Tweet
quakeIII works great, but why does quake II work bad ?
Under windows 2000 I was VERY suprised to see quake III work so well, just as well as it did back when I had windows NT with earlier openGL drivers. It was 99% perfect 3D using the matrox G400 beta 5.00 drivers for win 2000. But these same drivers suck for quake II. One would think quake III would have more problems since it's using more advanced 3D than quake II. My question does anyone know why quake III works so damn well over quake II under win2K ?
-
-
Maybe you should tell us, Galvin. We're all wondering how you got Quake3 to run so well.
Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net -
LAF, I downloaded the demo I was expecting it to work like crap, the only thing was that the logo screen was all scrambled once that passed, perfect graphics. Speed was decent too and not too shabby at 60hz.
A guess and I am making a guess here is that quake III might be handling some of the openGL extensions or what ever that the openGL driver does not.
Last time I ran this game was in windows NT and all I got was a light show, all the textures kept changing colors like crazy.
So far it's the only 3D game that doesn't crash and exits without messing up the desktop or anything. I'm impressed since it's using a beta openGL driver. just wish quake II worked half as good
[This message has been edited by Galvin (edited 04 February 2000).]Comment
Comment