10.1 not for gaming

PoweMACuser

Registered
Although a lot of discussion is for advantage of gaming on 10.1, I found that 10.1 is not for playing game. But the speed of responce and the mouse sensitivity and the performance is not suitable for game.

I don't know why so many developers say that the OS X is good for game.

Classic is really good for game, although it is not stable enough.
 

billybob

Registered
Yah for more "intense" games such as quake 3... i'd have to agree. there's considerable lag for the controls and the framerates are considerably worse on my machine as compared to OS9. I have an imac dvse 400.

It doesnt really matter to me though... Thats why I have a PC as well as a mac :)
 

buggs1a

Registered
I tried the retunr to castle wolfenstein test in os x and it sucks!!!! i have a dual G4/450 and 10.1 with 896mb ram and frame rate is horrible. in 10*7 when moving the mouse in the menues and select what server to play on etc the mouse is jerky. in 64*48 it is better. possibly cus the cpu is so slow, but i don't know. it seems the mac isn't really for gameing from what i can tell as the mac needs faster cpu speed. i mean a 450 aint gonna cut it on most games in 10*7 like UT and Quake 3 etc. those games don't play nearly as good as on a P3/500. the P3/500 with 256mb ram just blows away the mac at 450mhz for the game. i have no idea why. i only know to get awesome smoothness on the mac you gotta have a high end G4 i think.
 

Crunchy in milk

Journey Agent
Dev's say that osX is good for gaming because of the reported ease of porting. A game that is designed for pc can in some cases (many) be significantly easier to port to osX than to os9.

The stability of osX is great for games too. I've never played a game that never crashed once or twice, often many times. X gets around this with a quick restart of the program, NOT the pc.

As far as mouse control, I agree it is dodgy, there is frequently unusual behavour from the mouse, no matter the model or make :(

In quake 3 there are some settings you can enter into the console that minimise this, and with those settings I still get 35 to 40% railgun accuracy and 46 yto 52% rocket...

In games that don't have these options (like the original quake ported by the fruits of dojo), it can be a nightmare to control. OSX seems to have auto 'mouse filtering' or tracking or something which stuffs things up in *some* games. But this is a minor fix im sure of it, certainly not a reason to write off osX as a gaming platform all together :) There are more to games than just FPS. Take a look at the SIMS. That game and its variants are STILL in the top 20 games world wide :confused:
 

Dradts

Official Mac User
I don't know y, but most games I've got at home run at a much better speed under MacOS X (10.0.4) than they do under MacOS 9. Especially McGee's Alice, which made me a lot of problems under OS 9 now runs perfectly under OS X (under OS 9, many textures did not load, and the game crashed often while loading).
:)

Mouse control also works good.
I've also tried to play Unreal Tournament in the Classic environment, and it worked too (well, ok, it was little bit slower than under "real OS 9" because sometimes the dock appeared while playing. I tried to shoot it away, but it didn't work :D :rolleyes: )
 

Kinniken

Registered
Alice runs far better on my iMac 600 in OSX than in OS9; great game, by the way; the only FPS I realy like.
Now, if only I could get warcraft II to recognise my CD in OSX I'll be happy... the map editor recognise it, but not the game itself! Maybe its a problem with my CD-RW drive... it does not recognise audio CDs in OSX either =/

Kinniken
 

Jim Paradise

Registered
Haven't done much testing with games in 10.1 because for some reason the latest update to Quake III doesn't want to run (not that I'm huge on QIII; more of an original Quake cat.. heh heh). It seems that most games that are X-native run a bit slower than their classic counterparts.
But there's a great open source, OpenGL application that allows you to run Doom, Doom II, and Final Doom with full control over the game (way more options, etc.; like playin' it on Windows). It runs damn well! I haven't tried yet but I'm wondering if Wolfenstein will work with it. Anyway, games in classic run really well now in 10.1 The other day my friend was playing Tomb Raider 4 hear while we listened to mp3's and there wasn't any slow down (G4/400, 512 ram, stock video card, etc). I just wish I knew how to get ShrinkWrap disk images to work in 10.1... ;)
 

wadesworld

Mac Developer
You'll get better framerates in OS X than in OS 9 and Apple has essentially put OpenGL on OS 9 into maintenance mode. All new features will be added to OS X only.

Wade
 

theed

Registered
Omni does some game porting, and I'll consider their opinion as gospel on this subject: They say that X rocks for openGL, mulitple threads, multiple processors, porting. You should read what they've said if you're wondering why os X is a good gaming platform.

Although right now, there are some mouse oddities, some full screen issues still (at least with multiple monitors) and a general lack of games and coding knowledge for OS X. Give it time, I think it'll knock your socks off soon.
 

iKevin

Registered
You guys are overlooking one key factor that causes poor performance in a 3D intensive game.....Video. I noticed one of you guys was trying to run Quake3 on a iMac. The iMac you listed has a 8mb video card....I can promise you this is the cause of system lag. It just can't keep up, nor will the 16mb card in the newer iMacs. When it comes to video cards and gaming, Apple has only 2 offerings that will yield good gaming results. The Radeon and Geforce lines.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who has a G4 with the GeForce2 or GeForce3....bet they'll have a great gaming experience.
 

kwiersma

Registered
Originally posted by iKevin

I'd be interested to hear from someone who has a G4 with the GeForce2 or GeForce3....bet they'll have a great gaming experience.
I have a Quicksilver G4 867Mhz with a GeForce3 and QIII runs better under OS X then it does under 9. Indeed even the guy from id who did the porting recommends OS X.1 for the best Mac Q3 experience. I get around 90 FPS in 1067 x something resolution.

I have not seen mouse problems with either QIII or Wolfenstien. The only mouse issue I have seen is losing my tracking speed prefs after a game of QIII or switching my switchbox. Anyone know if I can ajust the default so I don't have to change is all the time. 10.1 specifically introduced this issue for me.

--KW
 

billybob

Registered
Originally posted by iKevin
I noticed one of you guys was trying to run Quake3 on a iMac. The iMac you listed has a 8mb video card....I can promise you this is the cause of system lag.
That was me. I know that my computer isnt exactly the "king of gaming", but i was saying, compared to OS9, OSX has a much lower framerate and laggy controls in quake 3, since ive played Q3 on both OS's on the same machine. But as I also said, it doesn't really bother me because any games I do play, I play them on my PC. I'm much more interested in OSX for other reasons, such as having all these UNIX tools available (especially apache, php and mysql) on the same OS that I have BBEdit and IE. Dont get me wrong, I love OSX :)
 

rhinosaur

Registered
I'm running 10.1 on a Quicksilver 867 with a GeForce2 and it's pretty awesome...even Unreal in Classic is pretty good. Wolfenstein's only a beta, and part of it's choppiness is mostly due to my own poor modem connection. I'm sure if I can ever get that Q3 OSX beta to run it will be cool too.:D
 

kilowatt

mach-o mach-o man
Yeah, I can run Quake 3 in classic on my 733 quick sliver with the ge force, and use it at 1600x1200. which ROCKS!!!

Where is a good place to download quake for os x?
 

iKevin

Registered
Originally posted by billybob


That was me. I know that my computer isnt exactly the "king of gaming", but i was saying, compared to OS9, OSX has a much lower framerate and laggy controls in quake 3, since ive played Q3 on both OS's on the same machine. But as I also said, it doesn't really bother me because any games I do play, I play them on my PC. I'm much more interested in OSX for other reasons, such as having all these UNIX tools available (especially apache, php and mysql) on the same OS that I have BBEdit and IE. Dont get me wrong, I love OSX :)
Dude, In no way was I emplying your iMac wasn't an adequate system....I use a iMac. But I can assure you iMac's suck for gaming on 3D first person shooters....expecially with 10.1. OS X v10.1 is a great operating system. But it's kinda like putting a Supercharger in a car....it takes power to make power.
 

Excalibur

Registered
I have MUCH better gaming under OS X than 9 for me. I play at 10x7 and average about 80 FPS under 10.1 with all eye candy there. In 10.0.4 I got no more than 50-60 FPS, with the update 1.3 Quake and 10.1 I got a major boost with the same config file.

Mouse control is fine after a little tweaking on my config. It was said the problem with the mouse is a problem with the default configuration of Quake. It can be fixed pretty much though. A good config file can do wonders in Quake 3. :D

Wolfenstein works good as well, however they have a MP bug so you must kill the SMP to get it to work, however I still get good rates on there at 10x7 full everything. I haven't tuned the config file yet, but I'm working on it. To me X has a better experience gaming than 9 and getting better, for what little games are out but more are on the way.

___________________________

 

buggs1a

Registered
Kevin, the video card starts to make a difference when faster cpu. same on pc. you won't notice a difference much if you have a slow 450mhz G4 and a GF2 card VS the ATI 16mb rage pro that comes in G4's of old. the ATI would be crappy and i bet you would notice an improovement with the GF2 MX, but i don't think a whole lot. i mean just putting in my dual G4/450 the GF2 MX i do not think return to castle wolfenstein would play much better in 10*7. right now it is jerky mouse movement, in 64*48 it is smooth. just adding the MX card won't do much i think. not unless i had a faster cpu. and Apple is lagging far behind in cpu then Athlon etc. and for games, that makes a huge difference.
 

Excalibur

Registered
I agree with you there, but what I was stating is that you shouldn't be getting that bad of performance from what I get, based on what you have. I have a Radeon and 50 more MHZ per CPU. You should be getting close to what I have with a GF2, is all I mean. A better video card an an optimized config file WILL make a difference with RTCW and Quake. They are designed to be configurable to gain performance. BTW I notice a big boost when going from 16 meg of VRAM to 32 meg. I wasn't able to run good at 10x7 untill I did that. OpenGL uses a lot of ram that is why it gets the boost with more VRAM and push from better video cards. I played RTCW on my Ti powerbook, same 500MHZ cpu but with 8 meg VRAM and get about half the performance. I have to disable the dual CPU to get RTCW to work on on my dual 500, yet I still get great rate. Bottom line is it doesn't get jerky, no matter what the frame rate is running at.

The mouse issue is another story. I think its a combo of both the game and OS X. Even though I have found a way to get around it, it shouldn't have to be that way I agree.

Of course more PCs will be better at games, but I like most mac users we tend to more than just play games. This is just one area that isn't the 'BEST' in the industry but it is getting better thought
___________________________

 

ABassCube

Registered
I have an iBook Graphite SE/466 MHz with an 8 MB ATI RAGE Mobility, and Unreal Tournament runs great in OS 9! I have the resolution at 640x180, 32-bit color, and Textures and Detail at medium. It runs extremely smoothly. I've never had a framerate problem. In Classic in OS X, however, it's a different story. It is very jumpy when I put it on these settting in Classic. I have to bring it down to 16-bit color, and I have to put the texture details on low. Alice does not run so well on my machine (even in OS 9), especially on Pool of Tears. On Pool of Tears, I have to turn all the details and textues all the way down, but on other levels, I can have them on medium, or even high. I don't know how you guys are getting Alice to run better in X than 9. I don't have 10.1 yet, but Alice runs horribly in 10.0.4.
Summoner runs fine on my computer in 9, but it runs pretty badly in X.

Anyone know when Unreal Tournament and Summoner is coming out for OS X, and when an update of Alice will come out that will make it run better in X?
 

iKevin

Registered
Originally posted by ABassCube
I have an iBook Graphite SE/466 MHz with an 8 MB ATI RAGE Mobility, and Unreal Tournament runs great in OS 9! I have the resolution at 640x180, 32-bit color, and Textures and Detail at medium. It runs extremely smoothly. I've never had a framerate problem. In Classic in OS X, however, it's a different story. It is very jumpy when I put it on these settting in Classic. I have to bring it down to 16-bit color, and I have to put the texture details on low. Alice does not run so well on my machine (even in OS 9), especially on Pool of Tears. On Pool of Tears, I have to turn all the details and textues all the way down, but on other levels, I can have them on medium, or even high. I don't know how you guys are getting Alice to run better in X than 9. I don't have 10.1 yet, but Alice runs horribly in 10.0.4.
Summoner runs fine on my computer in 9, but it runs pretty badly in X.

Anyone know when Unreal Tournament and Summoner is coming out for OS X, and when an update of Alice will come out that will make it run better in X?
Dude, I've had a 466 iBook and there is a far cry from it and the G4 systems running a Radeon/GeForce. I'm glad you're happy with the performace of your iBook......They're great little computers. But the reason others are talking about better performance is because they're in a whole other class of system. One that has the power to make performance.
 
Top