# Unreal2k3 demo



## nb3004 (May 7, 2003)

OMG this demo is sweet, almost worth the wait, it even runs decently on my 12inch PB, cant wait for the game to come out


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 8, 2003)

huh???
where to get???


----------



## Drizzt (May 8, 2003)

www.macgamefiles.com has a list of mirrors and I've read macupdate.com also has a list of mirrors though they could be the same.  As for me I have to wait till I get back to my comp which is at my school right now   I hope it will be worth the wait though as I've been reading.


----------



## LordOphidian (May 8, 2003)

Damn... none of the mirrors seem to be responding.

Well, I guess I wait for later then.


----------



## toast (May 8, 2003)

Minimum requirements: 700MHz. F*ck Macintosh, my G3/500 iMac with 640 RAM can't play a game released two years later. I'm bored with that.

*switches to PC*

Argh !

*switches back to Mac*

I'll stay with UT Classic.


----------



## chevy (May 8, 2003)

Did you try if it works ? I've seen somewhere it is very RAM sensitive... and you have plenty of RAM.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 8, 2003)

It works just fine! Am using my Powerbook for it and 800x600 32bit works kinda fine. Ok, am going to try 16 bit to make sure there is no lag, but it's just great! Two maps available (as far I saw) and graphic looks amazing... It's worth to try, as far it's possible!  @ toast


----------



## toast (May 8, 2003)

I will, then !!! After my exams


----------



## Excalibur (May 8, 2003)

I have a dual 500 with the original Radeon 32, runs pretty well, although its unplayable on my Ti 500. Not surprised on that one though, but glad it runs well on the desktop. Nice game so far.


----------



## Arden (May 8, 2003)

Have a moderately fast processor (G4 500 Mhz+), oodles of RAM, and a beefy graphics card, and you should be able to play it reasonably well.

I played the Windows version, and I thought it looked pretty cool, but I wasn't blown away.  I like the jumping system, but it's too much like Tribes.


----------



## Stridder44 (May 8, 2003)

I hope its not all choppy on my iMac (800mhz) like Quake 3 Arena is. This 2x AGP Video card thing is kind of annoying when it comes to games. I think the new iMacs are 4x AGP tho.


----------



## i am yujin (May 8, 2003)

i use a GeForce2 and 128RAM with my new iMac 700Mhz and i get around 12 fps ...
its sad  and i have everything turned down.


----------



## Racer D (May 8, 2003)

I just played it on my iMac 700 GF2 512ram and it ran smooth with all setting on low (except 1024res for the lcd) I saw glitchez with a few opponents on the screen shooting eachother though 

anyway, anyone familiar how the game runs on a pc with similar setup? It'd be funny to know


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 9, 2003)

Similar setup meaning a pc with G3 700? 
Ok, on my fileserver (P4 2,6GHz, GF2 Pro 64mb, 256MB Ram) it's running around 50frames in average. Quite well. Don't know why, but even on my 1Ghz Tibook it seems a bit laggy. Anyone know how to display the fsp?


----------



## Excalibur (May 9, 2003)

~ to get the console then..

stat fps

enter


----------



## g3joel (May 9, 2003)

Runs very very well on my 17" PowerBook with 512 RAM, I was surprised. Default graphics settings at 800x600.

Very smooth and no lagging/skipping framerate.

I'm not too interested in UT2k3 itself, but if this is any indication of how Deus Ex 2 will perform - I'm stoked


----------



## infinityBBC (May 9, 2003)

i run UT2k3 on my P4/1.8GHz/GF3128 and it rocks of course.  i've never had a frame rate problem.

however, i'm not surprised there are folks complaining about frame rates without having a GF3 or GF4 video card.  there are just too many graphic details in the game, like Quake Arena, for a less powerful video card to drive.

i AM surprised that nb3004 says it runs fine on a Powerbook, but what kind of video chip is in that little 12" PB?  that's what really matters, in my opinion.  i'm tempted to DL the demo and try it on my old Pismo, but i'm SURE it will be laggy without ANY real video power, so i think i won't!


----------



## nb3004 (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by infinity _
> *i run UT2k3 on my P4/1.8GHz/GF3128 and it rocks of course.  i've never had a frame rate problem.
> 
> however, i'm not surprised there are folks complaining about frame rates without having a GF3 or GF4 video card.  there are just too many graphic details in the game, like Quake Arena, for a less powerful video card to drive.
> ...



It doesnt run perfectly obviusly but better than I thought.  When played online it is much laggier but playable.


----------



## chevy (May 9, 2003)

I've put all details to minimum and it's ok on my 1 GHz iMac (with Konfabulator taking 15% of the CPU).


----------



## twister (May 9, 2003)

Ran like crap on my G4 450.  But that's why they put the 700 MHz minimum thing on there.


----------



## Androo (May 9, 2003)

hehehe i am going to get it.. 600 megahertz here, 256 megs of RAM... should work then!


----------



## turncoat (May 10, 2003)

Anyone know ho to edit the file to change controls and stuff without opening the program? I've opened the package, looked in the system, but the user.ini file seems to be a template, and I can't find the one that has MY controls and stuff. I am trying to make some weapon group aliases, but I can't find the file to do so. Any ideas?


----------



## chevy (May 10, 2003)

how do you want to edit it ? BBEdit ?


----------



## Vash137 (May 10, 2003)

Turncoat - maybe in "UT2003.ini"  I know you can change your resolution in that file, but not sure of controls and stuff.  And yes chevy you would use BBEdit.


----------



## g3joel (May 11, 2003)

Have a look in your Application Support folder.

I went there to customise my resolution to 1440x900 which is the native resolution of my 17" PowerBook, but the game runs totally *shite* like that 

That's a big disadvantage with large LCDs,   if you have a low end graphics card and can't stand the blurriness of non-native resolutions, then you're stuffed 

I think I'll just continue playing at 800x600 instead... I'd rather have a little bluriness than low FPS.


----------



## hulkaros (May 11, 2003)

At full details plus 1024x768 the game runs just fine although I tested it with novice bots... Maybe if the difficulty goes up and the count of bots too, the game maybe will perform worst...

But for now it seems AWESOME... What I liked compared to other games it is the feeling you get while walking/running... It is almost real... And to me it is the only game which it feels right when run/walk around... I cannot wait for Doom 3!!!


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2003)

The game looks fantastic at 1440x900... but it lags too much. How do I upgrade the graphic card on my iMac ???


----------



## hulkaros (May 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *The game looks fantastic at 1440x900... but it lags too much. How do I upgrade the graphic card on my iMac ??? *



You throw you iMac away and get a PowerMac or the next iMac model


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2003)

I'm afraid you're right !


----------



## Androo (May 11, 2003)

WTF it doesnt work... toooo laggy..... screw this!
hahaha have you guys played harry potter 2 demo?


----------



## turncoat (May 11, 2003)

Thanks everyone: Editing the user.ini file in the application support for my user DID make the changes I needed. (Now all need beware of my quick-switching tactics!)


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *At full details plus 1024x768 the game runs just fine although I tested it with novice bots... Maybe if the difficulty goes up and the count of bots too, the game maybe will perform worst...
> 
> But for now it seems AWESOME... What I liked compared to other games it is the feeling you get while walking/running... It is almost real... And to me it is the only game which it feels right when run/walk around... I cannot wait for Doom 3!!!     *



Did you check your fps? You will be very surprised that it's far behind "just fine". Or maybe you didn't ever compare to peecee. My average rate was around 40 I think (800x600 with all details on low and 16bit). And that's too low to play that game seriously.
I tell you this, since I have almost the same config...


----------



## hulkaros (May 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> *Did you check your fps? You will be very surprised that it's far behind "just fine". Or maybe you didn't ever compare to peecee. My average rate was around 40 I think (800x600 with all details on low and 16bit). And that's too low to play that game seriously.
> I tell you this, since I have almost the same config... *



Compared to a P4(not Celeron)/1700/Geforce2MX64MB/256RAM/SBLive/XP+SP1/DirectX9/nVidia new drivers the game in my TiBook has better graphics (effects and all) plus it runs smoother... But I know for SURE that a Wintel with maybe Geforce4MX, P4 or Athlon above 1600 and above will trash my TiBook 

I will check for FPS and I will report back... But I'm more of a practical character than:
- Look ma... My game runs at 300 fps!

Yeah, I can relate how >300fps are SO cool... NOT!   

If I can kill enemies instead of them killing me 90% of the time PLUS I make my self dizzy by just running around the FPS must be correct or I'm epileptic or something 



UPDATE:
------------
The game runs, depending on the situation, in anything between >avg.15-23 fps which is LOOOOOOW... But it looks cool! The game has 1024x768/full details as I previously said...

Also, tested on a Dual 1GHz/Geforce4MX/1.5GB RAM on 1280x1024/full details the fps were >avg.27-34 but still the game feels to me cool!

Can ANYONE with a high end Wintel test UT2003 and post here some results because according to the following "trusty" Wintel site tests regarding UT2003 posted here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1075333,00.asp
The VERY high end Wintel detailed here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1075328,00.asp
Manages ONLY 26-27 fps at 1280x960!?!?

Let us know what gives...


----------



## jimbo61 (May 12, 2003)

i just downloaded it and tried it out, and now i want a faster computer... but it still played well with most of the graphics set to low and 16 bit, but for a 400 mhz g4 it plays well.


----------



## turncoat (May 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jimbo61 _
> *i just downloaded it and tried it out, and now i want a faster computer... but it still played well with most of the graphics set to low and 16 bit, but for a 400 mhz g4 it plays well. *



I hear you, I need a new graphics card!


----------



## Arden (May 12, 2003)

It seems more RAM helps out too.

I'm not even going to bother to download it.  It would run like crap on 233 Mhz/Rage Orion and 400 Mhz/8 MB VRAM.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 13, 2003)

Hey, why won't everyone just post the average fps at a certain resolution and we see, what's the game most dependant on...
Let's agree to 800x600 16bit and ALL details on low or off.
Just move about 5mins in the default map without starting the game..


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 13, 2003)

Ok, here my benchmarks:
max frames: 140
min frames: 25
average: 44

Settings: see post above
Hardware: Tibook 1Ghz, 768Mb Ram, 64mb Ati9000
Macosx 10.2.6


----------



## g3joel (May 13, 2003)

It would be much more accurate if you benchmarked your machine with one of the included demos, then everyone else could do the same and the results would actually mean something.

On the UT2k3 application icon, choose "Show package contents", go to benchmarks, and execute one of the shell scripts.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 13, 2003)

Good idea! 
I didn't know it's possible!

Gonna try


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 14, 2003)

Ok, here we go:
botmatch-antalus.sh in the settings see above got
17-20 average fps

What are your scores?


----------



## g3joel (May 14, 2003)

Apparently, the botmatch demos are meant to test your CPU, while the flyby's test your graphics card.

I'll post my scores for each later when I get a chance.


----------



## Cat (May 14, 2003)

I had to turn nearly everything off or to lowest to remain in the 25-30 range, with pits of 15 and peaks of 40.

What are / How do you run those scripts?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 14, 2003)

flyby-antalus was very different!
Average fps: 40-140

ain't it possible to get a single number for average fps?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 14, 2003)

open terminal, get into the folder ../benchmarks and finally type:
./botmatch-antalus.sh
or
./flyby-antalus.sh

and than you should type "stat fps" in the console. 
Or is there another way?


----------



## g3joel (May 14, 2003)

Well, the Terminal-newbie friendly way to do it would be this:

1) Right/Control-click on the UT2k3 application icon
2) Choose "Show package contents"
3) Double click on "Benchmarks"
4) Now, open the Terminal and drag one of the ".sh" files from the "Benchmarks" folder into the Terminal window, and then hit Return in that window.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 14, 2003)

this way it doesn't work for me, g3joel.
Get "No such file or directory".
Didn't bother with it, since it works different way too.

But any idea how to get fps without typing stat fps when the demo started?


----------



## g3joel (May 14, 2003)

Oh, okay.

Umm... I think there was a timedemo command in UT... was it "timedemo 1"? I can't remember...


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 14, 2003)

timedemo 1 was from quake if I recall right!

But all of you use stat fps, right? Thought I am the only one doing it this silly way! Have to hurry up and type fast to not lose half of the benchmark...


----------



## g3joel (May 14, 2003)

Perhaps it was just "timedemo"... I think that was it.

But the problem still remains, as you said, because the demo only plays once - it doesn't loop.


----------



## g3joel (May 14, 2003)

Ah-ha.

Application Support -> UT2k3 -> Benchmarks -> Results.   

They're all there, named chronologically.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 14, 2003)

You sure?

Hmmmmmm, I just have DO_NOT_DELETE.ME

And I ran many demos by now...


----------



## habilis (May 14, 2003)

I didn't read all the past posts but I downloaded the demo and all I know is I'd much rather play MoH or RTCW MP. My impression so far is, I guess I could pin it on the level design being a little lackluster and giving way to too much fragathon action and not a good balance.


----------



## g3joel (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> *You sure?
> 
> Hmmmmmm, I just have DO_NOT_DELETE.ME
> ...



Application Support folder, in your Library folder in your Home directory.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 15, 2003)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Results:
botmatch antalus:
0.5 / 59,9 / Inf fps   Score 37,9
flyby antalus:
22 / 101,1 / 364,7   Score 77,2

Let's compare! Wanna see how this tibook performes


----------



## Veljo (May 16, 2003)

It's runs awesome on my iMac with everything put up to max. The frame rate does drop when I go into large areas with plenty of action, but even then not too much. I do have 256MB RAM though, and if I beefed it up to 1GB then I'm sure it would run awesome. Apart from that, it runs absolutely smooth and I love it. I'm actually surprised that it does.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 16, 2003)

Give us some frames!


----------



## g3joel (May 17, 2003)

17" PowerBook 1 GHz
512 MB RAM
800x600, default graphics details

flyby-antalus:
14.53 / 52.76 / 161.35
Score = 52.44

botmatch-antalus:
2.02 / 16.10 / 38.06
Score = 16.10


----------



## drustar (May 17, 2003)

i've d/led and tried it. the thing that bugs me the most is the mouse sensitivity. i couldn't find to adjust it (since it's just a demo anyway).

btw, my machine is the min req. so i bet it's way better on a kick ass machine.


----------



## Drizzt (May 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by drustar _
> *i've d/led and tried it. the thing that bugs me the most is the mouse sensitivity. i couldn't find to adjust it (since it's just a demo anyway).
> 
> btw, my machine is the min req. so i bet it's way better on a kick ass machine. *



I believe you adjust the mouse sensitivity in the Input tab under the Settings.


----------



## Vyper (Jun 2, 2003)

It sucks on my 700 iMac :\ 

..I get 4, maybe 7 max fps online. I swear Epic must've been paid by Apple to port this because I'm going to find myself spending all my money as of the end of this summer on a dual G4 or a PPC970 tower :\


----------



## jimbo61 (Jun 4, 2003)

yes i also new a faster mac to enjoy this game at the funest level. sigh....


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 21, 2003)

OK, Question:  Why do you guys call it UT2k3?  Just type UT2003.  (sorry, I just think it's silly to type a "k" instead of two zeroes)

Anyway, obviously the demo ran horribly on my G4 450 with AGP ATI Rage 128 (16 MB).  I bought an ATI Radeon 8500 (64 MB) on eBay, but the seller *really* took his time getting it to me...


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 24, 2003)

Well, I got the Radeon 8500 in.  Popped it in in like, a minute.

But... it's not as much of an upgrade as I had hoped it'd be.  Graphics are still choppy in general, and I would consider UT2003 (at least the demo) to be unplayable on my system.  Well, I guess it's playable, but it would be hard to be competitive.  So, I'll just have to get a G5, eh?


----------



## jimbo61 (Jun 25, 2003)

the demo for mine runs somewhat ok, nornally 15-20 fps, and everything turned low and music off, but still sluggish due to lack of proccessor, lol new G5... soon.


----------



## Drizzt (Jun 27, 2003)

Just thought I'd mention that if you go into the UT2003.ini file and change 'Channels=32' to 'Channels=8' you'll get a little bump in speed with no noticeable ill effects.  Apparently the 32 sound channels is more for the pcs since they have more sound card options with their hardware.  This little change to the .ini file is for both the demo and the full retail version.


----------

