funny thing is that I actually expect decent performance from Doom. I have some reasons for this though. First off QuakeIII performs better on a mac then UT while having better graphics. Quite often QuakeIII would get around 60FPS on my old B/WG3 400 with a PCI Radeon card while UT would only get 25FPS. This is just due to better optimizations hands down and better coding. Also with a dual processor machine there is no battle between QuakeIII and UT as QuakeIII not only has the better programming but is also dual processor aware. I expect the same benefits that QuakeIII shows in DoomIII as they are both products of ID and not only that DoomIII for that Mac was actually demo'd on the Mac nearly 2 years ago so it's had a lot of developement time.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by wsteineker
Yo Bandit, here are some numbers from my box (DP GHz Quicksliver, 1.5 GB RAM, Radeon 9000). I'm bottoming out at around 30 fps with everyone on screen and heavy action. My high end (clear screen except for terrain) is around 53 fps. My average is in the high 30s. All of this is at 1024x768 with everything turned all the way up. Does that give you a better frame of reference?

As for impressions, I NEED anti-aliasing. I also need a Radeon 9700, but who's counting? 😉

Any word on the Radeon 9700 for Mac? Has ATI announced a ship date yet for the standalone card?

What about folks with DP GHz systems and GeForce4 Ti cards? You guys have any numbers?

That sounds about right. That's the same FPS I am getting with my G4MX with shadows off and engine detail at good instead of max. It's still not fluid but it's very playable. I played on some servers last night there are some really fun maps out there. Also the download time on the maps was a matter of seconds instead of minutes.


I ask again what sort of FPS are people getting with the Ti4600?

 

[rubikcube]

at 1280x1024, I am getting around 30-40 frames a second depending on what i am looking at. This is with max everything.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by rubikcube
at 1280x1024, I am getting around 30-40 frames a second depending on what i am looking at. This is with max everything.

This doesn't help anyone unless you give us details about your hardware.

 

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by MacBandit
The funny thing is that I actually expect decent performance from Doom. [SNIP]

Yup, Doom 3 should actually yield fairly good performance, and this is probably primarily because UT03 uses strictly lightmap lighting, whereas Quake III uses vertex.

However, keep in mind that the D3 engine should be significantly more advanced than the UT03 engine, so it might actually even out in the end...

Anyway. Just some thoughts.

John Carmack is a genius, and it reflects in the magic he's able to pull off in his games.

 

[zigi]

Totally Agree with you

Originally posted by MacBandit
The funny thing is that I actually expect decent performance from Doom. I have some reasons for this though. First off QuakeIII performs better on a mac then UT while having better graphics. Quite often QuakeIII would get around 60FPS on my old B/WG3 400 with a PCI Radeon card while UT would only get 25FPS. This is just due to better optimizations hands down and better coding. Also with a dual processor machine there is no battle between QuakeIII and UT as QuakeIII not only has the better programming but is also dual processor aware. I expect the same benefits that QuakeIII shows in DoomIII as they are both products of ID and not only that DoomIII for that Mac was actually demo'd on the Mac nearly 2 years ago so it's had a lot of developement time.

I know that Graeme Divine coded some parts of the Quake III engine to utilize the AltiVec, which give an added boost. The same will be present in any future id game as the Mac market is growing and with a processor like the 970 (duel or single), and a 900MHz bus I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the Mac games performing extremely well against their PC counterparts. Provided we have that latest GPU's!😉

 

[network23]

Okay, something must be seriously wrong with my setup. it had better be that I'm still running 10.2.4 on my Mac...

867MHz DP MDD
over 700MB RAM
ATI Radeon
10.2.4

I didn't know how to turn on FPS, so these are estimates...

Default settings - maybe 2 fps
600x480, everything min or off - 15fps standing 5-10 in action.

I'll run the Combo updater tonight.

 

[MacBandit]

Widscreen and Screenshots.

Okay monkeys here's some tips.


Screenshot

To take a screen shot just look in your setup menu and look at the controls. Near the bottom it says 'F9' to take a screen shot. You could remap it to any key though. The screen shot will appear in the application suppport ~/library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo/System/.


Widescreen Support

Okay go to the application support/system folder that I pointed out just above. Open the UT2003.ini file using TextEdit. Now do a find for SDLDrv.SDLClient. Just below it you will see three options.

[SDLDrv.SDLClient]
WindowedViewportX=640
WindowedViewportY=480
FullscreenViewportX=1024
FullscreenViewportY=768
MenuViewportX=1024
MenuViewportY=768

Either change all three or just the one you want to to the appropriate screen size for your display.

I hope this helps.

 

[MacBandit]

Here are a couple screen shots for everyone

This taken at 1024x768 at 32bit with everything on with a G4MX. These were taken while playing on a map from a gaming server last night. Yes, the flags blow in the wind.

 

[MacBandit]

#2

 

[Gymnut]

Fps

Dual 1Ghz MDD, 2GB Ram, Nvidia Geforce4Ti 4600

Averaging 60fps with all the settings jacked up, nuff said. 😀

Dl'd the demo at approx. 8pm P.S.T. in 5min. Ahh the glory of living in paradise and being 3-5 hours behind!

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Fps

Originally posted by Gymnut
Dual 1Ghz MDD, 2GB Ram, Nvidia Geforce4Ti 4600

Averaging 60fps, nuff said. 😀

At what resolution and settings? The tests I have seen with the same machine and card are closer to 30FPS with everything turned on and running at 1280x1024. The same for the ATI9700. www.xlr8yourmac.com finally posted the results of the ATI9700 with UT2k3 it's on the main page today.

 

[Dr. Distortion]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
i've got some pretty crappy download speed from BitTorrent right now, but I am keeping it going. Another thing to try for those that can't seem to get a place is to login thru command line or something like Transmit to the FTP site that is linked...then manually navigate to the directory and request the file. this got me onto a semirespectable 10k/sec download.

Hmm, it downloaded at about 600-700k/sec this afternoon... damn good speeds for a BitTorrent download!

-Dr. D.

 

[oliverlubin]

unplayable on G4 400 @ 800x600 w/ATI Radeo 8500 ... probably why they say 700mhz processor. 🙂

 

[rojazz]

Re: OPS

Originally posted by agreenster
I really dont care for UT, but Im nuts about tactical ops. (the mod which later became a stand-alone) Anyway, does anyone know if infogrames is releasing Ops for UT2003?

no idea

i don't know why i wrote this, but i was one of the founding members of the to team so i feel like i needed an ego boost because i haven't talked about tactical ops in a good 9 months