UT2003 Demo is out now!!!

[thop]

Faramir1996: jip, no chance.

[TdB]

Originally posted by Admiral


nVidia

I belive the Parhelia is capable of 16x.

I think it is 8x with trilinear and 16x with bilinear.

Im not sure though.

[jackzod]

Heres some bench
done on a radeon 8500 retail 64 meg
Just to compare (Im still waiting to upgrade i didnt made my mind yet between P and a 9700)

All these score are at 1024x768 32bit
on a P4northwood@1.8

noaa/nofsaa
Flyby: 111
Bot: 43

16x aniso/nofsaa
Flyby: 111
Bot: 43
no change at all which is surprising (suspicious ?)

16x/aniso and fsaax2
FB: 59..
Bot:38

16xaniso and 4x fsaa
FB: 24
bot: 19

I tried to O/c my comp to 2.25 ghz for the fun of it

noFsaa and no AF
FB: 125
bot: 54

as we can see the botmatch is heavily cpu dependant like UT was

Now if i could see some score of the P with a rig similar to mine

[103er-Fan]

Originally posted by jackzod
Now if i could see some score of the P with a rig similar to mine

I don't know how similar my system is... but I have an Athlon XP 2000+, maybe they are comparable. Take a look at the benchmark forum.

[luni]

Results on my system (Thunderbird 1.2GHz on MS 6330 Lite (yeah I know ), 512MB SDRAM, Win2k SP3, Parhelia Retail)

1024x768:
Aniso off, no FAA: 79,4/26,2
Aniso on, 16x FAA: 50,5/21

[typedef enum]

Capable vs. Supported

I _really_ wish we could get some kind of sense on the status and/or gameplan for better Anisotropic filtering support.

I mean, if they disabled higher than 2x because of performance reasons @ the time of launch, then there's no reason not to include it now...If it's a legit bug, then...well, that's a different story (hope that's not the case, obviously).

Does anybody know how we can find out? I posted the question in a separate thread, and nobody answered it

[Ryu Connor]

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34822

I did a breakdown of the AF options on Parhelia there. It also is informative for how the other 3D cards work.

The lack of 4x and 8x AF on the Parhelia right now is a bit of a bummer.

[Liquid Snake]

I ran into a problem with the UT2003 demo. It runs too slow

Benchmark.exe results (1024x768)
Flyby: 63
Botmatch: 24

My system is a P3-750 with 384MB of RAM and a Radeon 7500. Running Win2K with the latest ATI Catalyst 2.3 drivers. I was previously using the Omega/Plutonium 1.1.0.7 drivers but UT2003 didn't look right with them. The readme recommended the latest Catalyst drivers anyway.

[103er-Fan]

I just got that from Voodoo Extreme, it is from an interview of nvidia with Cliff Bleszinsky:

Nvidia: What kind of new moves have been incorporated into the game?
Cliff: There was a Matrix mod for UT that did a lot of things we were thinking about. We’ve implemented the Double Jump into UT 2003. It’s one of the most exciting features – you can get extra height from jumping twice. The game really looks realistic thanks to next-generation Nvidia hardware, but there are a lot of realistic, squad-combat games out there. We’re doing some counter-programming. We thought that we might as well leverage some of the crazy elements of the game.

I am wondering if he gets paid to say something about the great nvidia hardware

[Snake-Eyes]

Er, dunno about what he gets paid to mention nVidia hardware, but I ran the benchmark.exe with my Ti4600/AthlonXP2100+ (1845Mhz), with 4Xs FSAA (D3D only- this is the pseudo supersample mode that gives Quincunx AA quality with better textures) and got around 41fps in the botmatch, 96 in the flyby, at 1024x768. (Sorry, didn't take a screenie, cause I hadn't read this topic until later).

Now all I need to do is figure out where to duplicate their hq settings, because the demo benchmark looks noticably better than my in-game settings, and still runs faster.

[Reckless]

Originally posted by 103er-Fan
I just got that from Voodoo Extreme, it is from an interview of nvidia with Cliff Bleszinsky:

Nvidia: What kind of new moves have been incorporated into the game?
Cliff: There was a Matrix mod for UT that did a lot of things we were thinking about. We’ve implemented the Double Jump into UT 2003. It’s one of the most exciting features – you can get extra height from jumping twice. The game really looks realistic thanks to next-generation Nvidia hardware, but there are a lot of realistic, squad-combat games out there. We’re doing some counter-programming. We thought that we might as well leverage some of the crazy elements of the game.

I am wondering if he gets paid to say something about the great nvidia hardware

Indeed, one thing for an unwritten association quite another if the game is now joined at the hip with them.

Doesn't say much for DE/Epic/Infogrames testing ability does it... G400 is mentioned in the readme as if it should run and it clearly doesn't (locks up hard as reported by many users). So, did they not test it at all - they why put it in the readme? Did they test it but then change the code and not regression test it? Not impressed.

[GT98]

ok I got around to playing with UT2003...I'm running 80FPS In Flyby and 39 FPS in a botchmatch @ 1280x960 with my parhelia. Even though the numbers indicated are quote unquote slow on paper...the game is smooth as butter to me. I can run UT at 1600x1200@ FAA16 and get 90 FPS, but I couldnt tell the difference between them.

On my Radeon 8500DV(overclocked in PS)@1280x960 I only got 69 and 32 respectively!

[McElvis]

~ to bring up console or [TAB] for quick command entries.

Then type 'stat fps'

[Ryu Connor]

Hmm.

800x600:16x AA: 2x AF

Flyby: 68
Botmatch: 30

800x600:16x AA:Trilinear

Flyby:82
Botmatch:33

I didn't quite like the way it felt playing either.

[Beezer]

Originally posted by Reckless
Doesn't say much for DE/Epic/Infogrames testing ability does it... G400 is mentioned in the readme as if it should run and it clearly doesn't (locks up hard as reported by many users). So, did they not test it at all - they why put it in the readme? Did they test it but then change the code and not regression test it? Not impressed.

I think it may have something to do with this: Infogames Forums
They say they broke the Voodoo compatibility by accident... possibly applies to G400 as well.