@Cool_amigaN

Quote:

Cool_amigaN wrote: @Karlos Quote: Karlos wrote: Congratulations on totally missing the point. I'm not saying that < 24fps is laggy I am saying that any individuals perception of what is acceptable or not differs depending on the circumstances. As I said, I wouldn't want to play *any* multiplayer game at less than the response time of my monitor, but playing a much less frantic single player game is still perfectly acceptable at 15fps since you don't have to worry about the effects of lag. That said, I destroyed dozens of suckers on quake 1 rocket arena back in the day on a machine that barely managed 20fps, so nerr :p Oops, sorry didn't catch that. Please make a demo with double jumps at Single Player with 14 fps or even better start a thread about it at Planet Quake. I am pretty sure that you will get very interesting answers. Quake 2, one of the most fast paced first person shooters in gaming history, should be considered playable at 14 fps. Yeap, keep them coming.

I'm sorry, but can you point to a single place *anywhere at all* in Quake 1 or Quake 2 single player campaigns that requires double jumps, bunny hopping, strafe running or any such "trick" move beyond a basic rocket/grenade jump?

You can't? Big surprise, they are pretty much multiplayer only features and started out as pure bugs in the physics that gamers learned to exploit.

I'll say it again. Nobody wants to play *multiplayer* games at low framerates because it puts you at a major disadvantage so why you keep needing to mention it when nobody is disagreeing with you means either you aren't reading what is being written or you are just repeating yourself for giggles.

However, for *single player* games, 15fps can be adequate. Sure, 25fps is a lot better, but it isn't a barrier to completing a game. After all, I've completed several games at low framerates back in the day, from Doom on a 386 to quake on a 486DX2 66, Quake 2 on a Pentium 90, AB3D on an 020 and AB3D2 on a 68040 and not being able to get 25fps baseline didn't stop me completing any of them.

Bitching about low framerates (rather than lack of skill) when dying in a slow paced *single player* game doesn't carry weight with me. sorry. Get better at gaming :p

Last edited by Karlos on 30-Jun-2011 at 08:18 PM.
Last edited by Karlos on 30-Jun-2011 at 08:18 PM.

_________________
IBrowse/AWeb user? amiga.org - classic browser edition

@thread

I have less than zero interest in online multiplayer but had a fantastic time playing Quake 1 on my Sam. It would be awesome if someone with a Sam could upload a video of the current Quake 2 so we can see how slow is slow and (if playable speeds are achieved) what the graphics tradeoff is. If it looks fun, I'll buy it, even if proper gamers have denounced it as "unplayable". Reading this thread, I'm struggling to work out whether Quake 2 single player would be genuinely unplayable or just nowhere near as fast as it should be.

EDIT: Low quality vid taken on (say) a phone would be preferable to screen grab footage, 'cos it's the speed we're interested in, and I believe grabbed footage can be slower than reality...?

Last edited by jas_mc on 30-Jun-2011 at 08:57 PM.

_________________
My new blog

@Hammer

Great results indeed, for a netbook !

Your getting 6% difference when increasing the screen resolution.

The massive1.dm2 map shows your average fps during multiplayer gameplay.

@rvo

You testing on OS4.1 or Classic system ?

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: I'm sorry, but can you point to a single place *anywhere at all* in Quake 1 or Quake 2 single player campaigns that requires double jumps, bunny hopping, strafe running or any such "trick" move beyond a basic rocket/grenade jump? You can't? Big surprise, they are pretty much multiplayer only features and started out as pure bugs in the physics that gamers learned to exploit. I'll say it again. Nobody wants to play *multiplayer* games at low framerates because it puts you at a major disadvantage so why you keep needing to mention it when nobody is disagreeing with you means either you aren't reading what is being written or you are just repeating yourself for giggles. However, for *single player* games, 15fps can be adequate. Sure, 25fps is a lot better, but it isn't a barrier to completing a game. After all, I've completed several games at low framerates back in the day, from Doom on a 386 to quake on a 486DX2 66, Quake 2 on a Pentium 90, AB3D on an 020 and AB3D2 on a 68040 and not being able to get 25fps baseline didn't stop me completing any of them.

First of all, we are talking about Q2 only. No one gives a rat's ass whether you have finished Doom, Quake, AB3D, D3D on a low end machine 20 years ago.

However, I would love to know the fps you got on P90Mhz. Because with P133MhzMMX/Chaintech Mobo/64Mb Ram/ATI 4MB PCI/Win 95 I had an average of 9-12 fps (depending on scenery/resolution/graphic options). I am more than sure, that you had even lower. If your standards are set at around 5 fps, I am sorry but 99.999% of users worldwide don't find that value acceptable. ID's games back in the 90s were one of the most known reasons for users to upgrade their equipment. Can you guess why? Congratulations, you found it, because they didn't perfom smoothly.

For the ninth time, and because you seem to ignore it, Q2 is a fast paced first person shooter. Fast paced games, are designed to be enjoyable at smooth frame rates. The only option, to "fix" for the eyes, low frame rate problem in (modern) fps, is to implement "blurring" effects.

Let give me you two other examples:

1) Because you can watch a movie until the end, with extensive frame skip (that happens to be HALF of the standard frame rate), doesn't mean that it is ok to everybody else.

2) Because you could score a goal at SWOS via WinUAE on a P90Mhz, that produces half of the game's standard fps, doesn't really mean that you are playing SWOS.

By analogy, and for everyone who can't have a first hand impression for what I am talking about : Playing Q2 on 440/OS4 on half of the minimum (to be smooth) fps rate, equals with playing Kick Off, SWOS, Superfrog or any other fast paced amiga game on an ultra low end x86 hardware via emulation. Hope this clarifies.

Quote:

Bitching about low framerates (rather than lack of skill) when dying in a slow paced *single player* game doesn't carry weight with me. sorry. Get better at gaming :p

Whatever, don't let me interupt you while masturbate, reviewig your instant gib demos vs Thresh in dm2. Please join us in Quake Live to teach us, the noobs, some extra moves.

_________________

@Karlos

Cool_amigans just trying to say, that our 3d drivers are suck (and is it). No need to fight with facts :) Of course, maybe for someone 15 fps for some game are enough, but we all in real world. Its not all about like "hey, we just can run it !" , we have just more. We want to have the same speed (or almost the same speed), as it can be on HW which we have. For now, quake2 just show worse results on our current 3D.

For me, 15 FPS always noticable in every possible game. I even see difference beetwen 25 and 50. While 25 can be "ok" (but still noticable that its not perfect), i can't understand how anyone can say today, that 15 fps are enough for any kind of game.

The facts is : our 3d drivers slow, and they will be replaced. Dunno for what need say that "15 fps fine for something". Its not fine at all, its only show how feeks our current 3d.

_________________
aos4/aros/mos projects & articles

If you like any amiga related work i do, feel free to donate

@Cool_amigaN

Quote:

Whatever, don't let me interupt you while masturbate, reviewig your instant gib demos vs Thresh in dm2. Please join us in Quake Live to teach us, the noobs, some extra moves.

ROFL! Rage quit much? Keep it up, you sound like an petulant teenager. Believe it or not, but some of us actually have other things to do in life than sit there glued to games released in 1997.

@kas1e
Quote:

Cool_amigans just trying to say, that our 3d drivers are suck

This is not news.

I simply pointed out in the OP's defence that not everybody is concerned with hitting 25fps every time they play a game and it's even possible to complete them at 15fps (I mean seriously) and he goes off on a self-repeating rant.

I dunno about you guys but when I fancy a bit of 3D gaming action I tend to fire up the PC ;)

Last edited by Karlos on 01-Jul-2011 at 01:13 PM.

_________________
IBrowse/AWeb user? amiga.org - classic browser edition

@Karlos

The fact that you deliberately ignored 9/10 of my post speaks volumes. No need to add anything else. Everyone can read them and decide for himself.

_________________

@all

quake2 on SAM not work with miniGL2.5 (impossible to open screen).

Fortunately, I have kept the MiniGL 2.4 libraries.

just copy the 2.4 version and reboot the SAM and load quake2 and work fine.

bye

_________________
BTW, what you have done for the amiga today ????

-A1200+Mediator+VooDoo3+060/50+96mo+SCSI-KIT
-SAM440EP-667mhz-on MapowerKC3000+AOS4.1

Amiga Docs Disks Preservation Project

I think I'm just going to have to take a gamble (it's only 20 quid) and buy it to see. I'm slightly suspicious of the "minimum playable FPS is 25" stuff 'cos it sounds a bit like a wine buff's idea of what the cheapest drinkable wine is (i.e., not worth me - someone with only a passing interest in wine and a crude palette - taking on board). But, I might end up with egg on my face if I don't enjoy my purchase. This thread is sufficiently unhelpful that I will just have to suck it and see.

I don't think it should be a case of what people "consider" to be playable 'cos playable is too absolute a term (you "consider" something to be fun or not fun, or smooth enough or not smooth enough).

I've youtubed around and found videos of Quake games running on (e.g.) phones at 15fps and even one at 10fps, and while it didn't look very smooth, it certainly looked responsive enough to be playable and potentially fun (the 10fps one I personally would pass on).

Is it bad that I'm looking at videos of old phones to gauge what playing Quake on modern Amiga hardware might be like? Yes. Will I enjoy running through the single player game when I buy it? Who knows. But both those questions comprise a different matter entirely to whether or not it's "playable"... surely?

_________________
My new blog

@kas1e

Quote:

kas1e wrote: @Karlos Cool_amigans just trying to say, that our 3d drivers are suck (and is it). No need to fight with facts :)

Saying the same thing over and over will not solve anything, but will annoy a lot of people (I know that it's annoying me). We've heard this same moaning over and over in the past week, the past month, the past few years. We know. Things are being done to improve the situation, but will take time. Get over it.

BTW, Karlos wasn't questioning this fact at all. He was merely pointing out (correctly) that what constitutes a playable framerate is rather subjective. Why Cool_amigaN cannot accept that some people might find single-player Q-II playable at 15 fps (even if they'd prefer it to be higher), I don't know.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.

@Hans

Precisely.

And, to answer his question regarding Q2 on the old P90 I mentioned above, it got anywhere between 10-20fps (usually around 12-15) depending on the scene. That was with a 96MB of ram and a 4 or 8MB PCI ATI xPert card (forget which one exactly, was fitted after the machine itself was already obsoleted by 200+ MHz machines). If I recall it was running at 400x300 16-bit (may have been 15, not that it matters), dynamic lights disabled. It didn't take much to finish it, just plenty of circular strafing and the odd grenade jump.

Half life, though, that was just too much for that old system though.

_________________
IBrowse/AWeb user? amiga.org - classic browser edition

@asymetrix

Quote:

asymetrix wrote: @Hammer Great results indeed, for a netbook ! Your getting 6% difference when increasing the screen resolution. The massive1.dm2 map shows your average fps during multiplayer gameplay.

Valve's Portal 2 at 1280x800p running smooth on Acer W500 results http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPV7Q95Jyq4

Last edited by Hammer on 01-Jul-2011 at 11:25 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 01-Jul-2011 at 10:59 PM.

@Cool_amigaN Quote:

I 'll go silently, since I am the one that only complains

At the risk of repeating myself, it is NOT your complaining that is the problem, it is HOW you complain that is: It is perfectly possible to say that your Quake 2 framerate of X fps is not acceptable for you, without having to resort to blowing things out of all proportion, being extremely negative about it all, and repeating the same thing for years without any new insights.

I know that as an "early adopter" you were expecting better 3D performance from your Sam440, and were disappointed by the results (which I perfectly understand). Turns out that the combination of a 667MHz Sam440 with OS4.1 is not a super-duper 3D gaming machine, and hopefully no-one else will make that mistake. This was a risk you took as an early adopter. But if it is really not suitable for most of the tasks you wanted to use it for, then I am not quite sure why you don't sell it (and say buy a second-hand Pegasos 2) rather than keep on moaning about it for several years? Unless you LIKE to moan?

Quote:

and everyone else thinks is somewhat cool playing Q2 at 15 fps, drawing picture in Gimp via Amicygnix at 2 fps, playing Q3 at 12 fps and fighting to play DVD movie

Lying for effect does not help your case. (The figures you used may well be correct (I don't know about GIMP), but how you used them is not.)

AmigaOS4 does a lot of things nicely, but there is also some software which does not run brilliantly, particularly on a low-end machine like a 667MHz Sam440. AmigaOS4 & it's software is a "work in progress", which is gradually improving.

If you were expecting it to *already* completely replace a Windows system (particularly on a low-end Sam440) then you were mistaken. Personally speaking I choose to use AmigaOS4 for what it is good at (I can give a long list), and a Windows PC for what it isn't. As things improve I can use the Windows PC less & less.

Quote:

The standards in amiga land have come far, far too low.

No, it is just that your expectations seem to be completely out of whack with reality, and you choose to keep moaning instead of actually doing something about it (or learning patience).

Quote:

However, for your reference, I did not join any conversation for many many months because I really don't want to be called again and again moaner,

If you don't want to be called a moaner, then don't act like one. Report problems politely, without excessive negativity.

Quote:

while the only thing I am doing here in this thread is to provide actual feedback of the system.

Sorry, no, you have managed to mix a lot of moaning in with your feedback. As usual


Quote:

Now that benchmarks are out there, anyone can decide for himself.

The benchmarks have been "out there" for ages, if you looked. The rest of us already knew that 3D performance, particularly on a Sam440, is not that great. Thankfully this should improve when we get Gallium 3D with AmigaOS4.2, at least if you have a semi-modern graphics card (the graphics chip built into the original mini-itx Sam440ep won't do.)

But your mini-itx Sam440 is never going to be a super 3D games machine. The processor power is too low, it lacks a suitable 3D graphics chip for Gallium 3D, and adding a Radeon card to a 33MHz PCI slot isn't very optimal.


All I can say is I am glad OS4 was never ported to the 400MHz Efika with 128MB of RAM. I shudder to think what you'd say about such a system.

Last edited by ChrisH on 05-Jul-2011 at 12:37 AM.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
I love using Amiga OS4.1 on my A1-X1000 & Sam440
Don't forget the official support forum for OS4!

@asymetrix

Quote:

asymetrix wrote: @Hammer Great results indeed, for a netbook ! Your getting 6% difference when increasing the screen resolution. The massive1.dm2 map shows your average fps during multiplayer gameplay.

FYI, the next 40nm TSMC AMD Z series APU(Hondo) has 2 watts "app power" and under 4.5 watts TDP. Clockspeed and shader/stream processor count (i.e. 80) still the same as Z-01 (Desna).

Current Z-01 APU has 4 watts "app power" and 5.9 watts TDP.

Last edited by Hammer on 05-Jul-2011 at 03:09 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 05-Jul-2011 at 03:05 AM.

@Hans

Quote:

Saying the same thing over and over will not solve anything, but will annoy a lot of people (I know that it's annoying me). We've heard this same moaning over and over in the past week, the past month, the past few years. We know. Things are being done to improve the situation, but will take time. Get over it.

I already get over it and its not moaning, its just facts. And yes, i say that thinks for now get imporved, and let's hope gallium/mesa will fast enough, which yes, will take a time. No need to think that someone "moaning" something. I know situation pretty much :)

Its just all looks like that some of you start to protect slow 3d drivers when start to saying that 15fps can be enough for someone. Ok, let's for you and for karlos 15 fps enough, but then, 90% of any gamers will never happy with 15fps with any kind of game. You and karlos can be in 10% (or even smaller) , who can protect slow framerates.

Its just strage when someone saying that 15fps for someone can be enough. Of course, for someone and 1 fps can be enough. But its just madness.

Quote:

BTW, Karlos wasn't questioning this fact at all. He was merely pointing out (correctly) that what constitutes a playable framerate is rather subjective. Why Cool_amigaN cannot accept that some people might find single-player Q-II playable at 15 fps (even if they'd prefer it to be higher), I don't know.

And cool_amigan, and lately i am, and almost every sane user of course can't accept it.

"the Point" which mean that 15fps for any kind of game can be playable only, can be correctly for few ppls. If you will get any new user from any operation system, and say him : 15 fps will be playable for you in any game ? He will say - no. And still, of course, it possible to found some ppls for who 1 or 5 fps are playable too. For who better to disable all the effects , playing in single player, and say " i told you ! its playable!".

Imho its all just wrong, to say that 15fps playable , while we have slow 3d drivers (it not moaning, i just saying fact).

When we will have 60fps normally in quake2 on sams , then we can discuss that for someone 15 fps its enough. But when 15 fps its maximum, then its just funny, and annoy much more in comapre with "saying over and over that our 3d suck and slow".

_________________
aos4/aros/mos projects & articles

If you like any amiga related work i do, feel free to donate

I don't want to enter deeply into this discussion, but 15 FPS can't never be enough to play decently any 3D games, for example to play Quake 3 at a playable framerate (with enemies and so on) you need atleast 21+ or more FPS, less FPS means you can't control your player so you can't fight at all

Having said that, actually on my Sam Flex i don't get 15 FPS but more, GLQuake from m3x give me atleast 32/33 FPS (Radeon 9250 of course) while on the not-released-yet IOQuake3 i get 20,6 FPS at 640*480 (maximum details)

Don't know about Quake 2 as i didn't make any benchmark yet but i think it give much more that only 15 FPS, maybe 22/25, at the end i can say it's quite playable here

But still, we need a better 3D support for sure !

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@ChrisH

Mate, I have seen/used MorphOS in Efika, the overall performance is even worse than 440/OS4.x. When I had to judge the system in one of our national forum I did it freely. If I saw anyone here saying "OWB draw websites in Efika really great" or "System feels very responsive :bananas everywhere:", then I would have jumped into the discussion, because, the least I could say is that the comment would have been misleading along with a very strong mix of fanboyism.

Same goes for comments such as "wow, AOS really flies on Sam", "Q2 works really well!", where as the truth is "OMG, I just managed to see a whole DVD movie with less than 3 fps skipping and though now I have a slight headache it's time for :aspirins everywhere:"

I am not selling the Sam yet, because I want to try the upcoming Update 3 and because the amount it could potentially gather would be less than 1/2 of the value I paid. I am not interested in PegII, as I have a G4 Power Mac with MorphOS already. I 've used an OS4/PegII, as I 've written previously, 34 fps at Q2 are laughable, no matter how I look it. It is around a 466 Celeron within cheap built in S3 gfx, lol. So I prefer to have it and give it a spin every 6 months or so in order to check how AmigaOS is developing and because, honestly, I do find it amusing after 2 years of engagement to offer a free reality check every now and then to the community :)

Again, however, I don't believe that the hardware power is the problem. 440 has the raw power of around a PIII 500Mhz (as the blender test/benchmark reveled), it has a capable built in gfx which I am more than sure can handle Q2 very very good. The problem is the OS and when saying "ok, we don't have good 3D drivers" is not exactly the truth. We have ####ty 3D drivers would be accurate. It is plainly impossible the game to be underperforming so badly and reach the overall fps rate of a 1996 Win 95 machine. We are not trying to play Crisis, DNF or any semi-modern FPS game. We are talking about Q2, a 14 years old game.

By the way, Kick Off 2 in A500 was the first game to break the barrier of 50 fps as it was written ages back in Amiga Format, in order to have a comparison between games/systems throughout the amiga line of life. Would it be playable at 14 fps? Sure. But ask yourself, KO2 at 14 fps would it be KO2 really? And what would you say to anyone praising this performance?

_________________

@Cool_amigaN

Well more or less i can agree with you, but also there are no reason to blame 10000 times our developers everytime and everywhere with the same questions, we all know that our 3D have problems under OS4, repeat that other XXX times it's just annoying and doesn't help to improve the situation :-/

I think they are working on it, so relax and let's see what happen

By the way sometimes this community have really a strange attitude, there are people always ready to start flaming and trolling even when there is no reason at all and often they never use AmigaOS4 too, while in opposition of them there are people always ready to defend any incredible bad things. (maybe as extreme defence from them)

That's remember me when i was "attacked" just because after 2 years of poor development i start to criticize Joerg for his work under Reaction OWB (me and other were really active in betatesting and bug report of it, so we talked with some reason).

Some people, maybe using the same defence tactic againts troll start to call me "troll" and they say somethings like:

Why you attack Joerg ? OWB is the best blablabla ...

But at the end our critic help a developer like kas1e to think about MUI OWB, port, then they start to port it and now we can hope to use a decent browser on our amigas.

So at the end i think that what we miss in general in our community is just a normal attitude, critic only when there is a reason to critic (but to help, to suggest and so on) and ban people that live only to kill our community with all their bad crap ...

Of course just my 0.5 cents

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@kas1e

Why are you turning this into a pro/anti current 3D driver thing? You (and others) seem to feel the need to shoot down anything that has even a hint of positivity about the current drivers, no matter how trivial. Are you scared that replacement drivers won't happen if people aren't universally negative about it? There really is no need because:
- People enjoying using the current drivers will NOT slow down development of better ones
- Being negative about the current drivers will NOT speed up development of better drivers
- Even people who find games playable at lower frame rates would like to have better 3D drivers

Let me make this clear, this has NOTHING to do with "protecting" slow frame-rates or the status quo. What I said was: whether it is playable at that frame-rate or not is rather SUBJECTIVE (i.e., it depends on who's playing). The keyword is SUBJECTIVE. Want proof? Look at this very thread. Some think that it is playable, and others (like you) think that it's not. Case closed.

Hans

P.S. The "moaning" comment was NOT directed at you personally, but at the way that the same "3D sucks" comments have been repeated over and over and over ad nauseum in threads for a while.

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.