Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-26-03, 07:13 PM   #37
Edge
3d animator for hire!
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,564
Default

Yup, Halo runs on the...well...Halo engine. Actually they built the base code for the engine a LOOOOONG time ago, like in 1997 or so, and they just kept adding onto it and adding onto it over the years. Also, they say the quick conversion they did to the Xbox was very unoptimised for the console, for example the particle system was based on TNT 2 hardware! Not to mention they had problems with transparencies and a few other technical bugs like that. I can see why they're rebuilding the Halo 2 engine from the ground up, since they're making it exclusively for a single console they can add a lot of effect that they might have trouble doing on a PC game (I'm wondering how much the fully bumpmapped environments in Halo 1 PC affects performance). Sure, modern cards can handle almost any effect without much trouble, but PC developers always have to worry about all those people using GF2MX cards (or even onboard video...*shudder*).
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-03, 07:25 PM   #38
sonaboy
Why can't you spell?
 
sonaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 208
Send a message via ICQ to sonaboy
Default

Well..i'm running a P3 1 gig chip with 512 PC 133 mem, and a GF4 Ti 4400 in the tower, and i'm basically convinced that it's going to be a wash.
I'm only going to get fairly decent performance in 800 x 600 with 16 bit color and all candy turned off...

i'm basically not going to buy it because i'm convinced it'll suck on my machine..
__________________
Peace through war in the digital realm...
sonaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-03, 11:37 PM   #39
the_Vandal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 2
Send a message via AIM to the_Vandal
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by sonaboy
Well..i'm running a P3 1 gig chip with 512 PC 133 mem, and a GF4 Ti 4400 in the tower, and i'm basically convinced that it's going to be a wash.
I'm only going to get fairly decent performance in 800 x 600 with 16 bit color and all candy turned off...

i'm basically not going to buy it because i'm convinced it'll suck on my machine..
I hear it runs crappy on anything but super top of the line machines which is sad because it's a 2 year old x-box port. But this is just what I heard so I don't know if it really runs as crappy as the beta.
__________________
I told you I was hardcore.
the_Vandal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-03, 11:43 PM   #40
nrdstrm
 
nrdstrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Staples Center
Posts: 1,677
Default

Run OK on my 5900U (a few slowdowns when using 45.33) and random crashes (using 51.75). As much as I hate to admitt it, it ran flawlessly on my friends Raddy 9800Pro (and he didn't even have CAT's installed...LOL)
Nrdstrm
(Speaking of Beta 1.5 of course, not final release candidate)
nrdstrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-03, 12:00 AM   #41
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default

gamespy reviewed the full version of halo for pc:

http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/september03/halopc/
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-03, 04:52 AM   #42
ReDeeMeR
The Guy Next Door *wink*
 
ReDeeMeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 605
Send a message via ICQ to ReDeeMeR
Default

Go ro rage3d, people reporting that it runs like total crap evenon high end with Radeon9700's

Gearbox must've got some genius coders in there. I still remember the Halo movies from the last official "Halo PC" E3 was it 1999? or something like that, the trailer was runing Riva TNT2 and had really the same quality graphics as this or the xbx version, minus bumpmapping and it ran pretty good...
ReDeeMeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-03, 07:45 AM   #43
Nephilim
Slacker extraordinaire
 
Nephilim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashvegas, TN
Posts: 502
Default

I have the release version of the game.

It runs alright on my Ti4200 64MB at 800x600 with everything turned up (shadows, detail, etc.) it does get kinda sluggish every now and then, but it is certainly playable. It looks great. It looks like they've updated the graphics from the xbox version and have given it a bit more polish.

Right now I'm off to do some warthog jumping!
__________________
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." - Tom Waits

Athlon XP 2100+ | 512MB PC3200 RAM | Asus A7N8X Deluxe | GeforceFX 5900 VIVO 128MB @ 475/950 | 2 Western Digital SATA 120GB HDD in RAID 0 | 1 IBM 60GXP 60GB HDD IDE | 36x 12x 48x CD-RW | Logitech Z-680 THX 5.1 Speakers | 19in. Samsung 955DF Monitor | Windows XP Pro
Nephilim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-03, 10:19 AM   #44
RAST
<>
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by the_Vandal
I hear it runs crappy on anything but super top of the line machines which is sad because it's a 2 year old x-box port. But this is just what I heard so I don't know if it really runs as crappy as the beta.
A few things to note:

1) Halo runs at 30fps on the xbox. (Since your TV has a 30Hz refresh that's about all you can ask for any way.)

2) Halo BETA 1.5 had some un-optimized code which was "inside the loop" causing poor performance. This was fixed in the commercial build. (If you tried the BETA 1.5 you could actually hear & see the stutter.)

3) If you crank up HALO to 1600x1200 on anything but a top-end machine then yes, it will run 'crappy.' If you run it at 1024x768 on a less beefy system. Same for particle effects, etc. Turn them down some.

4) The comercial release is supposed to have a 'timedemo' option so you can benchmark your system on the HALO engine.

5) Since the xbox version was rendered at 640x480 (internally - 480p display) that 2-year-old unoptimized xbox version ran pretty good. Some minor drop in frame rates in a few cases....but not bad. I'd expect the PC version to run about the same at 1024x768.

__________________
ASUS A7n8x
XP 2500 (11x200)
eVGA GeForce4ti 4600 (300/700)
RAST is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-03, 12:01 PM   #45
Vash
Angel Arms
 
Vash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 624
Default

I'm glad it runs "crappy" on medium range systems. We haven't had a real reason to upgrade our computers for almost a YEAR, people. Seriously, five years ago people were dropping the Q3 Test on their system and 1) marvelling at how good it looks and 2) planning their upgrade to make it run better. And there was always the satisfaction of being able to do an upgrade and then actually experience an improvement in how the game ran, instead of watching the FPS go from 60 to 85.

Technology doesn't stand still, and I'm glad to see that PC games are starting to demand more horsepower. It's about bloody time.
__________________
How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd.
Vash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-03, 01:23 AM   #46
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

One of the Halo PC developers had this to say.

http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/news/ar...hp?storyid=426

Quote:
Halo PC is fast for what it's doing. And it's doing a lot.

Halo for Xbox wanted to be locked at 30fps running at an interlaced 640x480, but often dropped frames during the tricky scenes.

On the PC, you guys tend to want to run in resolutions that are drawing 1,000 times more pixels than what your Xbox and your TV could do. I want this too - it's how I'm playing the game now. If you're doing this with video hardware that is roughly comparable to an Xbox and you're turning on graphics settings that the Xbox didn't offer, you're guaranteed better performance than what the Xbox could do (the game is much more optimal now) but frankly you'd be a bit foolish to expect triple digits of FPS under those conditions.

The video hardware of the Xbox is roughly equivalent to a pixel shader 1.4 card, but it has several custom things about it that make it quite a bit faster than even the most recent video cards with the applications that are designed for it (such as Halo).

Halo for PC is more optimal - it's faster code as it's had more time to be optimized and it had direct attention from programmers at Bungie, Gearbox, Microsoft, the leading hardware manufacturers, and the DirectX team.

Halo for PC has four graphics pipelines and loads of graphics options in the menus and command lines. You can trade performance for graphics as much as you like. I personally recommend getting as many graphics features as you can while keeping the game locked at no worse than 30 FPS. I'm able to do this fairly easily even with my home machine - a GeForce 4ti with a P4 1.6ghz and 512mb of RAM. I don't know what you guys are doing...

The coders included the -timedemo feature to help you tune your performance and compare cards against one another. The feature is honest and rigorous (the -timedemos are running the most intesive pixel shaded scenes in the game - scenes that were designed to be non-interactive where performance isn't as crucial). We hope that this feature is used not as a measure of average performance during game play (because it is not), but as a metric for doing benchmark comparisons from one system to the next.

In any case, you'll find that on high end cards with users who fiddle with options like AA and AF the game tends to be fill rate bound. That's natural for a PS 2.0 game and setting a new benchmark for performance is the price Halo has to pay to be the first FPS that's really pushing your card by asking it to use the pixel shaders that it wants to support. I expect reasonably comparable performance from some of the other upcoming PS 2.0 games (although these games may make different trade offs with scalability or other factors like physics and animation complexity, geometry complexity, pixel shader complexity and other things like AI that may affect the CPU).

The bottom line, though, is that Halo is fun and the code is fast at what it does (it's doing a LOT). Is was that way when we got it and some of the smartest programmers available from hardware manufactuers, the DirectX team, Microsoft, Bungie and Gearbox worked very hard and very long to make it do more things even faster than before.

If you're less interested in the quality of the game than you are in seeing a high FPS number, there are plenty of games using DirectX 7 graphics engines that will likely satisfy you.

In the mean time, I'm playing Halo on-line and I'm loving it.

At the end of the day, I finally get to play Bungie's masterpiece on my PC, in high resolution, with a mouse and keyboard and play multiplayer over the internet. The experience is better than I anticipated it would be when the guys got started and I think that every bit of their effort has been worth it. It's the game I want to play and the game I will be playing for many, many months.

If you guys want to copy my sentiments here on any other boards where this kind of discussion comes up, feel free.

I'm proud of the hard work the engineers have done and I'm thankful I get to play this incredible game Bungie made as I've long wanted to play it.

-Randy Pitchford
I agree wholeheartedly. People want DX8 class games that really use shaders, bumpmapping, and offer great IQ. And when such games appear they whine and cry about performance. You can't have it both ways. Nothing is free. There will always be a price such as lower peformance or better hardware required.


With HL2 delayed I'll be getting Halo. Even if it wasn't delayed I'd still be getting it
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-03, 01:30 AM   #47
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default

i know.. im sick of people whining too... i love to see games that push the graphics, even if some people have to suffer and turn a few settings down.. it pushes the industry, and increases hardware sales, (also pushes the graphics in all games to come)
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-03, 05:00 AM   #48
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

I've read somewhere there is a problem when enabling Antialiasing ie. game won't start giving an error.
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now Available - Stronghold 3 Gold, 20% Off! News Archived News Items 0 05-25-12 09:30 PM
No One Lives Forever 2 is GOLD StealthHawk Gaming Central 8 09-26-02 06:11 PM
UT2003 is GOLD SavagePaladin Gaming Central 14 09-20-02 07:33 PM
HALO 2 trailer JohnsonLKD Gaming Central 16 09-10-02 08:17 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.