• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
AHWULF

Please post your FPS here <-------

45 posts in this topic

I want to know now what kind of FPS you experience using the Mac version on OSX PPC or Intel online. Just add a comment something like this:

Dual 2.0 G5, 2.5GB ram, X800, 10.4.8

Flying: 15-50 fps

FB: 15-30FPS

In town battle: 9-13 FPS

It's subjective but there is no perfect test (testing offline is useless as there are no towns nearby).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual 1.8G5, 3Gigs of Ram, X800XT, 10.4.8

Main server

Flying: 30FPS up high, 20 in a small fight, 10-15 over AOs (slide show over remis this weak:P)

FB: 25FPS

In town battle: 8-14FPS depending on size of town

Offline

Binocs zoomed in on nothing(on horizon):30-35FPS

Binocs zoomed in on trees(standing at sheep looking at big 3 rows and worst spot): 10-12 FPS at 1280X960, 6-8 at 1680X1050, 18-20 at 1024X768, and odd spikes to 25+ every couple seconds.

Note: At all times VIA ATI displays performance at max, no AA, AF or Vsync. Only effect is higher FPS (2-3) when viewing trees. Limit LOD and FOV make no noticible difference.

When windowed at town battles where FPS is around 14(yes I can't see a thing, purpose was to test) hardware monitor shows 71 to 91% CPU usage. Note that total maximum is 200% (Quake 4 will take as much as it wants, 186% with rest for system). Why I mention this is because changing resolution does vitually nothing, and the CPUs aren't maxed out... so if bottle neck isn't CPU or GPU, and I've got plenty of memory... whats up???

EDIT:

It's subjective but there is no perfect test (testing offline is useless as there are no towns nearby).

It's still useful to see whats the limit for graphics cards as you have a perfectly repeatable test by standing at the sheep's arse and using binocs on the big row of trees and finding the spot with lowest FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mac Mini Dual 1.66 Intel Core Duo, 2.0GB RAM, Intel GMA 950, 10.4.8

Flying: n/a

FB: 11-14FPS

In town: 5-13 FPS (Aarschot today at 12pm Central US, there weren't a lot of folks there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MacBook Pro 2 GHz Intel Core Duo

Memory: 2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

Video: 256 MB ATY, Radeon X1600

FPS

In Town: 5-9

Out of Town: 11-16

Air: 15-22

Visually I think it looks great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When windowed at town battles where FPS is around 14(yes I can't see a thing' date=' purpose was to test) hardware monitor shows 71 to 91% CPU usage. Note that total maximum is 200% (Quake 4 will take as much as it wants, 186% with rest for system). Why I mention this is because changing resolution does vitually nothing, and the CPUs aren't maxed out... so if bottle neck isn't CPU or GPU, and I've got plenty of memory... whats up??[/quote']

If your CPU max is around 100% +/- on a multi cpu mac the main game loop is mostly 1 thread. What you see with quake is they chopped up the main game loop to divide the work between > 1 threads, which has to be designed in early on. This game was never designed for the bulk of the app to use more than 1 CPU (remember, designed in 1999!). In the future this will no longer be an issue.

The bottleneck has always been deep in Apple's opengl, something in moving data from the CPU to the GPU is running at way less than what it could be. That's why changing so many settings in the game seems to make no difference to the performance: the number of objects being sent to the video card every frame is exactly the same regardless of the size of the view or what the video card is doing with it. And for some odd reason certain older Macs get better FPS than they should, I think the bottleneck code for G4 mac is somehow more optimized.

Personally I think Apple can fix this issue (its not an issue to PC users as nvidia and ATI write their own opengl support but Apple tries to be generic) but so far they seem to not care.

We can fix all of this in the future game engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

overall FPS 2 - 15

in town heavy fighting FPS 2 -4 (unplayable)

FB msns FPS 5 - 10

One on one inf not playable. As soon as an EI get near the FPS drops to 2-4.

Armor seems the best (limited field of view) FPS 5 - 10

933 MHZ G4

9800 Video Card 128 MB

1.25 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to know now what kind of FPS you experience using the Mac version on OSX PPC or Intel online. Just add a comment something like this:

Dual 2.0 G5, 2.5GB ram, X800, 10.4.8

Flying: 15-50 fps

FB: 15-30FPS

In town battle: 9-13 FPS

It's subjective but there is no perfect test (testing offline is useless as there are no towns nearby).

I got 30/35 fps max at FBS, town battles were 20 fps but we have a problem here currently, our Fiber to Europe (Medturk) is again broken so there is a horrible re-routing is taking place, more badly via satellite.

Lag this level REALLY effects game, I really know it.

This is Quad G5 (2500 Mhz), 2,5 GB RAM with NVidia GeForce 6600/256 MB

If I see sane ping replies, I will update the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20-28 in open country

10-15 in towns with battles with occasional drops to 5-6

imac g5 17 inch ppc 10.4.8

ATI Radeon X600 128 mb ram

1.5 gig ram

1.9 ghz

(I tried running it with Leopard under this configuration. Tip for anyone else thinking of trying it: don't bother)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20-28 in open country

10-15 in towns with battles with occasional drops to 5-6

imac g5 17 inch ppc 10.4.8

ATI Radeon X600 128 mb ram

1.5 gig ram

1.9 ghz

(I tried running it with Leopard under this configuration. Tip for anyone else thinking of trying it: don't bother)

uh, you mean panther?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Don't laugh, please.)

G4 533 upgraded to G4 933 MHz CPU, Geforce 3 (64 MB), 1.25 GB RAM, OS 10.4.8

Driving around the countryside in a Churchill: 2-3 fps

Flying: yeah, right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a same basic setup as 'ahwulf' with similar results.

Dual 2.0 G5, 3GB ram, X800, 10.4.8

Flying: haven't flown in long time

FB: ~15-30FPS

In town battle: ~9-13 FPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imac G5 1.8 GHZ

card: GeFart SuX 5200

2Gb Ram

Infantry:

Fb Busts or in country= 10-15 fps

in town battle= 3-8 fps if its really crowded it's worse and unplayable.

I don't fly and I don't tank enough to remember, but atg and aa gives me a few more fps than inf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17" MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Memory: 2 GB / Video: 256 MB Radeon X1600. I'm severly disappointed in this purchase.

OS X 10.4.8:

FPS

In Town: 5-10

Out of Town: 10-15

Air: 15-20

Windows XP Home under bootcamp:

FPS

In Town: 8-12

Out of Town: 10-14

Air: 20-30

I can only run game in Windows briefly as the laptop heats up quickly (Apple severly underclocks the video and memory to keep it so quiet and cool in OSX) and I have to underclock it from 470 down to 400 to keep the fan from running constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17" MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Memory: 2 GB / Video: 256 MB Radeon X1600. I'm severly disappointed in this purchase.

OS X 10.4.8:

FPS

In Town: 5-10

Out of Town: 10-15

Air: 15-20

Windows XP Home under bootcamp:

FPS

In Town: 8-12

Out of Town: 10-14

Air: 20-30

I can only run game in Windows briefly as the laptop heats up quickly (Apple severly underclocks the video and memory to keep it so quiet and cool in OSX) and I have to underclock it from 470 down to 400 to keep the fan from running constantly.

Why are you underclocking JUST to keep the fan off? The fan is built in to cool the laptop, whats the problem? Would you rather they put in integrated intel graphics?

And 2nd, if you are basing the performance of the laptop on the performance of wwiiol, you must be on crack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you underclocking JUST to keep the fan off? The fan is built in to cool the laptop, whats the problem? Would you rather they put in integrated intel graphics?

And 2nd, if you are basing the performance of the laptop on the performance of wwiiol, you must be on crack.

I underclocked so the laptop would run cooler in Windows just as Apple underclocks it to have it run cooler in OS X - the fan running is simply a by product of the laptop heating up. At 470 the X1600's factory setting my MBP heats up enough in WWII Online running Windows XP to initiate the fan within 4 minutes and never shuts off even in an air conditioned enviroment and good air circulation.

The MBP has long been documented with overheating problems and while mine doesn't doesn't seem to overheat in OS X it certainly does in Windows XP while performing high CPU/Video card intensive tasks. I've owned just about every Mac model since 1989 and am a card carrying fan; losing your objectivity and becoming defensive doesn't make you an Apple Evangelist or qualify you to comment on the performance of my MBP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I underclocked so the laptop would run cooler in Windows just as Apple underclocks it to have it run cooler in OS X - the fan running is simply a by product of the laptop heating up. At 470 the X1600's factory setting my MBP heats up enough in WWII Online running Windows XP to initiate the fan within 4 minutes and never shuts off even in an air conditioned enviroment and good air circulation.

Ok, I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were under clocking it even more, but now I see that you were talking about how under windows it doesn't have the proper drivers to control heat, so you have to underclock it manually.

The MBP has long been documented with overheating problems and while mine doesn't doesn't seem to overheat in OS X it certainly does in Windows XP while performing high CPU/Video card intensive tasks. I've owned just about every Mac model since 1989 and am a card carrying fan; losing your objectivity and becoming defensive doesn't make you an Apple Evangelist or qualify you to comment on the performance of my MBP.

Well you didn't state those problems, only that when playing wwiiol it heats up and you were un-satisfied with the performance. My original statement remains, if you were basing the performance of the MBP on wwiiol's performance, then you're not thinking straight. You probably get similar performance as someone with a mac pro does. There are windows users out there posting about how their 2.8GHz AMD, with nvidia 7900 is getting 14-15 FPS.

And again, it overheats in windows cuz it doesn't have the right drivers. If apple had released the same drivers for windows to use with your MBP, you probably wouldn't have heating problems. But then last time I checked, apple makes systems for OSX and bootcamp is a beta.

I'm not losing my objectivity by defending a good product. It overheats because it isn't fully supported under that environment. You could go out and buy a PC laptop if you want something that is twice as thick, or half as powerful. Why does the fact that when apple tries to make a powerful yet small system, it geting hot supprises you? It's harder than you think to design something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10-35 in open country

5-15 in towns with battles with lot of drops to 1-4 (unplayable in big fights as Inf)

Mostly play armour or AA/ATG.

imac g5 17 inch ppc 10.4.8

GeForce FX 5200 64 mb ram

1.25 gig ram

1.8 ghz

I actually think i do ok considering i think my machine is the low spec end of what you need to play this game. I have got my new intel box 256vram with 2gb ram coming soon, se lets see what difference it makes. I will keep these super trimmed down settings for low end mac and play with them, and then bump it up and give it a try.

I will post results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My performance seems to change often. It was better just a few weeks ago it seems. This is where I am at now (as of last night)

iMac 1.8Ghz G5 (3.0)

2GB Ram

nvidia geforce FX 5200

VRAM = 64MB

Latest OSX

Countryside = 5-11 (occassional bumps up to 13 or so)

In Town = 1-4 (cant really play in town anymore) Its usually 2-3, but drops to 1 frequently.

Even if I am out in the field, if a plane flies overhead I am noticing drops to 1 fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VRAM = 64MB is too low, that's why you get the lame fps since 1.25 especially where lots of textures are used. The game actually uses most of a 128MB card but doesn't go beyond that so 256s aren't necessary yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VRAM = 64MB is too low' date=' that's why you get the lame fps since 1.25 especially where lots of textures are used. The game actually uses most of a 128MB card but doesn't go beyond that so 256s aren't necessary yet[/quote']

Naw, i can play with a 64mb card, its tough but if you snipe or guard and stuff its fine. Still the more vram the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My performance seems to change often. It was better just a few weeks ago it seems. This is where I am at now (as of last night)

iMac 1.8Ghz G5 (3.0)

2GB Ram

nvidia geforce FX 5200

VRAM = 64MB

Latest OSX

Countryside = 5-11 (occassional bumps up to 13 or so)

In Town = 1-4 (cant really play in town anymore) Its usually 2-3, but drops to 1 frequently.

Even if I am out in the field, if a plane flies overhead I am noticing drops to 1 fps.

I'm still surprised you have worse FPS than me with teh same machine and more RAM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.