»

[pan1k]

I'll check when I get home tonight.

[pan1k]

OK. Something happened to my install of Quake. I reinstalled off the CD, the game launches but I still see my workbench and can hear the audio.. wtf?! Any ideas people?

[pan1k]

Originally Posted by Karlos

Wait, what? You are running a 68060, software-rendered version of quake, in 15-bit at 800x600 ?

Are you sure?

Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.

[HotRod]

Originally Posted by pan1k

Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.

Now that sounds more like it :-P . I ran it on a CSPPC with a 060 and a Voodoo 4 and it was never playable at any resolution above 320x200 or 320x256. The 15-bit mode are pretty cool though.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by smerf

Hi,

I play Quake at 35 to 41 frames per second using Cloanto's Amiga Forever at the resolution, I believe 1280 by 1024.

smerf

Bully for you. And this helps the discussion how ?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by rvo_nl

Are you sure this is right? I can hardly run the game at playable speed in that resolution yet Im using the PPC/Warp3D version.

From memory I had quake running on PPC with bvison at like 1024 x678 , cant remeber the fps but was very playable.

[fitzsteve]

Originally Posted by Karlos

Wait, what? You are running a 68060, software-rendered version of quake, in 15-bit at 800x600 ?

Are you sure?

Must be running in Warp3D, not possible to render at that resolution at over 1fps in software! (unless via Winuae! in JIT)

Warp3D version will give 7-10fps at this res with 50mhz 060 which is very playable. Runs very nice indeed on my 72mhz 060

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by utri007

Runequest: It is because Zorro vs. AGA bus speed. 4,2 vs. 5

With Mediator it si possible to get quite much higher FSP with quake I belive?

Try to find Clickboom Quake060.exe it is 2 fps faster than original exe

4.2MB/s on ZorroII is quite an optimistic value, 3.5MB/s is probably more accurate :-) On AGA in optimal conditions you can transfer data to chipmem at 7MB/s. On OCS machines it's probably around 3.5MB/s with a good cpu accelerator.

I guess that games like Quake would benefit quite a lot killing the OS and writting to chipmem when there's no display and also crunching numbers while the c2p is being done.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by pan1k

Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.

I was about to say, someone must have gone in and optimised the hell out of it since I last looked, then. In reality 800x600 at 15-bit would need 937.5KiB per frame to be transferred over the bus. So, even with an infinitely fast CPU (where rendering and game logic takes no time at all), the best you could get out of for example the BVision would be about ~15fps. A mediator 1200 based graphics card would probably max out at about 8-9fps under the same conditions.

[JJ]

Im probably getting confussed with running glquake on an old pc or something

[pan1k]

I did find a patch on Aminet and used it. It gave me an extra 2 or 3 fps. I played around with the different screen modes, and for me, the 200X320 8bit Cybervision was slower (but not by much) to the 200X300 AGA mode. Maybe I was thinking of when I had a PPC card.. *shrug*

[B00tDisk]

I think it's best to realize that given bus speed limitations and CPU clock issues that an Amiga with 68k (even a souped up one) can't push textured polys around at any acceptable resolution.

Now with that said, yeah, you can get some screaming speeds out of UAE+Quake, or Doom on 68k based systems.

But Quake is after the Amiga's time, and "getting it to play" at tiny, tiny screensizes and tiny resolutions is an iffy prospect at best, assuming you want consistent FPS in double digits.

[pan1k]

Can someone explain to me the different rendering options under quake? There was c2p, double and even triple modes. Normal 3.1 routines and 040-060 routines depending on what screenmode was in use.

[pan1k]

From ClickBOOM FAQ:

So, is there anything I can do to improve speed other than to buy better hardware?
Sure there is. You can use some or all of the options listed below (not in any particular order):
- Reduce the size of displaying area by using "-" key.
- Use odd , oddx2 , 1x2 or 2x2 screen modes.
- Choose a different "blur distance" value.
- Choose a different "detail" value.
- If you are playing it on AGA, don't use slow Multiscan, DBLNTS or DBLPAL modes.
- Choose not to display your weapon.
- Turn sound off.
- Play with a mouse.
- Choose "always run" option.
- If you have 060 be a real man and overclock it to 66MHz!
- Stick to 8-bit mode. 16-bit looks better but is slower.
- If you have an 060 board in your A4000 put memory simms on it rather than the motherboard.
- Disable water warping.

I didn't see a higher FPS rate with my Cybervision. Weird huh? Maybe if I got a faster 060 it would help. MIne is 50MHZ.

[LaserBack]

in my experience in 3d shooter' games ....AGA is always faster than any gfx card...even compared with the fastest zorro 3 cards like the picasso 4 or the cybervision 64 /3d
AGA in PAL mode or NTSC beats any gfx card
the few exceptions are of course if the game uses warp3d libraries where the 3d engine of the gfx card do all the work....for example GL quake