PDA

View Full Version : Anyone running 2k4 in openGL??



Rukee
04-25-2004, 06:05 PM
OMG! It looks cool as can be!!
If you have a high end GF card I`d highly recomend it.
Just open the 2k4 systems folder, then the UT2004.ini and edit the following line.

[Engine.Engine]
RenderDevice=OpenGLDrv.OpenGLRenderDevice



At high resolutions it looks l337 as heck!!

ocmyface
04-26-2004, 08:46 AM
like how? show me a pic. ive heard openGL Fs it up

Rukee
04-26-2004, 10:38 AM
here`s a shot of what the game options looks like after you edit the .ini file.
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/openglrendurer1.jpg

and then a couple of high ressolution shots taken with all the bells and whistles, AAx4 and anisotropic x4 in openGL
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00001.jpg
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00002.jpg
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00003.jpg
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00004.jpg
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00005.jpg
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00006.jpg
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00007.jpg

Soulburner
04-26-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Rukee
http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/shot00002.jpg
That looks NICE!

Asio
04-26-2004, 04:05 PM
How much slower is a rad in openGL vs d3d?

Soulburner
04-26-2004, 05:24 PM
Yeah i'm wondering about speed too, i'm having some problems with this game (and I shouldn't be).

Rukee
04-27-2004, 05:50 AM
It`ll kill your fps that`s for sure, that`s why I would only recomend it for high end GF cards, ATI cards don`t do so good with openGL. A 9600xt I had worked for 20min in openGL in 2k4 and fried some memory controler chip. :(

Asio
04-27-2004, 06:21 AM
it kills your fps and gfx?

fps ok but i dont understand how opengl can kill a gfx...

Rukee
04-27-2004, 06:30 AM
I dunno either, the card was a refurbished unit from newegg (that was prolly the only thing wrong with the card), and I suspect it would have fried anyway, just the 20mins in openGL helped it out some.

Soulburner
04-27-2004, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Rukee
I dunno either, the card was a refurbished unit from newegg (that was prolly the only thing wrong with the card), and I suspect it would have fried anyway, just the 20mins in openGL helped it out some.
I doubt that. There are many games that are OpenGL only, you are saying it would have died while playing any of those?

I don't buy it.

Rukee
04-27-2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Soulburner
I doubt that. There are many games that are OpenGL only, you are saying it would have died while playing any of those?

I don't buy it.
I don`t know if it would have died playing those games or not, I just bought the card, installed it, ran a bench or two, fired up 2k4, and 20mins later it was dead. Inspecting the card I found a fried chip next to one of the memroy chips.
Was it 2k4 in openGL that killed it?? was it just a crappy refurbished card?? I dunno, but three others I know who bought refurbished ATI cards from newegg also had bad luck with theirs. The problem is more with where it came from then with the company that makes it, IMO anyway.

Soulburner
04-27-2004, 09:06 AM
Just sounds like a POS card to me.

Rukee
04-27-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Soulburner
Just sounds like a POS card to me.
or newegg is selling POS refurbished cards more like it.
I had 1 9600xt junk, and two 9800 pro junk cards in a row, a friend of mine got two 9800 pros bad in a row too, we tryed to find a fix for one of them here. (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34124) He sent the other one back for a refund and they nailed him with a 15% restocking fee, even though it was bad right out of the box.

Asio
04-27-2004, 11:32 AM
Doesnt sound like a good idea to by used hardware trough newegg with no way of knowing who had the card before u or what has happened to it.

texuspete00
04-27-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Soulburner
Yeah i'm wondering about speed too, i'm having some problems with this game (and I shouldn't be).

Don't know why you say this again... 512mb ram is not enough to play this game well. It's the truth, accept it! Great system you have there but you can get an NV40, won't help. Can you try borrowing some? No offense.:)

Rukee
04-27-2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by texuspete2k2
Don't know why you say this again... 512mb ram is not enough to play this game well. It's the truth, accept it! Great system you have there but you can get an NV40, won't help. Can you try borrowing some? No offense.:)
Dude, I run with only 512mb, and I just pulled one stick and ran 2k4 in openGL @ 1920x1200 with only 256mb of on board memory and it ran fine. More memory will not solve this lock up he has, or get you more fps.
...and you could bolt that NV40 on anything with a AGP slot and it`ll do just fine!!

texuspete00
04-27-2004, 12:06 PM
Well I went from 512mb to 1GB, exactly what many are suggesting to do for the new games, and I disagree with you. I believe that is allowed.

Your example doesnt really prove or disprove anything as it is different than mine. I suggest 512mb is not enough. You've gone and made what I believe is a bad situation (512 in this game) and made it worse. Don't know about OpenGL, I was actually speaking to soulburner (In case you took offense to 'why do you say this again'). I'll let other that have gone from 512 up to 1GB to chime in and mention what they've experienced.

edit: BTW, I'm not really speaking fps, the game is sluggish and annoying when it accesses the page file. Harder to measure just something you have to 'feel.' Thats why I suggest trying to borrow some ram. Hard to get killer frame rates in big onslaught maps but the ram keeps it buttery without stutters.

Rukee
04-27-2004, 12:09 PM
then why does it run on my system with only 256mb??
according to you, it should be stumbeling all over then, and it plays great at the highest resolution I can.

Soulburner
04-27-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by texuspete2k2
Don't know why you say this again... 512mb ram is not enough to play this game well. It's the truth, accept it! Great system you have there but you can get an NV40, won't help. Can you try borrowing some? No offense.:)
Its playing great on my system now, and i'm still only running 512mb.

Trying to find the cause of the problem on my other computer.

texuspete00
04-27-2004, 12:22 PM
Rukee... well, from the outset I was spotting out what I see as a potential problem with Soulburner's system and this game. Look at his specs, what jumps out at you? Thats what does it to me, the ram. Especially knowing that Soulburner is a master tweaker, I thought it a better suggestion than "Have you updated your drivers." I get smooth performance with lesser hardware, only difference is I have a GB. I was playing UT on 512 only weeks before now.

As for you, It is a bit hard to diagnose a 'problem' with your system when you say all is buttery smooth. I stand no chance to be right so I wouldn't want to try. If your game runs well on 256mb, more power to you man.

Soulburner
04-27-2004, 12:24 PM
Heres mine in Direct3D 1024x768 6xAA 8xAF max details, doesn't really look different than yours, maybe even better. I play with Normal or High Detail, but I put this on Highest just to test.

The original image is higher quality but its too big to attach here.

texuspete00
04-27-2004, 12:42 PM
Well, I guess if you can keep your system nice and lean and unclick "preload player skins" or whatever it's doable. Care to shed some light on the fix Soul?

I'm just noticing a lot of people with nice 3dmark rigs that end up unhappy with some new games. I hear people with 9800 rigs call BFV unplayable. It's not. Doesnt run well on 512 and has bugs in general, this is true. Ut is not as big a mem hog as that game. I think UT is pushing it on 512 but whatever makes it work for you guys. Based on the info Soulburner had provided it didnt seem like a bad guess. He has all the MHz in all the right places. 512 is getting to be not enough but again, you tell me it runs good on yours now, and thats what matters.

1GB of ram though... on a gaming rig... highly recommended.

Rukee
04-27-2004, 01:12 PM
openGL seems to do the light better, IMO.

and the newest GF drivers, I do believe have an in game scale that shows how much of the systems (agp) memory is being used, and it`s verry little. Even the onboard VC memory is not used verry much, about 32mb in this pic. This shot is in D3D as the scale will only work in 3D.

http://www.justwebit.com/sites1/42124/scale.jpg

Soulburner
04-27-2004, 03:40 PM
Honestly they look the same to me but its hard to directly compare because they are different size.

Can you put up a compare of the same image in both API's?

As for getting the game running good, I just unchecked preload skins or whatever...

lalPOOO
05-07-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by texuspete2k2
Well I went from 512mb to 1GB, exactly what many are suggesting to do for the new games, and I disagree with you. I believe that is allowed.

Your example doesnt really prove or disprove anything as it is different than mine. I suggest 512mb is not enough. You've gone and made what I believe is a bad situation (512 in this game) and made it worse. Don't know about OpenGL, I was actually speaking to soulburner (In case you took offense to 'why do you say this again'). I'll let other that have gone from 512 up to 1GB to chime in and mention what they've experienced.

edit: BTW, I'm not really speaking fps, the game is sluggish and annoying when it accesses the page file. Harder to measure just something you have to 'feel.' Thats why I suggest trying to borrow some ram. Hard to get killer frame rates in big onslaught maps but the ram keeps it buttery without stutters.

I have an nf7 setup with 384mb of ram, (174 2-2-2-11) and I have the setup in my sig. With both are armed with geforce 2 mx400's The one in my rig is clocked a bit higher, but not a huge difference. Even playing large online games of onslaught I have noticed very little difference between the 2 computers. 10-15 fps difference on average, which could be easily be attributed to the slower system and lower videocard clocks. I noticed 1 or 2 stutters near the start of the game on the nf7 rig but that was all. I guess if you're insane about the game then 2x the cost for 1gig s worth it, or if you're worried about the future, but ut2k4 does not require 1 gig of ram.