Sweeney on UT Renderer

Very well, Mr. Original, allow me to enlighten you:

original message will appear bold (as the author of the reply should have done)


I've seen people like you before. Your philosphy in life seems to be

if(productx.source == MICROSOFT)
productx.quality = 0;

I respect that its your opinion, but I also regard it as one if the most closeminded and retarded opinions I have encountered. All the software I use, is the software which works the best for me. It just happens to turn out that most of that software is made by Microsoft.

-(decode(skid.assumption, TRUE, skid.ramble, #UNDEFINED))

I'm not going to bother to debate how ethical Microsoft's business practises are.

-Is that because you know how unethical and anti-competitive they are?

Go read how Tim Sweeney's proposed texture management extensions were ruthlessly rejected by the dinosaurs at the OpenGL consortium. I suggest that you compare the evolution of D3d and OpenGL in the last 5 years before you call D3d unflexible and OpenGL progressive.

-I haven't read about the "ruthless rejection".. I will go and do that.

However, thinking that a product is bound to be a "slowly moving, proprietary piece of crud" just because it has the MS logo on it is simply stupid.

-No, actually, software that MS manufactures isn't trash by default. That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that they devote a lot of effort to tying up new technologies in proprietary standards and anti-competitive license agreements. Do you really think that is the formula to great software and quick development? If so you are fooling yourself.

If thats how you like to think than you are better off hanging out with Micro$oft/MicroShaft/(whatever the latest name is) hating groupies at Slashdot.

-(decode(skid.assumption, TRUE, skid.ramble, #UNDEFINED))

See a pattern here?

w
i]

Very well, [space]Mr. Lethal, look at that, and tell me that my approximation was that far off.

That billion would have been better invested in nanotechnology research anyway. Saving a few lives now pales in comparison to the promise of what this technology will bring.

The past two years I've donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation - http://www.eff.org in order to try and support their efforts. Tax deductions are secondary. This year my few grand of charity is going towards nanotech research: The Forsight Institute - http://www.forsight.org & the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing - http://www.imm.org

Anyway, while we all like to whine about capitalism (on the consumer end) at times, it's still the BEST system we've got. It also most closely resembles natures evolution by variation and selection. Dinosaurs (Microsoft) were once at the top of the food chain...

FreshView

Total comments: 2049 catch up what are you smoking , o and it's good your not leaving -the shacks wouldn't be the same with out you posting like mad to stay ahead of me.hehehehehehe buwahahahahahaha

by the way... Mr. [space]Lex Lethal from the hood, who exactly is this:


http://209.39.194.5/perl/show_person.pl/Lex%20Lethal

?

Just out of curiousity what is your system setup Rattboy? Cause like I said, UT runs like butter for me.

Details were on medium, medium or medium, low not high/high as defaulted to. Volumetric lighting was OFF. I'll have to check on the rest of the options in the advanced menu, but I *think* everything else was its default settings. No detailed textures, low sound quality [not actually the default, but..] Hud was reduced, but that won't matter here. My game play is actually usually lower as more than one other actor [where this drops so drastically] comes into view at once. This is ALSO at 640x480x16.

Tell you what Daggah, when I get home, I'll run it the way I run Quake3, all the details on except curved surfaces which UT doesn't use so maybe I'll leave it on to punish Q3, and at 1024x768 and bring you back the numbers.

I still don't care for UT's sucky low framerates.


42 +45 +50 +44 +46 +43 +41 +47

Dammit, the shack is taking itself too seriously. Can't you guys talk about Sarah Michelle Gellar or something?

I own UT and it sucks.
Ive borrowed Q3 and it sucks.

I own halflife and it pwnz.

If you are ghey you play UT.
If you *think* you are hardcore then you play q3.

If you are a true gamer who cares about gameplay and could give a rat's ass about graphics you play q1/2(and mods) or halflife(and mods)

Oh jeez. I missed the 200th post. Darn!

mofo. (...)

shut your poop holes!

sof has been warezed. screw dm for now

The post below is me. Hit the wrong button.

I second that notion to warn people NOT to buy UT and please don't buy any S3 cards.

I was comparing LithTech to the original Unreal and Quake II engines, I thought. In fact, I know I was.

LithTech 1.0 was not impressive, I'm afraid.

I'd rather have my framerate be variable then have consently low fps.

That UTbench demo is a joke. How do you know that there are 16 bots in it? I just watched it and the most I ever saw on the screen at 1 time were 3!

Windows 2000
Celeron 500
196 megs of ram
32 meg Viper2 (savage2000)
UT 413

I had to run it in software mode because of multiple reasons.

1. D3D crashes and restarts the computer.
2. OpenGL uses the included windows software opengl driver and runs at 1 fps.

3. S3 is stupid and makes buggy drivers. No MeTaL support for win3k currently.

I don't want anybody that is reading this to buy an S3 product. I want S3/Diamond to go out of business and quit ruining peoples lifes by making such hellish products. They don't give a damn about their customers.


I just ran the UTbench at 640x480x32 in Software mode.

min 12
max 22
avg 18

That is the slowest, most boring demo I have ever watched

And I had my min framerate option set to 70 and it did'nt do jack.

Because I'm bored and I have no life, I'm going to run the timedemo again in 16 bit color and see if it makes a difference.

Ok class. Please sit down for math 101. I'm going to show you why q3 has higher FPS than UT. First, lets get to the basics. A Timedemo of any kind basically plays a simulated deathmatch between bots with the usual pyrotechnics and fancy lighting and such. That number you get at the end of the timedemo is and AVERAGE number of frames. For example lets say that Q3 got 70.6 FPS & UT got 44.75 FPS. You would say Q3 is better that UT blah blah blah. But simple mathmatics show a different story. Let's see how both game achieved thier AVERAGE scores. Each number represents 1 sec of time with that number being the amount of frames during that second. Here they areas followed:Q3A 100 +50 +75 +60 +95 +110 +45 +30 /8 =70.6fps UT 42 +45 +50 +44 +46 +43 +41 +47 /8=44.75 See how when the average is broken down it shows that even though Q3 beat UT in AVERAGE FPS it did not beat UT in CONSISTANT FPS. Notice how wildly the frames are in Q3 and how UT FPS are pretty much the same. This explains why UT run slow but smooth and why Q3 runs
fast and 'gags' from time to time. CLASS DISMISSED!

Me too!

Take this text bozo!

UT at 640x480x16

min 11
max 21
avg 17

Actually slower then playing in 32 bit.

Little bit off topic here, but anyone know how to turn on fps in UT? Thanks.

Chuffmaster2k

If I tweak my settings, I get avg 60fps (min 50, max ~70) in UT with my ATI Rage Fury (TNT 1 speeds) and Celeron 450. Quake3 runs at ~35fps on the same machine. Therefore, by the standards of those present, Q3A is a crap engine, and UT is blazing fast.

Someone set your min frames desired to 70. Are you getting that all the time now?

Why the hell is it set to only 28 by default anyways?

Dude !!

c:\\ass ?

Dude, if Q3 never drops below 50 or so, then big deal.