12-01-2012, 08:54 AM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2012, 08:54 AM by Mr. Bougo.)
(12-01-2012, 08:23 AM)RaptorFX Wrote: Is it possible to link this thread to the download page with an explanation?
No. Autobuilds are not "official" in any way, so we don't want it to be on the front page. The goal is to avoid being published on some sites as the next version of Xonotic, as this happened at one point with Nexuiz (which is why 2.4.1 was skipped).
What do you mean? Can you explain in detail what happened? If there is a bug, please make a bug report (use the forum section for that, the tracker is temporarily down).
I'm a little confused about which version to download (low, regular, or high). I need the highest performing version, because I try (and fail) to play on a GMA 3600 and a GeForce FX 5200 (PCI, 256 MB). Which version has the highest framerate? Disk space isn't a concern for me, I have plenty left.
(03-12-2013, 06:41 PM)gamingwithnetbooks Wrote: I'm a little confused about which version to download (low, regular, or high). I need the highest performing version, because I try (and fail) to play on a GMA 3600 and a GeForce FX 5200 (PCI, 256 MB). Which version has the highest framerate? Disk space isn't a concern for me, I have plenty left.
I think it's rather a matter of tweaking the settings in-game, there isn't really low-medium-high.
Look around on the forums to find tips and such for optimal performance.
(03-13-2013, 12:52 AM)Archer Wrote: I think it's rather a matter of tweaking the settings in-game, there isn't really low-medium-high.
There are low / medium / high quality autobuilds.
gamingwithnetbooks, I suggest you give low a try. That means less disk access and should therefore be at least slightly faster. The best way to know is to try low and high and see if you feel a difference.
(03-13-2013, 01:16 AM)Mr. Bougo Wrote: gamingwithnetbooks, I suggest you give low a try. That means less disk access and should therefore be at least slightly faster. The best way to know is to try low and high and see if you feel a difference.
The low version has more aggressively compressed textures, correct? IIRC, texture compression results in a performance overhead when the textures are decompressed. I want to take advantage of the 256 MB of RAM in my FX 5200 (without bogging down the PCI bus) and the 2 GB of RAM I have in my netbook. Does the reduced load on the hard drive counteract the decompression overhead?
03-13-2013, 04:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013, 04:13 PM by Mr. Bougo.)
(03-13-2013, 01:36 AM)machine! Wrote: Does it have lower res textures or is it more that's tweaked in low?
(03-13-2013, 06:41 AM)Archer Wrote: What's the diff between em?
I'm only guessing there, but it might be related to the existing "low" / regular / "raw" settings in the release building script. I'd have to talk to divVerent to confirm this, because the sources to the script that moves the autobuilds around don't seem to be available.
Anyway, "low", regular (known as "normaldds" in script) and "raw" differ in compression in textures AND audio. The settings can be found in 'all's release.subr module. It exports settings used by the cached converter to adjust quality of textures and audio.
(03-13-2013, 08:52 AM)gamingwithnetbooks Wrote: The low version has more aggressively compressed textures, correct? IIRC, texture compression results in a performance overhead when the textures are decompressed. I want to take advantage of the 256 MB of RAM in my FX 5200 (without bogging down the PCI bus) and the 2 GB of RAM I have in my netbook. Does the reduced load on the hard drive counteract the decompression overhead?
If I remember this right, the disk I/O is the bottleneck (unless you use a SSD I guess), compared to the CPU overhead of decompression. You said disk space is no concern, so if you have the internet credits give it a try! Get a copy of low and medium and compare them.
EDIT: But the optimal solution for you would be to cut down on the texture resolution or something similar. Basically a "Damn Small Xonotic", which has been done before but has no one maintaining it nowadays.
Quote:Lower quality download via HTTP
Description: Release build with JPEG texture compression instead of using DDS textures compiled with S3TC. This build has smaller file size and has better support for opensource/legacy drivers, but the textures take slightly longer while loading the game.
MD5: 219aaa91eb8362e39e0851eb83bd3a1f
Package size: 602MiB
Quote:Lower quality download via HTTP
Description: Release build with JPEG texture compression instead of using DDS textures compiled with S3TC. This build has smaller file size and has better support for opensource/legacy drivers, but the textures take slightly longer while loading the game.
MD5: 219aaa91eb8362e39e0851eb83bd3a1f
Package size: 602MiB
That's basically what I said, but that does not account for the three qualities available, unless "high" is actually "raw", which means uncompressed textures and sounds from the git repositories.
Having an issue getting this to download. I click the latest link that actually works and I'm greeted with a username/password screen. We already know what the game name is, but I apparently don't know what the first map ever added to master was. Can someone message it to me please?
Navigate to the folder where you put the game files ~/xonotic/misc/tools/rsync-updater and use the update-to-autobuild file for your OS. Also read the README.txt
(03-06-2017, 12:19 PM)Mirio Wrote: Navigate to the folder where you put the game files ~/xonotic/misc/tools/rsync-updater and use the update-to-autobuild file for your OS. Also read the README.txt
Oh, didn't know it was bundled with the standard versions of the game now.
![[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]](http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png)
![[Image: banner14.png]](http://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/13/61/00/14/banner14.png)
![[Image: 4766.png]](http://stats.xonotic.org/static/badges/minimal/4766.png)
![[Image: 21.png]](http://stats.xonotic.org/static/badges/21.png)
![[Image: 230.png]](http://stats.xonotic.org/static/badges/230.png)