+- Xonotic Forums (https://forums.xonotic.org)
+-- Forum: Support (https://forums.xonotic.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Xonotic - Help & Troubleshooting (https://forums.xonotic.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: [SOLVED] Xonotic performance yes - another thread (/showthread.php?tid=3204)
Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-28-2012
My laptop isn't too powerful:
2GB, 2x1,6 AMD, nforce610m
Arch Linux 32-bit
With everything turned off, 800x600 I get ~25 FPS.
I get ~70 FPS in Urban Terror, ~50 in UT2004, ~50 in Warsow ~50 - 800x600 every game ofc.
Any ideas?
My config:
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=PWw4hxp2
My Xorg.conf:
http://pastebin.com/ghLH1i3y
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - rafallus - 06-28-2012
I'm afraid it's your card:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?gpu=GeForce+7000M+%2F+nForce+610M
It gets beaten by Geforce 2 MX... and this is talking about over a decade old card, and low end even back then.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-28-2012
So my lap has some garbage videocard?
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - rocknroll237 - 06-28-2012
Well there's still a lot of work to be done on optimisations. That can be expected at v0.6. And yes, your graphics card is poor. My laptop (definitely not designed for gaming) has an inbuilt Mobile Intel 4000 series gpu and I can't run Xonotic at all even on the lowest settings.
Also, couldn't you have made a new post somewhere instead of making a new thread?
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-28-2012
So - should I use autbuild? Instead of "stable" 0.6?
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - rocknroll237 - 06-28-2012
I doubt autobuild will help. It'll still be laggy.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Mirio - 06-28-2012
Not sure, but maybe turn decals off.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - edh - 06-28-2012
Have you run the-big-benchmark.sh? Use this to get some more comparable figures but I'm pretty sure it's destined to be bad. I have almost got Xonotic just about playable on an FX5600 which might be a generation older but is substantially more powerful, more in line with a 6200.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Liquid Sin - 06-28-2012
Play with r_sky 0 and r_fullbright 1 on, if the server allows it UDF5 pwn zone should have it allowed if it is it will be all bright if it's not there will be a useless night vision effect. Those settings should get you better FPS, hopefully playable.
Edit: aport must have updated the UDF5 server and forgot to set sv_allow_fullbright but the [Subzero] land of DM server has it set.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Lee_Stricklin - 06-28-2012
The Geforce 2 and Riva TNT cards were considered good back when Unreal Tournament and Quake III: Arena hit the streets... In 1999.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-28-2012
Yeah, too bad Unreal Engine 2 has much better optimizations than Darkplaces
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - rafallus - 06-28-2012
UE2 isn't as capable however.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-28-2012
Well, If possibility to render smoothly large, open, complex, terrain maps is not cool for you...
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - rafallus - 06-28-2012
Not as complex as Xonotic ones. Best UT2k4 maps simply don't look as good as good Xonotic ones.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-28-2012
Quote:Best UT2k4 maps simply don't look as good as good Xonotic ones.
I'm not gonna derail thread, but UT2004's level design is an piece of art, made by true artists. Just look at works of just ONE of their LDs
http://www.hourences.com/portfolio/levels2.htm
UT2004 totally outclass every current free quake-based FPS in terms of level design. It's not surprise though - $$$ let you hire amazing guys with amazing talents.
Power of money
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - rafallus - 06-28-2012
Meh. I've actually played UT2k4 on maxed out settings for a good while and never was impressed. If you want the game which looks better, try Painkiller.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - CuBe0wL - 06-29-2012
Ut2k4 surely beats the shit out from Xonotic maps, because it's full of model props and whatnot.
However, I fear that anything that's 6 years older is not capable to run Xonotic with decent framerates all the time. Nexuiz was useless on a Geforce 2 MX (I tried, I made numerous benchmarks, mostly it was crap, all below 30 FPS avg.), so Xonotic can't be better.
To run the game at the best, you have to:
exec low.cfg
Turn off EVERYTHING even more, that sliders can do after low.cfg
gl_picmip 1337 (not just world)
r_sky 0
mod_alias_force_animated 0
checkout the simple items branch, compile that and use all the time
And voila! You'll get the most dull, ass looking game of all time!
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - Majki - 06-29-2012
Well, The Superiority Of UT2004 over other quake-derivative games comes not only from $, but also amazing skills and talents, just look how UT designers work with light:
http://www.moddb.com/tutorials/lighting-in-game-environments-the-hows-and-whys
You don't need money for that
Ofc I'm not dissing anyone here, just don't say, that Xonotic looks better than UT2004. Yet you can learn A LOT from Epic Games' level desogners.
RE: Xonotic performance yes - another thread - edh - 06-29-2012
(06-29-2012, 07:42 AM)Majki Wrote: Ofc I'm not dissing anyone here, just don't say, that Xonotic looks better than UT2004. Yet you can learn A LOT from Epic Games' level desogners.You have to separate things out here. (1) Technical features, (2) Artistic quality.
In terms of (1) Xonotic on medium is roughly the same as UT2004 on very high settings. Look at texture resolutions, how lighting is done, they're very similar. Xonotic on medium will have similar requirements as UT2004 on very high settings. So performance wise they are pretty well matched. This is not a performance issue. Put Xonotic on normal settings or higher and you get a whole array of graphical features that UT2004 does not have.
Differences in artwork (2) make the difference and this is where the money gets spent for commerical games.