🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3ee1cd$gtp$1...@perth.DIALix.oz.au> ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Matt Bruce) writes:

>What a game... move over Doom!

Yeah, it's 3-D doom and then some ... and 8-player network games too.

Forget Doom and Maget Carpet :)

Tim

Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: 	Site:	wcarchive.cdrom.com
:    Directory:   /.17/games/incoming
:        Files:   descent1.zip & descent2.zip

wcarchive.cdrom.com is also accessible by using ftp.cdrom.com.  I've created
a descent directory, for all descent related programs.  Please place all
descent related uploads in /pub/descent.  Also check there for the latest
faqs and programs for descent.

	-Matt A.

t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) wrote:
>In <3ee1cd$gtp$1...@perth.DIALix.oz.au> ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Matt Bruce) writes:
>
>>What a game... move over Doom!
>
>Yeah, it's 3-D doom and then some ... and 8-player network games too.
>
Plus you can quit and join net games at anytime.  Personally I like this
game more than Doom 1 & 2, and Heretic, because it is much harder to learn
the levels in Descent than in the other games.  The only things that I know
from each level are the exits.

RonB


+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|Ron Blancarte                   |					  |
|University of Texas at Austin   |		This Space		  |
|Go 'Horns!!!                    |		 For Rent		  |
|Go Cowboys!!!                   |					  |
+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------+

Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: You'll need both files. They are around 1.4Mb each.
  
  Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
crawl on a 486/33???

In <3efh4n$h...@panix3.panix.com>, c...@panix.com () writes:
>Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
>: You'll need both files. They are around 1.4Mb each.
>
>  Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
>crawl on a 486/33???

  Might want to check your memory setup. It flies on my 486/66....I'm also
running it on OS/2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Aupperlee                "Hey, Cool ! They got a blimp !"
*These statements are mine*                 - The Tick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3efh4n$h...@panix3.panix.com>, c...@panix.com () wrote:

>   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
> crawl on a 486/33???

I dunno, it must be your system. It runs like a dream on my 386/25.

:)

Val

--
Val Dodge | Toronto, Ontario | Finger me and discover the meaning of pain.

c...@panix.com wrote:
: Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: : You'll need both files. They are around 1.4Mb each.
:   
:   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
: crawl on a 486/33???

I was running an Intel 486DX33 and it ran pretty good, I upgraded to the 
Intel 486DX2/66 and I have no complaints what-so-ever. I'm also running 
this off of a Double-Spaced drive with 8 meg Ram.

I did recently upgrade my Video Board so I'm running @ 2000/pixels per 
second under windows at 800 x 640.

Anyway...can't see why a 486/66 would give you unenjoyable play....you do 
have a math co-processor? That would probably speed up graphic and 
orientation intensive operations....

Good luck!

--
Ken Ottinger, Sui Juris

Red Rock Memorial Lodge #63 F&AM | Steps of Zion Universal Life Church
Arizona Research Lodge #1        | http://www.primenet.com/~ottinge/index.html
32',KT,MPS,QCCC,SRICF            | 
Royal Order of Scotland          | ott...@primenet.com

In <3efh4n$h...@panix3.panix.com>, c...@panix.com () writes:
>Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
>: You'll need both files. They are around 1.4Mb each.
>
>  Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
>crawl on a 486/33???

It FLIES on my 486/33 16Mb with OS/2 Warp 3.0. I made warp think the DOS
session has 10Mb of DPMI and it works great. no crawl here.

C Ya all,
                Rann Glaser
                homewarp/warp/warp2 on IRC

>v...@io.org (Val Dodge) writes:

>It runs like a dream on my 386/25.



	How is that possible?!  I have a 486DX/33 and it goes slower
than all hell, but when I tested it a Parallax I played on P90's and on
them it Rocked.  I see no way it could run like a 'dream' on a 386.
That must be some 386! 

Dave

>>>>> Ken Ottinger <ott...@primenet.com> writes:

> :   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
> : crawl on a 486/33???

> I was running an Intel 486DX33 and it ran pretty good

I have a DX/33 with an ISA Diamond Speedstar, and I get a good framerate
(~17fps, I would guess) with detail set to lowest and the window reduced to
the smallest size where your missile indicators on the HUD are still
hollow.

KEY: Do not use an EMM or disk cache.  As with WC3, these things slow
Descent down a lot.

Jason

In article <D1xzF...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>,
Eric Aupperlee <eaupp...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>In <3efh4n$h...@panix3.panix.com>, c...@panix.com () writes:
>>  Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
>>crawl on a 486/33???
>  Might want to check your memory setup. It flies on my 486/66....I'm also
>running it on OS/2.

Also try making the screen size smaller.  It helps IMMENSELY on my
386/40, especially in Deathmatch with IHHD.
--
Jeremy Schertzinger            jere...@eskimo.com  --  jer...@scn.org
      http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/           Happy New Year!
    "The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending
               they're not liberals."    -- Rush Limbaugh

In article <JASON.95J...@phydeaux.cygnus.com>,
Jason Merrill <ja...@cygnus.com> wrote:
>I have a DX/33 with an ISA Diamond Speedstar, and I get a good framerate
>(~17fps, I would guess) with detail set to lowest and the window reduced to
>the smallest size where your missile indicators on the HUD are still
>hollow.
>
>KEY: Do not use an EMM or disk cache.  As with WC3, these things slow
>Descent down a lot.

I use a 256k disk cache and it helps.  Don't use any more than that,
though, or it cuts into your memory too much.

--
Jeremy Schertzinger            jere...@eskimo.com  --  jer...@scn.org
      http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/           Happy New Year!
    "The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending
               they're not liberals."    -- Rush Limbaugh

c...@panix.com wrote:
:   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
: crawl on a 486/33???

It works great on my 486/50.
   koth

In article <3efh4n$h...@panix3.panix.com> c...@panix.com () writes:
>From: c...@panix.com ()
>Subject: Re: Descent rocks!!
>Date: 4 Jan 1995 20:13:59 -0500

>Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
>: You'll need both files. They are around 1.4Mb each.
>
>  Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
>crawl on a 486/33???

It dosn't.
The game uses ca 15megs of data (sw version), so on my dx2/66 with 14 megs
free I have aprox 1meg of virtual drive, and the thing ROCKS!
The doc sais it's choppy on less than 50 MHz, and with less than 8megs.
So - you need more RAM, and no P90.
-Simen
Please disregard this .sig, as it is out of date and out of order.
-Simen.timi...@hiof.no

Brent Bergwall (ko...@netcom.com) wrote:
: c...@panix.com wrote:
: :   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
: : crawl on a 486/33???

: It works great on my 486/50.
:    koth

Not to be rude or mean, but odds are you 486/33 and 486/66 people that
think Descent runs great, probably haven't seen it on a Pentium.  I
personally don't care to play the game on anything else than a 486/66, and
I can hardly stand that.  It's fine on a Pentium/60.  However I like it
best on my Pentium/90 w/24mb RAM (loads fast too, <grin>).  And if you've
ever played multiplayer (8 player in particular), you'll notice even a
486/66 will CRAWL with many people in a room shooting.  While the
Pentium/90 will stay quite smooth.

	-Matt A.

(and yes, when it comes to computers, I'm greedy... spend spend spend!)

In article <3efc4m$e...@Reason.cdrom.com> ay...@wc.cdrom.com (Matthew Ayres) writes:
>From: ay...@wc.cdrom.com (Matthew Ayres)
>Subject: Re: Descent rocks!!
>Date: 4 Jan 1995 23:48:37 GMT
>Matt Bruce (ma...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
>: 	Site:	wcarchive.cdrom.com
>:    Directory:   /.17/games/incoming
>:        Files:   descent1.zip & descent2.zip
>
>wcarchive.cdrom.com is also accessible by using ftp.cdrom.com.  I've created
>a descent directory, for all descent related programs.  Please place all
>descent related uploads in /pub/descent.  Also check there for the latest
>faqs and programs for descent.
>
>	-Matt A.


Descent SUCKS - what a load of old cobblers. This is a FINE game


M.G

In <3evhug$c...@Reason.cdrom.com>, ay...@wc.cdrom.com (Matthew Ayres) writes:
>Brent Bergwall (ko...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: c...@panix.com wrote:
>: :   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
>: : crawl on a 486/33???
>
>: It works great on my 486/50.
>:    koth
>
>Not to be rude or mean, but odds are you 486/33 and 486/66 people that
>think Descent runs great, probably haven't seen it on a Pentium.  I
>personally don't care to play the game on anything else than a 486/66, and
>I can hardly stand that.  It's fine on a Pentium/60.  However I like it
>best on my Pentium/90 w/24mb RAM (loads fast too, <grin>).  And if you've
>ever played multiplayer (8 player in particular), you'll notice even a
>486/66 will CRAWL with many people in a room shooting.  While the
>Pentium/90 will stay quite smooth.
>
>	-Matt A.
>
>(and yes, when it comes to computers, I'm greedy... spend spend spend!)

wow... and the p90 can even keep you warm in a cold winter.... 2 for the
price of one.... unless you need floating point ofcourse...


C Ya,
Rann Glaser

In <3ekjna$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, dave...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Dave) writes:
>>v...@io.org (Val Dodge) writes:
>
>>It runs like a dream on my 386/25.
>
>
>
>	How is that possible?!  I have a 486DX/33 and it goes slower
>than all hell, but when I tested it a Parallax I played on P90's and on
>them it Rocked.  I see no way it could run like a 'dream' on a 386.
>That must be some 386!
>
>Dave
>
Well, you he might be refering to the fact that he can go to sleep, dream
and wake up while playing... hehee. Anyhow, it runs great (rock n' rolls)
on my 486-33 16Mb under OS/2 Warp 3.0. Moreover, my friend ran it on his
8Mb 486-66 OS/2 Warp 3.0 machine and it ran better then under DOS under
the SAME machine. It seems like OS/2's memory managment is MUCH better
then the DOS-Extender's one.... I thought he was bluffing at first till I
went to his played and watched for myself... amazing.

C Ya all, and rock n' roll!
Rann Glaser

In article <3ekjna$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
           dave...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu "Dave" writes:

>         How is that possible?!  I have a 486DX/33 and it goes slower
> than all hell, but when I tested it a Parallax I played on P90's and on
> them it Rocked.  I see no way it could run like a 'dream' on a 386.
> That must be some 386!
>
> Dave
I have a 486DX33 which runs it perfectly well. I haven't seen it on a
Pentium, but I am satisfied with the performance - it is only slightly
slower than Doom ][! The 16 megs ram could have something to do with it,
tho...
--
---
 _________________________________________
|Adam Williamson      |Maintainer of the  |
|ad...@scss.demon.co.uk|Wolfenstein 3D FAQ,|
|"The views expressed |and total computer |
|here do not represent|nut. "Computers    |
|those of my pet      |forever! Pass me   |
|lemming."            |those pills!       |
|_____________________|___________________|

SIMEN TIMIAN THORESEN (simen.timi...@hiof.no) wrote:
: >
: >  Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
: >crawl on a 486/33???

: It dosn't.
: The game uses ca 15megs of data (sw version), so on my dx2/66 with 14 megs
: free I have aprox 1meg of virtual drive, and the thing ROCKS!
: The doc sais it's choppy on less than 50 MHz, and with less than 8megs.
: So - you need more RAM, and no P90.

I ran it on a DX2-66 and I too thought it lagged when in a room with
enemies and the reactor while shooting!  I've since pushed my DX2-66 to
be a DX2-80 and it works MUCH better now.  Hardly and slowdown.  Smooth
as silk over the modem too!  It was only until I fired like 4 or 5
missiles that I noticed it slowed a bit.

In article <3evhug$c...@Reason.cdrom.com> ay...@wc.cdrom.com (Matthew Ayres) writes:

>Brent Bergwall (ko...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: c...@panix.com wrote:
>: :   Both files and a P90 to play it... Why does this game lag on a 486/66 and
>: : crawl on a 486/33???

>: It works great on my 486/50.
>:    koth

>Not to be rude or mean, but odds are you 486/33 and 486/66 people that
>think Descent runs great, probably haven't seen it on a Pentium.  I
>personally don't care to play the game on anything else than a 486/66, and
>I can hardly stand that.  It's fine on a Pentium/60.  However I like it
>best on my Pentium/90 w/24mb RAM (loads fast too, <grin>).  And if you've
>ever played multiplayer (8 player in particular), you'll notice even a
>486/66 will CRAWL with many people in a room shooting.  While the
>Pentium/90 will stay quite smooth.
I'm VERY pleased with how well it plays on my DX2-66 with only 8 meg RAM, and
I've seen it on a P90 with 16.  There is a difference, but hardly important.
I thought it stayed quite smooth even in a four player match where we were all
in the same room.  In fact, I detect a much bigger difference between my
computer and P90s when playing deathmatch in Doom II.  All I can say is, I am
incredibly impressed with the game:  I really didn't think action this smooth
in 3D was possible, and I don't see how people can get excited over Heretic or
Dark Forces once they've played Descent.


Random
------
alw...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
ytalk ran...@random.resnet.upenn.edu
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~alwang/al.html

> I have found that there is an enormous range of differing performance that
> you can get out of machines which have even the same chip. I've played on
> a friends network and one of the 486 66's was so slow that I had to play
> on the smallest window with detail low and it still crawled. This
> particular 486 was so bad that it was slower than his older 486-25. The
> reason for this, as I understand it, is that the 66 has no graphics
> accellerator. This apparently makes a huge difference. I would also assume
> it has a slower bus.

[stuff deleted]

> The lesson here is that if you have a poorly set up, poorly configured
> 486-66 you can get terrible performance out of it. If, on the other hand,
> you have a well setup machine you can get superb performance out it. The
> chip can be the same but with different components the outcome can be
> drastically different.

Two friends of mine had similar problems with computer speed.  It is 
strange that a 486DX266 would run slower than a 486 25.  I could only see 
this happening if the manufacturer used total crap parts for the DX2 and 
the manufacturer of the 486 25 used the best things available.  If your 
system is running slower than something obviously inferior, check the 
system configuration out.

When my friend complained of problems with his computer, he said that his 
486 DX2 50 ran slower than his dads 486 DX33.  It turns out that his 
external cache RAM was disabled in CMOS.  When the cache was enabled, his 
system ran at least twice as fast.

My other friend has a 486 DX2 66.  He also complained that his computer 
ran too slow.  I checked his CMOS, and sure enough, someone disabled his 
external AND internal cache RAM.  Talk about trying to sabotage a 
computer!  Disabling all of the cache memory made the computer crawl.  
And on top of that, the system wasn't shadowing his video's ROM (which 
makes the video run faster).

After I enabled his cache and video rom shadow, his system ran Wing 
Commander III fairly decently in SVGA mode, and he commented on the setup 
screen (with the rotating capital ship), "Hey... That's mass faster than 
before."

Anyhow, my point is, it doesn't necessarily have to be the video 
equipment, the CPU, or even the bus.  Simply having your cache disabled 
is enough to hamper computer speed.

Chuck
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
      _______________        ________   ___________  ___________   __________
     /SungMin "Chuck"\      |        \ |           ||           | /          |
 _  /       Lee       \  _   \   ___  \ \   _____  ||  _____   / /          /

Sung Min Charley Lee (chuc...@uclink3.berkeley.edu) wrote:

: > I have found that there is an enormous range of differing performance that
: > you can get out of machines which have even the same chip. I've played on
: > a friends network and one of the 486 66's was so slow that I had to play
: > on the smallest window with detail low and it still crawled. This
: > particular 486 was so bad that it was slower than his older 486-25. The
: > reason for this, as I understand it, is that the 66 has no graphics
: > accellerator. This apparently makes a huge difference. I would also assume
: > it has a slower bus.

: [stuff deleted]

: Anyhow, my point is, it doesn't necessarily have to be the video 
: equipment, the CPU, or even the bus.  Simply having your cache disabled 
: is enough to hamper computer speed.

CMOS settings can really change a computer's performance if not setup 
optimally. Many computer's default setting are very conservative. 
Settings such as DRAM wait states can cause a huge change, there are some 
FAQs on the ibm.hardware.pc groups that can give you some ideas as how to 
optimize your settings.

camiles

Alaska (ff...@aurora.alaska.edu) wrote:
: I have found that there is an enormous range of differing performance that
: you can get out of machines which have even the same chip. I've played on
: a friends network and one of the 486 66's was so slow that I had to play
: on the smallest window with detail low and it still crawled.

  I use a 486/66 at work, and while it does just fine normally, once it 
crawled so bad that I was getting about 1 frame/second. Exiting and going 
into the game didn't help, but rebooting did. I have no Idea what caused it.

--
Mike "Agent of Chaos" Swaim | sw...@phoenix.net | disclamer: I lie.