🚀 go-pugleaf

I've got it running on my sons 166 non mmx, with a pure3d, and it works
pretty good. It looks almost as good as on my 400 and pure3d2, its very
playable. I'd much rather play it on my machine, but if I had a 133, I would
get it.

--
ICQ 1082633
elw...@home.msen.com
http://home.msen.com/~elw00d

I just read on some sight that Quake 3 could be up to two years coming.
I hope they aren't right? 

John


Matt wrote:
> 
> Erik E. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > I'm more than a little disappointed in the performance I'm getting -  I
> > expected my machine to age a little more gracefully than this.
> >
> > Plus, I'm FAR from convinced that UNREAL is the game that'll make me belch up
> > the cash for a P2. Quake2 is still silky smooth, Forsaken's pretty good, and
> > Lara Croft's, um, kneecaps look just fine. Plus, with a few more Q2-engine
> > games coming, I think I'll hold off and put UNREAL on the shelf.
> >
> > Why does it suck? When I'm facing a wall 2 inches from my virtual face, things
> > move nice & smooth. But the second I turn around a face a room, an outdoor
> > area, or (worst of all) a moving enemy, I'm down to some abysmal frame rate
> > that I won't try to estimate (I DO know that it's really cruddy). Gaseous
> > effects, volumetric lighting, and 3d audio are indeed impressive, but even
> > after turning them off, the game moves WAY too jerk-illy. Maybe UNREAL wants
> > BOTH an MMX and a 3Dfx. Maybe it wants a P2 and a 3Dfx. But either of those
> > are beyond my budget at this time.
> >
> > What REALLY gets me is how fast this jump happened. The last three games I've
> > purchased have been BattleZone, StarCraft and Army Men. All three of those
> > work just fine, and I'm WELL above the minimum requirements. In particular,
> > BattleZone's outdoor playfields, massive textures, and lens-flare lighting
> > effects look awesome. Now suddenly, I'm obselete (according to Epic
> > Megagames). I realize that the gaming industry ALWAYS pushes the envelope, but
> > this little stunt is bound to hurt sales of this game. At least, I HOPE it
> > does.
> >
> > There's still a large market of wussy little <= 200MHz, non-MMX PC's in the
> > world, and we do enjoy games. Too bad I'm not part of Epic's target market
> > anymore. Too bad, that is, for them, since I'm taking my game back to the
> > store...
> >
> > BTW: system specs are...
> > P166 (no MMX)
> > Monster 3D (the original)
> > 64mb RAM
> >
> > -EA
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Sean Barton wrote:
> >
> 
> You should be interested to know that Quake3, id's current project due
> out later this year I believe, will REQUIRE hardware accelleration, and
> they are recommending at least a PII with a Voodoo2.  It's not just Epic
> that is utilizing more of the higher end systems.  I hardly see how you
> can say it sucks just because your system is listed as the MINIMUM
> system requrements.  All you can justifiably say is that Epic did not
> cater enough to the lower end systems.    If you are dis-satisfied,
> please do take the game back, as everyplace I know is sold out at the
> moment, and you would make one gamer very happy indeed :)
> --
> 
> -Matt
> 
> mspauld at mindspring dot com

I'm more than a little disappointed in the performance I'm getting -  I
expected my machine to age a little more gracefully than this.

Plus, I'm FAR from convinced that UNREAL is the game that'll make me belch up
the cash for a P2. Quake2 is still silky smooth, Forsaken's pretty good, and
Lara Croft's, um, kneecaps look just fine. Plus, with a few more Q2-engine
games coming, I think I'll hold off and put UNREAL on the shelf.

Why does it suck? When I'm facing a wall 2 inches from my virtual face, things
move nice & smooth. But the second I turn around a face a room, an outdoor
area, or (worst of all) a moving enemy, I'm down to some abysmal frame rate
that I won't try to estimate (I DO know that it's really cruddy). Gaseous
effects, volumetric lighting, and 3d audio are indeed impressive, but even
after turning them off, the game moves WAY too jerk-illy. Maybe UNREAL wants
BOTH an MMX and a 3Dfx. Maybe it wants a P2 and a 3Dfx. But either of those
are beyond my budget at this time.

What REALLY gets me is how fast this jump happened. The last three games I've
purchased have been BattleZone, StarCraft and Army Men. All three of those
work just fine, and I'm WELL above the minimum requirements. In particular,
BattleZone's outdoor playfields, massive textures, and lens-flare lighting
effects look awesome. Now suddenly, I'm obselete (according to Epic
Megagames). I realize that the gaming industry ALWAYS pushes the envelope, but
this little stunt is bound to hurt sales of this game. At least, I HOPE it
does.

There's still a large market of wussy little <= 200MHz, non-MMX PC's in the
world, and we do enjoy games. Too bad I'm not part of Epic's target market
anymore. Too bad, that is, for them, since I'm taking my game back to the
store...

BTW: system specs are...
P166 (no MMX)
Monster 3D (the original)
64mb RAM

-EA

----------------------
Sean Barton wrote:

> Can anyone tell me if Unreal will run on my p133 with Pure3D?
>
> This system plays q2 just fine, and I was hoping I could play Unreal on it
> (don't have the cash yet for a PII).  I'm not too excited about paying for
> the game just to find out it won't work on my system.
>
> So how about it?  Anyone out there with a p133 that got the game working?
>
> Thanks,
> Sean

>"Erik E. Anderson" <erik...@spamfree.visi.com> wrote:

>I'm more than a little disappointed in the performance I'm getting -  I
>expected my machine to age a little more gracefully than this.

Get used to it...  It's not like the computer industry hasn't been on
this pace for a while now.

>What REALLY gets me is how fast this jump happened. The last three games I've
>purchased have been BattleZone, StarCraft and Army Men. All three of those
>work just fine, and I'm WELL above the minimum requirements. In particular,
>BattleZone's outdoor playfields, massive textures, and lens-flare lighting
>effects look awesome. Now suddenly, I'm obselete (according to Epic
>Megagames). I realize that the gaming industry ALWAYS pushes the envelope, but
>this little stunt is bound to hurt sales of this game. At least, I HOPE it
>does.

If you're running a P166 with no MMX you've got an OLD system.  You
can't even buy that CPU anymore.  Do you expect the gaming industry to
continue to write games for a market of 2-3 year old PC's when people
are spending $2,000++ on new P2/400mhz systems?  Hell no they're not
going to and it will probably not hurt sales much either.  At least I
HOPE it doesn't.  The game is awesome.

>There's still a large market of wussy little <= 200MHz, non-MMX PC's in the
>world, and we do enjoy games. Too bad I'm not part of Epic's target market
>anymore. Too bad, that is, for them, since I'm taking my game back to the
>store...

That may be the case but you're never going to see the kind of effects
like Unreal has if they have to write games for people with
P133/P166/etc.  

Take your game back and do yourself a favor...  Don't buy any more new
games because I'll guarantee you that Quake3, SIN, Half-Life, and Prey
will all run just as bad as Unreal did.  And if you want to see your
system really suffer, try Total Annihilation.  That game is a lot
harder to run than Unreal!

>BTW: system specs are...
>P166 (no MMX)
>Monster 3D (the original)
>64mb RAM
>-EA

If that's the case then all you need to do is drop a K6/233 in your
board and you'll have twice the system you have now for under a
hundred bux.  My wife is running a P200MMX with 64MB EDO and an
original Monster 3D.  It runs just fine in 640x480.  Do yourself a
favor and upgrade your CPU.  

===[==Rob====-
I'd leave an E-Mail address but I hate spam.  

Erik E. Anderson wrote:
> 
> I'm more than a little disappointed in the performance I'm getting -  I
> expected my machine to age a little more gracefully than this.
> 
> Plus, I'm FAR from convinced that UNREAL is the game that'll make me belch up
> the cash for a P2. Quake2 is still silky smooth, Forsaken's pretty good, and
> Lara Croft's, um, kneecaps look just fine. Plus, with a few more Q2-engine
> games coming, I think I'll hold off and put UNREAL on the shelf.
> 
> Why does it suck? When I'm facing a wall 2 inches from my virtual face, things
> move nice & smooth. But the second I turn around a face a room, an outdoor
> area, or (worst of all) a moving enemy, I'm down to some abysmal frame rate
> that I won't try to estimate (I DO know that it's really cruddy). Gaseous
> effects, volumetric lighting, and 3d audio are indeed impressive, but even
> after turning them off, the game moves WAY too jerk-illy. Maybe UNREAL wants
> BOTH an MMX and a 3Dfx. Maybe it wants a P2 and a 3Dfx. But either of those
> are beyond my budget at this time.
> 
> What REALLY gets me is how fast this jump happened. The last three games I've
> purchased have been BattleZone, StarCraft and Army Men. All three of those
> work just fine, and I'm WELL above the minimum requirements. In particular,
> BattleZone's outdoor playfields, massive textures, and lens-flare lighting
> effects look awesome. Now suddenly, I'm obselete (according to Epic
> Megagames). I realize that the gaming industry ALWAYS pushes the envelope, but
> this little stunt is bound to hurt sales of this game. At least, I HOPE it
> does.
> 
> There's still a large market of wussy little <= 200MHz, non-MMX PC's in the
> world, and we do enjoy games. Too bad I'm not part of Epic's target market
> anymore. Too bad, that is, for them, since I'm taking my game back to the
> store...
> 
> BTW: system specs are...
> P166 (no MMX)
> Monster 3D (the original)
> 64mb RAM
> 
> -EA
> 
> ----------------------
> Sean Barton wrote:
> 

You should be interested to know that Quake3, id's current project due
out later this year I believe, will REQUIRE hardware accelleration, and
they are recommending at least a PII with a Voodoo2.  It's not just Epic
that is utilizing more of the higher end systems.  I hardly see how you
can say it sucks just because your system is listed as the MINIMUM
system requrements.  All you can justifiably say is that Epic did not
cater enough to the lower end systems.    If you are dis-satisfied,
please do take the game back, as everyplace I know is sold out at the
moment, and you would make one gamer very happy indeed :) 
-- 

-Matt

mspauld at mindspring dot com

>Matt <no@spam.here> wrote:

>You should be interested to know that Quake3, id's current project due
>out later this year I believe, will REQUIRE hardware accelleration, and
>they are recommending at least a PII with a Voodoo2.  It's not just Epic
>that is utilizing more of the higher end systems.  I hardly see how you
>can say it sucks just because your system is listed as the MINIMUM
>system requrements.  All you can justifiably say is that Epic did not
>cater enough to the lower end systems.   

All of the people bitching about how hard Unreal is to run on their
systems should try Total Annihilation.  An advanced game, especially
multiplayer (even on a LAN) will slow down to a slideshow at times.
And it doesn't even take advantage of hardware acceleration (they said
it would not enhance performance)!

>If you are dis-satisfied,
>please do take the game back, as everyplace I know is sold out at the
>moment, and you would make one gamer very happy indeed :) 

Good one!

===[==Rob====-
I'd leave an E-Mail address but I hate spam.  

I have a P133 with Pure3d and 80 meg of RAM.  Frankly, it runs way too slow
for good gameplay, even though I have tried all the speed tips I can find
and turned off most of the gee whiz effects.  But even so I would have to
say I am enjoying the game and will not take it back.  I have set the skill
level to easy and the game speed to 80%, and it is just barely playable, but
it is worth it to see the awesome level design (really _world_ design) and
graphics effects.  The sense of immersion is so complete it's like taking a
journey to another world.  Plus I had already decided, even before this game
was available, that I would be upgrading later this year, so I know I will
soon have a machine on which it does run acceptably.

Hal Raymond


Sean Barton wrote in message <6ki2ak$moc$1...@nntp2.uunet.ca>...
>Can anyone tell me if Unreal will run on my p133 with Pure3D?
>
>This system plays q2 just fine, and I was hoping I could play Unreal on it
>(don't have the cash yet for a PII).  I'm not too excited about paying for
>the game just to find out it won't work on my system.
>
>So how about it?  Anyone out there with a p133 that got the game working?
>
>Thanks,
>Sean
>
>

I got it to run on my P133, 32Ram and voodoo2.  I used the setup on
OGR to configure it.  It is still kind of jerky though, but when I
played with the bots it ran fine.  I am hoping it will run that good
when I can play it on the net.  Single player, however is a different
story.  it runs smooth in some areas and jerky in others.  Tough to
say whether you should try it.


On Thu, 28 May 1998 06:01:03 -0400, "Sean Barton"
<sba...@pdsoftware.com> wrote:

>Can anyone tell me if Unreal will run on my p133 with Pure3D?
>
>This system plays q2 just fine, and I was hoping I could play Unreal on it
>(don't have the cash yet for a PII).  I'm not too excited about paying for
>the game just to find out it won't work on my system.
>
>So how about it?  Anyone out there with a p133 that got the game working?
>
>Thanks,
>Sean
>

Rope A Dope stood up in front of the group, and confidently said........

> I got it to run on my P133, 32Ram and voodoo2.  

A VII and a 133....hmmm, that's the first time I've heard that combo.
-- 
See ya at the beach,

Sherpa

Remove the first I to reply
ICQ# 6712362 (keep the I and say hi =-})