Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Gregster2k on August 24, 2004, 11:43:20 am
-
CAUTION: Please don't turn this thread into another "Roll Call, who has this problem" type thread, we already had one of those for this problem, search for "breaks Shinemapping!" original bug report thread posted by myself, it has quite a few ppl who also confirmed this bug's existence, even on NON-9800 Pro cards! There was talk of informing ATI at the time. But if ATI WERE informed, then ATI are clearly sitting on their butts regarding this problem.
Video Card & Primary Issue:
- ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB: FSO/SCP Shinemapping implementation completely fails on this card with any driver version above Catalyst 4.4. This does not affect glow mapping. A previous thread was already made about this issue (see the above note).
Secondary Issue:
- The Catalyst 4.4's, while allowing the SCP to have working shinemapping, are killing performance in all my other games. And while newer drivers speed up my other games they destroy the SCP's shinemapping implementation.
Cause:
- Any ATI Catalyst driver version higher than 4.4 and certain ATI graphics cards, including ATI Radeon 9800 Pro.
:hopping: Solution...no..wait...not a solution...a workaround...#1
Repeatedly swap out my drivers with a driver swap utility of some kind or even manually depending on whether i want SCP or standard games. Of course, this is a ridiculous way to deal with the problem. I still will get performance issues in other games when using the 4.4's, higher-than-4.4's will mean broken SCP shinemapping implementation, and all this driver swapping involves manual reset of all video card setting presets and monitor refresh rate timings for every resolution it can support, also will reset some device resources in the process of the repeated reinstallations which could cause the system to become unstable(!!!).
:nervous: Solution 2
-==***Requesting a Permanent Solution Status Update***==-
Well, clearly ATI isn't going to accidentally fix this issue and I doubt they are going to if we already asked them to or not. They don't have any reason to care about the SCP, after all its not owned by a corporate entity possessing tons of money, it stands alone and free as an open source project. This bug does not occur on all ATI video cards but has been confirmed to occur on more cards than just the 9800 Pro (see original thread for that information). All other games I play have perfectly functional shinemaps with the latest Catalysts...
Even though the new drivers have brought this problem to the surface, we can't know whether or not it is ATI's fault alone -- it could be the SCP only, after all, FSO is the only shinemapped game the new Catalysts break shinemapping on. And if it is a bug with FSO, then even if ATI fixes their drivers for us, as unlikely as that is, the bug will be lurking, waiting to spring on us in the form of bad framerates or future problems. In addition, anyone first starting out with the SCP will be discouraged if they find they have to DOWNGRADE their drivers to fix the problem. Or, they may think shinemapping doesn't really exist...just kidding, LOL
Whoever tries to take on the (admittedly daunting) task of fixing this horrendous bug has to consider every possibility and act upon it:
- It could be the SCP alone...(I believe this to be the most likely situation here. there is evidence to support this, for one, catalysts that work on one card type DON'T work on another!!!)
- It could be ATI alone...
- And, it could be BOTH at fault here (ATI drivers simply causing an SCP *bug* to express itself, for example. i think this is the 2nd most likely scenario).
The only solutions available, if ATI can't help us on their end (and its better to assume the worst, so let's assume they will NOT help us out)...
...are either the squashing of a potentially-existent hidden bug in the current shinemap implementation, OR, the addition of alternative "ATI fixed" SCP shinemapping code to FSO (best solution IMHO if no others available)
All in all, if any progress has been made already toward fixing this bug, how close are we to seeing a usable bugfix? And if no one is currently trying to fix this, how soon can someone get on it?
Do it for Lightspeed...I really appreciate that guy's efforts for shinemapping FreeSpace ships, and his hard work will be WASTED on people who have my situation. Sure, I'll be able to *install* the shinemaps, *seeing* them is another matter...
Please?? :sigh: :(
Sigh...all this said, I'm now going to install the latest Catalysts, enjoy the multiplayer games I play, and wait for this bug to be squashed. I can't stand the sight of FSO without shinemapping, I joined here when it already had it and I can't imagine FSO without it now. This driver upgrade is a necessary evil to FSO for the greater good of my system. If the shinemapping isnt fixed, oh well, goodbye FSO for me, shinemaps are the sole reason I use FSO besides the speed increase, polycount capabilities, multiplayer...
*loads up ati.com's downloads page in silence*
------------------
UPDATE: I just reread this forum and discovered someone with 4.4's has(had?) the problem...that's odd.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25987.0.html
They, however, are using a different ATI card. Whatever this problem is, different drivers cause it on different cards, apparently. And some ATI cards may not work with shinemapping at all. I am willing to bet though that they all have one unified cause, whether it be a problem in ATI's drivers, or, the actual SCP FSO project code itself. Seeing as the person above had 4.4 and was experiencing teh problem, it makes me lean more toward believing that the SCP code is what is doing all of this, and that it needs to be reworked especially and alternatively for the ATI users here.
-
I'm sure were not the only people affected by this, and if we were ATI isn't going to do a damned thing for a small open source project that has, maybe, 100 users.
this problem will be fixed when we move on to the programable pipeline rather than relying on the fixed function as we have been for some time.
-
I'll chime in here to say that it's an issue with the new cards as well, so it's not something that I expect will be getting any better any time soon. And oh how I'd love to see shines on my X800XT, since I can't get FSO to lose performance except when it hits one of its crashes.
-
*considers whether shinemaps or Doom 3 performance is more important*
Shinemaps or Doom 3? Shinemaps or Doom 3? Ummm uhhh uhhhh....
Oh **** it. Decent framerates in games like Doom 3 is worth a temporary loss of specmapping.
-
Too bad you guys have no Geforce-Card, uh? :p :D
-
too bad bobbau wont write any nvidia optimization thingys into any code
-
No need, cause it runs pretty fine on my comp.
-
Guys, before you have a cow and give birth to a baby that will end up killing you, why don't you try an alternitive avenue? There is a Open Source Org. that works closely with ATI to develope Linux Drivers for the ATI Card. Why don't you explain the situation to them and beg for a possible fix. They could make the fix and donate it to ATI; thus giving ATI no negative reason to deny the resolve in the Windows Drivers. In addition, if the ATI OSO accepts fixing the problem, submitting a proffesional request to accept installing the code into the next ATI driver update would only help marketing value in ATI's cause, thus increasing your chance to getting a sucessful fix.
Besides, if there needs to be a comprimise with the ATI OSO, I'm sure it would be related to getting FSO 100% compatible with Linux. This in itself is a good thing, because people with Windows could use Cywin to move completely around a possible unexpected problem that may only effect a Windows plateform. Besides, this move in itself would be awsome for the Linux community.
That's my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by Overlord
Too bad you guys have no Geforce-Card, uh? :p :D
nVidia is turning into the new 3Dfx, only it won't die.
-
The problem occurs in all Radeon cards based on the R300 (I.E 9xx series and the Xxxx series).
So there is no reason to get a mention for each card.
I like xenthorious's idea, how can we try it?
-
Originally posted by Overlord
No need, cause it runs pretty fine on my comp.
Runs great on my comp too, but i know it can run better, shadows slow down on the high poly fenris and yet i get about 45 fps in FarCry on highest settings
-
Originally posted by Ace Pace
I like xenthorious's idea, how can we try it?
i don't know if OSO would like to be recommending Direct3D changes to ATI
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
i don't know if OSO would like to be recommending Direct3D changes to ATI
The point is, if ATI OSO can find the problem, they saved half the problem for ATI, thus reducing cause.
-
my shine maps work... and im on a 7500.....
-
By the way, PhReAk is absolutely correct. But that is because I forgot to add a vital piece of information.
ATI OSO focuses on OpenGL support. Hence, what Linux uses. DirectX support may not be there strong point. However, Transgamers Cedora team focuses on a DirectX translation into OpenGL code. They would have experience with DirectX. In order for Transgaming.com to have a working copy of WineX (now Cedora) for ATI uses, Transgaming.com has to work closely with ATI OSO. This also applies to WineHQ, who focuses on the wine program.
Now, if FSO was to work with Transgaming/WineHQ and ATI OSO, they could create a fix in Linux. Since the code will be done in C++, little to no changes would be needed, and would be fully portable over to a Windows platform. This code would then be submitted to ATI. ATI would do the necessary translations to incorporate the donated code into there driver. Thus, a Windows fix is done outside of ATI.
Now, if ATI does not add the code, then Transgaming.com would incorporate the code, thus making FSO more scalable for a Linux OS. Eventually, if this path is followed, Windows users could use Cygwin or a duel-boot Linux OS to play the game. With FRED_OPEN working on Linux, this would provide Transgaming.com an accelerated support for editors , such as Neverwinter Night's Aurora Toolset, Warcraft's Mission editor, etc. The path would open a huge set of new positive possibilities providing benefits to multiple open source projects. The close involvement with Transgaming.com/WineHQ could also provide possible additional improvements to FSO. Transgaming.com could also see a valued beneficiary by using FSO as a a method for troubleshooting serious problems with DirectX9 support with Cedora.
Short and simple, there is a lot of benefits and possibilities through this avenue. It could not only provide a fix for ATI drivers, but provide fixes for multiple areas of the Open Source Community as a whole.
-
Originally posted by Turambar
too bad bobbau wont write any nvidia optimization thingys into any code
... ok, like what the FUCK do you want me to do?
what "optomiseations" are there that I have failed to make, and if there were any how in the name of _hell_ am I suposed to test them!?!
-
yeesh.. leave the man be, nVidia, ATI, to be quite honest, i don't give a ****...
Long and short of it..
SCP guys don't get paid for this..
they do it 'cause THEY want to.. and having people constantly pick things, without offering to slightest bit of help.
Turambar, i'm saying this to you... if you want to pick on bob's "supposed" unwillingnes to write optimisation things (which, i don't see how he couldn't, he and the rest of the SCP team have done a supurb job thus far)
then offer ways that you could help, by actually offering code..
like i said, the SCP don't make FSO for /you/ and you only, but for the freespace community as a whole.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
... ok, like what the FUCK do you want me to do?
what "optomiseations" are there that I have failed to make, and if there were any how in the name of _hell_ am I suposed to test them!?!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's saying that you aren't going to be like some game developers or nVidia themselves and write image quality degrating "optimizations" into the game code for the purposes of boosting scores and getting more people to buy one card instead of the other.
RE: 3DMark 2003 snafu regarding driver optimizations by nVidia (and to a lessert extent and somewhat by accident ATI).
I think that was the direction that was going in...and that you were being complemented for integrity of character :)
Anyways, I'd love to see this issue resolved. Cat 4.7 is where I need to be to play my other games. FSO works just fine but no shinemaps indeed.
-
I volunteer Taylor to hack the drivers. ;)
-
ATI may never fix this bug, and thats assuming its even related to their drivers or if its even a 'bug'. Does anyone know the exact cause besides narrowing it down to the drivers which really doesn't say much at all?
In the meantime the best alternatives :) are other solutions. Try the Omega Drivers (http://www.omegadrivers.net/)! Try your latest stock drivers too! If you think this is of major importance, help us find a solution, theres no point asking about it, or pimping it, when its done I no doubt know it'll be posted by someone.
Originally posted by Gregster2k
Video Card & Primary Issue:
- ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB: FSO/SCP Shinemapping implementation completely fails on this card with any driver version above Catalyst 4.4
This sounds like a sporadic case, this really doesn't draw any conclusions to anywhere, try the latest Omega driver. :D
-
Like I said: Someone here who has some idea of what they are doing should hack the drivers. Then they (theoreticly) can restore shinemapping in them. We could have our own FSO Omega drivers.
-
Originally posted by Xelion
This sounds like a sporadic case, this really doesn't draw any conclusions to anywhere, try the latest Omega driver. :D
Orginally posted by deep_eyes
my shine maps work... and im on a 7500.....
As I've said above, it happens to all cards based on the R300, which means 9xxx cards and the R400 x800 (its based on the R300).
-
Originally posted by Turambar
too bad bobbau wont write any nvidia optimization thingys into any code
[color=66ff00]Simple way to fix this Turambar, pay him. Then I'm sure he'll be very happy to work on something that he doesn't have a problem with himself.
Or you could learn to code and fix it yourself.
Please have a little bit of respect for someone who has shared his work with us for free.
[/color]
-
In all honesty, I don't think Turumbar was being malicious in his defence Maeg, I think he was just poking fun because of the ATI smoothing optimisation that Bobb included, it's just been taken a little out of proportion.
Turumbar, I'd suggest you use :p or ;) at the end of a joke, sometimes things don't sound the same in peoples heads when they read it as it did when you typed it, so the smileys help avoid confusion like this :)
-
That's quite true :mad:
Smileys can change the whole character and interpretation of a post :confused:
-
Heh.:)
Heh.:lol:
Heh.;)
The same three letters, yet each one is completely different. Smileys really do affect how a post is interpreted to a huge degree.
-
Or this one:
Heh:blah:
or
heh:doubt:
in the future i will use similies to clarify my opinion
yeah, I am taking computer Science 1 and 2 this year, and I'll start learning and stuff, but it'll be a while before i join the ranks of SCP coders, I'm content photoshopping things for now
I bow to Bobbau's skillz
-
Love and Peace! :D
(Must... stop... watching... Trigun...)
-
"This sounds like a sporadic case, this really doesn't draw any conclusions to anywhere, try the latest Omega driver. "
Ummmm...to be good, it should work on OFFICIAL drivers. I ain't using Omega Drivers, i prefer things the way they are, from my experience "tweaked drivers" only give a VERY small performance boost in my games
Originally posted by Bobboau
I'm sure were not the only people affected by this, and if we were ATI isn't going to do a damned thing for a small open source project that has, maybe, 100 users.
this problem will be fixed when we move on to the programable pipeline rather than relying on the fixed function as we have been for some time.
The only USEFUL information in this post *skimread the remainder* ---- At least we know that the pipeline thing should be the answer. Get back on topic please... if I'd known that this would cause this much of a flamewar, i would have just PMed Bob instead. Of course, I didnt think of that alternative until AFTER this happened...doh.
Then again, this Off Topic stuff here...was interesting to say the least. I mean look at this, we've gone from my post's content and Bob's very informative and simple answer, to you all having a discussion over the proper use of SMILEY FACES...
:lol:
*hides in a corner*
-
Is this issue still here? I have seen people complaining about such things with more well known games too, where older drivers worked fine and newer ones do not work at all. It doesn't look like ATI is doing anything about it, although it doesn't hurt to try to contact them. I seem to remember Bobboau once saying that switching to hardware shader based lighting for FSO will solve this problem. Oh well, at least I don't have to worry about it.
-
You can summit the problem at their website.
There's a greater chance for them to fix it if you give them detailed step-by-steps of what to change.
Like I said: Someone here who has some idea of what they are doing should hack the drivers. Then they (theoreticly) can restore shinemapping in them. We could have our own FSO Omega drivers.
If you feel like re-writing each release....
-
well... are we doing something?
-
Bobbeau did say that when they switch to a programable pipeline from the fixed function it should get fixed...I believe I know what that means...the difference between card-specific instruction and universal works-on-any-video-card instruction or whatnot
oh and here's something interesting I accidentally ran a 2003 dated build recently and the shinemaps were working on Catalyst 4.8...so therefore I say...WE NEED that programmable pipeline thingy...only question is when, and only a select few can answer that =P
-
You can say, i´m ridiculous, particularly since the "tone" has become a bit harsh in here (do we talk ´bout a computergame??). :wtf:
But the best solution for me, until the big code-change has come true, is DUAL-BOOT. Actually i´m playing 3 games (FSO, Flashpoint, Doom3). Because of the bad framerate in Doom under 4.4 i´ve decided to install win again to another partition. It costs a bit time (about 1 hour) but much less than searching the forum up and down again and again and again just to get some tipps like "as time goes by". And it costs much less time than getting an exam in IT or reading (and understanding) several C++ books.:lol: :lol: <- as you can see, the last was a joke
btw: @Maeglamor I thought Turambar is involved in some really nice FSO-projects, isn´t he.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's saying that you aren't going to be like some game developers or nVidia themselves and write image quality degrating "optimizations" into the game code for the purposes of boosting scores and getting more people to buy one card instead of the other.
RE: 3DMark 2003 snafu regarding driver optimizations by nVidia (and to a lessert extent and somewhat by accident ATI).
I think that was the direction that was going in...and that you were being complemented for integrity of character :)
Anyways, I'd love to see this issue resolved. Cat 4.7 is where I need to be to play my other games. FSO works just fine but no shinemaps indeed.
Which is why the next gen nvidia graphics cards run Doom 3 faster, and, handle some of it's graphics better (mainly lighting and shading, and bump mapping...wait is there much else in Doom3 that makes it look like it does?), than ATIs cards? :P
FYI:
I'm using a ATI Graphics card.
Neither a fanboi of either group.
Simply posting on experience based on my two mates PCs:
One with 6800 GT, one with X800 Pro ViVo (well....XT Plat.... cough)
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Which is why the next gen nvidia graphics cards run Doom 3 faster, and, handle some of it's graphics better (mainly lighting and shading, and bump mapping...wait is there much else in Doom3 that makes it look like it does?), than ATIs cards? :P
FYI:
I'm using a ATI Graphics card.
Neither a fanboi of either group.
Simply posting on experience based on my two mates PCs:
One with 6800 GT, one with X800 Pro ViVo (well....XT Plat.... cough)
Its reletivly simple for the NV40 to calculate for shadows, based on their UltraShadow, i'm no programmer, but if I understand the image right image (http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/nv40/ultrashadow.gif) the card sets a max and a min for shadows. So
basicly, what happens is that This:Reguler shadow processing (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/images/d3shadows2.jpg)
Becomes this: Nvidia Shadow calculation (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/images/d3shadows3.jpg)
Bumpmapping acts the same with both cards, however, shading is optimized for the NV40 core, so that explains it.
But the serious differance is lighting, with Doom3 using the same lighting model for everything (Carmacks "Unified Lighting model") and that model, with Ultrashadow, is much faster on NV40 cards.
Now HL2 will be a differant story :)
-
Originally posted by Ace Pace
Now HL2 will be a differant story :)
Very true.
And is the reason I'm currently sticking to ATI.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Very true.
And is the reason I'm currently sticking to ATI.
True, however, benchs of the HL2 stress test (from the CS:S build, which is not final), show that while an XT can take on the Geforce 6800GT and ultra (Only at high rez), the Pro falls laughably short.
In lower resolutions, I.E 1000X700 and 1200X1000, even the FX can equalize with its equilivent.
-
20" viewable monitor = 1600x1200 prefered resolution :P
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
20" viewable monitor = 1600x1200 prefered resolution :P
You like 30FPS per sec? unless you got one of the new cards that isn't a 6800 reguler, thats what your getting at that resolution, without eyecandy. And thats on a beast of a PC.
-
At the end of this year, beginning of next year, I'm going to basically be buying a top spec machine.
ATM;
(CPU) 1-AMD Athlon™ XP 3000+, 2091MHz, 512KB (0% Load) .:.
(RAM) usage: 335/1024MB (32.71%) .:.
(GFX) RADEON 9600 (Pro) SERIES - Secondary,
(Display) 1600x1200/32bit/85Hz
(OS) Windows XP Home Edition, Service Pack 2 (5.1 - 2600), (installed for) 5w 5d 19h 29m, (uptime) 1h 7m 42s .:. (HDDs) 126GB/228GB(55%) free
So a tad on the sucky side for that kinda reso yea :P
-
Euh, What is the problem with the ATI on Shinemaps ??
I mean, what sort of bug, or stuff should i see on FSO ??
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
At the end of this year, beginning of next year, I'm going to basically be buying a top spec machine.
ATM;
(CPU) 1-AMD Athlon™ XP 3000+, 2091MHz, 512KB (0% Load) .:.
(RAM) usage: 335/1024MB (32.71%) .:.
(GFX) RADEON 9600 (Pro) SERIES - Secondary,
(Display) 1600x1200/32bit/85Hz
(OS) Windows XP Home Edition, Service Pack 2 (5.1 - 2600), (installed for) 5w 5d 19h 29m, (uptime) 1h 7m 42s .:. (HDDs) 126GB/228GB(55%) free
So a tad on the sucky side for that kinda reso yea :P
Well, kinda like mine, except I got a 9700Pro and a 2400+ AMD.
Yes, at the end of this year, upgrade round we go ;).
Metal destroyer, if your used to FS retail like me, you won't notice, but basicly, ships are set at one light setting, unchanging.
-
Ok.
Another question, Which option do you use on FS_Open for best quality/performance ??
My config :
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ @ 2700+
Asus A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2.0
768 Mo DDR 333 Mhz
ATI Hercules 9800 Pro 128 Mo
During in-game i got a lot of freeze. I use the fs_open_3.6 for Single player, else fs2_open_r.exe .
Which version of Fs2_open is the lastest built ??
And where to get it ?
-
Originally posted by MetalDestroyer
Ok.
Another question, Which option do you use on FS_Open for best quality/performance ??
My config :
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ @ 2700+
Asus A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2.0
768 Mo DDR 333 Mhz
ATI Hercules 9800 Pro 128 Mo
During in-game i got a lot of freeze. I use the fs_open_3.6 for Single player, else fs2_open_r.exe .
Which version of Fs2_open is the lastest built ??
And where to get it ?
This is very close to mine, maybe a bit superior because of the 9800 card, so I can't understand why do you get freezes, I run every graphical feature except 32 bit textures and 2AA clean, except for my clumsiness in hitting the windows key hitting me out.
I'm using vanilla 3.6 with media VP's, with shinemaps not working obviously. could you explain the freezes more?
-
In fact, during the first second to the departure, i got heavy freeze on some events. I don't think it's about the number of ship, but, it freeze at random events.
I can't tell you any more detail.
I forgot to tell, i use the original Media VP from the FSO 3.6 en play Fs 2 (and mods) on 1024 without AA and AF.
I try the lastest Media VP but it seems secondary weapons are hacked. In weapons , there are no missile but just Primary guns.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
At the end of this year, beginning of next year, I'm going to basically be buying a top spec machine.
ATM;
(CPU) 1-AMD Athlon™ XP 3000+, 2091MHz, 512KB (0% Load) .:.
(RAM) usage: 335/1024MB (32.71%) .:.
(GFX) RADEON 9600 (Pro) SERIES - Secondary,
(Display) 1600x1200/32bit/85Hz
(OS) Windows XP Home Edition, Service Pack 2 (5.1 - 2600), (installed for) 5w 5d 19h 29m, (uptime) 1h 7m 42s .:. (HDDs) 126GB/228GB(55%) free
So a tad on the sucky side for that kinda reso yea :P
Athlon XP's just became unavailable to a great number of suppliers. You might be looking at similarly priced Athlon64's or Semprons.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Athlon XP's just became unavailable to a great number of suppliers. You might be looking at similarly priced Athlon64's or Semprons.
Miss-read?
I have that system currently and am looking to jump to the frontline( As I see my current machine -monitor/sound system as high end budget):
Hoping in terms of 64-59s.
XT Plats.
433+ mhz RAM.
SATA / Raid 0 HDDs (Raptors hopefully)
That kinda spec...
-
Originally posted by Ace Pace
As I've said above, it happens to all cards based on the R300, which means 9xxx cards and the R400 x800 (its based on the R300).
Actually the Radeon 9100 was an R250 based system, IIRC.
If you feel like re-writing each release....
If I knew how I would.
EDIT: It looks like your thread got hijacked again, Gregster.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Miss-read?
I have that system currently and am looking to jump to the frontline( As I see my current machine -monitor/sound system as high end budget):
Hoping in terms of 64-59s.
XT Plats.
433+ mhz RAM.
SATA / Raid 0 HDDs (Raptors hopefully)
That kinda spec...
My bad...didn't see the 'ATM' so it looked like that was what you were going to build. Which wasn't a bad idea in terms of cost effectiveness until last week when it suddenly became unavailable.
-
Figured it was...
But yea, the fact that AMD stopped bothering with them makes me wonder if they're gonna be dropping prices on the 64-53s / 64-3X00 Ranges when they bring the 64-59s out...
They did the same thing when they brought Barton out almost..
-
Originally posted by MetalDestroyer
In fact, during the first second to the departure, i got heavy freeze on some events. I don't think it's about the number of ship, but, it freeze at random events.
I can't tell you any more detail.
I forgot to tell, i use the original Media VP from the FSO 3.6 en play Fs 2 (and mods) on 1024 without AA and AF.
I try the lastest Media VP but it seems secondary weapons are hacked. In weapons , there are no missile but just Primary guns.
Very simple solution. Drop your AGP setting from 8x, down to 4x. That should clear up any problems, and you shouldn't notice any performance loss. Worked for me:
AMD-XP2600+
ASUS A7V600-X
512MB DDR-400
ASUS R9600XT 128MB
In fact, doing this also eliviated many other bugs on my system.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Miss-read?
I have that system currently and am looking to jump to the frontline( As I see my current machine -monitor/sound system as high end budget):
Hoping in terms of 64-59s.
XT Plats.
433+ mhz RAM.
SATA / Raid 0 HDDs (Raptors hopefully)
That kinda spec...
Are you sure you want to go with Plats? a reguler XT with a good brand name cooler can go up to plat speeds.
On your 64-bit, what speeds? the 3500+ is the best currently, though a bit on the pricey side, even after the summer price drop.
on your HDD, RAID on your main drive dosn't improve preformance that much, though my main grip with raid is that it cuts the half life of the drives.
For considiration, my future specs:
Nforce4
Athlon 64 3500+
Geforce6800GT (probebly HSI cooler)
1024 (or 2GB) of Corsair RAM
Raptor drive for system
DiamondMaxIII 300GB for storage
Plextor DVD burner
standerd CD-Rom
no sound card, relaying on the SoundStorm 2 intergrated (it rules)
-
If your going to get a system like that you may as well buy a workstation graphics card :D
Originally posted by Ace Pace
standerd CD-Rom
Why would you get that for?
One reason not to get a CD-Rom fullstop. It can't read burnt cds as well as a CD-Burner can :nod:
-
Originally posted by Xelion
Why would you get that for?
One reason not to get a CD-Rom fullstop. It can't read burnt cds as well as a CD-Burner can :nod:
Actully it might get phased out, but as it stands, Safedisc and other weird copy protection stuff, locks out upon entering a non CD drive. We shall see.
Brand of the GPU is obviously not specified, but probebly an MSI, their coolers rule.
If anyone can come up with a good 925X motherboard i'll also switch my choice, however, their cooling and southbridge problems scare me.
-
Ace - the Athlon AMD 64 bit processor on the slot 59 configuration, it's not out yet, should be sometime next year.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Ace - the Athlon AMD 64 bit processor on the slot 59 configuration, it's not out yet, should be sometime next year.
Sorry to sound like an idiot, but huh? All I know is the 939 socket, which is currently out.
And i'm not waiting for another advance, the Nforce4 on the dureable 939 socket is enough for me.
-
The 939/54's mobo's has a few problems with southbridge cooling as you know:
Along with a couple of other problems socket 939/54s causes they're fixing them on the 59s...
And the 54's are the true top of the range consumer proc atm.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
The 939/54's mobo's has a few problems with southbridge cooling as you know:
Along with a couple of other problems socket 939/54s causes they're fixing them on the 59s...
And the 54's are the true top of the range consumer proc atm.
I think your mixing up, there is no slot on modern motherboards, also, if you got information on southbridge cooling I would like to hear of it.
Well, 939 (no idea where the slot thing is coming from) will stay for a time, atleast untill AMD needs to update their memory controller, and if it needs more more pins, they will throw it away.
-
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/2/5746-1.htm
Currently the best ones around.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/2/5746-1.htm
Currently the best ones around.
Someone is behind the times :)
Thats the 754 socket, which is no where near the top today, today we have the 939 socket, which also has memory controller for all chips.
I still have no idea what all the slot chatter was about, but if its anywhere NEAR being related to the 939, its allready out,even here, in the boonies.
-
Originally posted by Ace Pace
Nforce4
Athlon 64 3500+
Geforce6800GT (probebly HSI cooler)
1024 (or 2GB) of Corsair RAM
Raptor drive for system
DiamondMaxIII 300GB for storage
Plextor DVD burner
standerd CD-Rom
Yep. I'm planning on joining in the A64 3500 bandwagon also. :)
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
Yep. I'm planning on joining in the A64 3500 bandwagon also. :)
Which motherboard?
-
GIGABYTE "GA-K8NSNXP-939" nForce3 Ultra Chipset Motherboard
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
GIGABYTE "GA-K8NSNXP-939" nForce3 Ultra Chipset Motherboard
When are you planning to buy? if later on, you could wait for the Nforce 4, but thats not a big deal, the GIGABYTE motherboard is fine.
-
Unless nForce4 has AGP supported, I'm not getting it. I don't want to have buy another GPU just for PCI-Express.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
Unless nForce4 has AGP supported, I'm not getting it. I don't want to have buy another GPU just for PCI-Express.
As far as I know, nforce4 could have an AGP, just like the 925X has AGP modded on it by makers.
-
So is the 39 the production version of the development 59?
I was offline for a while and lost all track of this stuff - and admittedly haven't seen any development reports on the 59 for a while o_O
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
So is the 39 the production version of the development 59?
I was offline for a while and lost all track of this stuff - and admittedly haven't seen any development reports on the 59 for a while o_O
I think your off the track, the slot today is only in use by the Itanium 2.
Today, sockets ;) 939 is basicly 939 pins.
-
.............Where........anywhere.....have I said slot........?
Other than after scrolling up - first post.
Intel use(d) Slot.
AMD use Socket.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
.............Where........anywhere.....have I said slot........?
Other than after scrolling up - first post.
Intel use(d) Slot.
AMD use Socket.
Gigantic misunderstanding on my part on your first post of page 3.
Both use Socket now, Socket T and 939.
Anyone try shinemaps with 3.8?
-
I just need to install the shinemaps since I have the 4.8s
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
I just need to install the shinemaps since I have the 4.8s
I thought the Shinemaps were included in the media VP's?
Stupid Wiki, dosn't have anything on the shinemaps.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Intel use(d) Slot.
AMD use Socket.
If you wanna get technical, they both used slot designs, and abandoned them. (AMD used Slot A for the first gen Athlon processors.)
-
Originally posted by Vertigo1
If you wanna get technical, they both used slot designs, and abandoned them. (AMD used Slot A for the first gen Athlon processors.)
If you want to get historical you mean, Slot A was before even the Athlon time. :p
Anything before the P3 and the Geforce 2 is ancient history :nod:
-
No good, 4.8 doesn't fix the problem.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
No good, 4.8 doesn't fix the problem.
Oh well, should we wait for our graphics god to move to hardware shaders, or wait for ATI's rewrite of catalyst drivers? :confused:
:doubt:
-
I need to try FSO on my laptop sometime, which has an integrated R9000 mobility 32mb (total POS; slow, buggy and non-upgradeable, but the ISTS prize computers were strangely business models). I never got around to trying it since the desktop's 6800GT runs it perfectly but it might be interesting to see if the problem occurs with the laptop drivers, which are different from the normal catalysts. Of course, I get all kinds of other image corruption issues with it in other games, so I'm not expecting much.
BTW regarding processors, here is something that has me sort of confused. Since the Opteron 150 is exactly the same as a 940 pin FX53 but with a locked multiplier, why does it cost like $250 less? At the moment it seems like a great deal even if the slightly higher prices of a 940 motherboard and registered memory are taken into account.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
BTW regarding processors, here is something that has me sort of confused. Since the Opteron 150 is exactly the same as a 940 pin FX53 but with a locked multiplier, why does it cost like $250 less? At the moment it seems like a great deal even if the slightly higher prices of a 940 motherboard and registered memory are taken into account. [/B]
I'm not sure of this one, but Opertron's are optimized for server tasks, and as far as I know, do not have the extra commands that most Athlons have.
Leaving the fact the 940 is a dead end in motherboards and registered memory is PRICY.
-
No they're completely identical apart from the multiplier lock; same AMD64 architecture, same memory controller, same clockspeed and same cache sizes, but the O150 is about $600 and the FX53 is about $850. Maybe it's because they expect the former to be bought in large quantities at once (for office workstations). 940 will eventually only be used for workstations/servers but at the moment the 940 boards have almost all the features of 939s and registered memory isn't that much more expensive. It still looks like quite a good buy right now.
-
Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
Very simple solution. Drop your AGP setting from 8x, down to 4x. That should clear up any problems, and you shouldn't notice any performance loss. Worked for me:
AMD-XP2600+
ASUS A7V600-X
512MB DDR-400
ASUS R9600XT 128MB
In fact, doing this also eliviated many other bugs on my system.
Ok thanx for the tips. I'll try this.
-
Originally posted by Ace Pace
Anything before the P3 and the Geforce 2 is ancient history :nod:
Don't be so ignorant! Did you even know all NASA ship computers are still build on 80486 technology? :)
-
Yeah but that's mainly so that a single cosmic ray can't take out the entire processor :)
But NASA do admittedly like tried and tested computers more. I remember that they were still doing some shuttle stuff on an Amigas in the late 90s :)
-
Yea i agree they can't use anything better because technology got too small and CPU would need extreme shielding to not get affected by cosmic ray... but the point is: If few old 486 CPUs are good enough to handle systems of the space shuttle, they are far from beeing ancient history! ;)
-
Maybe the space shuttle systems are ancient history, too. :rolleyes:
-
Cat 4.9's were released today, its probably useless to hope that it does have shinemaps fixed.
Edit: Released yesterday, not today it seems...
Edit 2: No shinyness... :sigh:
-
Did you try it in OGL mode?
-
i have a radeon 9600 pro from sapphire with the doom 3 drivers and i think i have shinemaps.. maybe i am wrong and can t remember how shinemaps look like...
is that possible?
-
Not likely, unless you're running in OpenGL. You could easily be (it actually seems to run faster for me) but there are a number of features that are even buggier there than in D3D mode.
If you have shine mapping, you should be able to lock the camera in external view, turn towards the star in a mission, and see a white gleam on your cockpit.
-
i use D3D mode
there is no gleam maybe because i fly a ship from inferno
but the hull which is torwards the sun is brigther and yellow like the sun.
-
in open gl i see only a black screen and some polys no backgrounds the textures are completely wrong even the in game menu doesnt work
-
Wierd. Shinemaps work perfectly on mine. Don't get any false hopes, it may just be an anomaly.
I'll go run some tests.
Be right back.
EDIT: Yup. They work perfectly. I have Catalyst 4.7, and everything works just fine. Wierd...
-
Hmm, I will have to test the new drivers then. I hope it's been resolved.
-
Whew. Good thing I got the 9800 Pro instead of the cheaper 9600(thanks to my dad....smart guy).
So yeah. Anyone with a 9800, get the latest drivers and go try em' out.
Cool.
EDIT: Enviroment mapping works fine, too. Not sure if that was ever an issue, though.
EDIT TWO: The shinemaps aren't as bright, but boy do they look great. Especially on the Fenris.
-
Shinemaps do work in OGL but not in D3D, which is a pity since OGL is little bit buggier. (Radeon 9800XT here)
-
Originally posted by Mr. Fury
Shinemaps do work in OGL but not in D3D, which is a pity since OGL is little bit buggier. (Radeon 9800XT here)
Actually, I have them working on D3D. Wouldn't you believe it? Here...i'll post some screens from the tech room.
EDIT: Here we go!
(http://www.freewebs.com/blitzerland/screen00.bmp)
-
For 56k-dialup-god's shake please spare us and remove that 2.3MB bitmap from your post! :D
If you want to post screenshots please save them as jpg or post only link on it, putting any image larger than 250k in your post is imho forum perversity :lol:
If you have problems with converting your bmp screenshots into jpg format try IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/), it's freeware and really good for this kind of job.
-
I think Win98 is the reason it works on his, IIRC it did with someone else with post 4.4 drivers
-
Originally posted by Overlord
Maybe the space shuttle systems are ancient history, too. :rolleyes:
Yes. The Space Shuttle hasn't had any significant changes since it was first launched 23 YEARS AGO.
-
Does anyone running D3d under Win XP have shinemaps working with a Radeon Card and Cat 4.9's?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Yes. The Space Shuttle hasn't had any significant changes since it was first launched 23 YEARS AGO.
Actually they had just undergone a refit of all of the old crap in them right before Columbia blew IIRC. So I think they are a bit more up to standard now. But yeah, I guess it doesn't need to be fixed unless it breaks.