VOGONS


Reply 200 of 781, by Kodai

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Another informative vid, thanks. I've been thinking about buying it for over a year now (I'm trying to build up a little collection of wavetable cards), and I think I will get this one and the new one. I should have preordered it, but most of my hobby budget got spent for June and July on some non computer hobbies. So I have will get them at the end of summer.

Reply 202 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
philscomputerlab wrote:

I "discovered" something today.

The WSS compatibility is great, however when you play a game, and use WSS + wavetable, the wavetable volume will be very quiet. It's as if the mixer setting gets changed. If you configure the game with SB Pro + wavetable, all is good 😀

Just wanted to mention this in case someone stumbles over the same issue.

WSS audio clarity is heaps better compared to SB Pro. The card likes to make a pop at the start of a level for example. With WSS this isn't the case.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 203 of 781, by jwt27

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
philscomputerlab wrote:
I "discovered" something today. […]
Show full quote
philscomputerlab wrote:

I "discovered" something today.

The WSS compatibility is great, however when you play a game, and use WSS + wavetable, the wavetable volume will be very quiet. It's as if the mixer setting gets changed. If you configure the game with SB Pro + wavetable, all is good 😀

Just wanted to mention this in case someone stumbles over the same issue.

WSS audio clarity is heaps better compared to SB Pro. The card likes to make a pop at the start of a level for example. With WSS this isn't the case.

Yep, WSS definitely deserves more praise than it gets, in the few games that support it. I think Dungeon Keeper especially is a good example.

And the mixer settings do actually get changed, games have full control over it in WSS. So the volume levels will be different for each game if they don't provide an option to change it...

Reply 204 of 781, by Kodai

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I've been sitting on my Audician 32 Plus for almost a year now. I plan on building a really funky 98 rig in the coming months (still in the planning stages and I think the Vogons folk will get a kick out of it), and I think I will consider using it as the OPL3 card and my Monster 300 for A3d games. Does the Audician 32 Plus have XG, I cant remember? If so, then I'll be golden on this silly machine I plan to build.

Reply 207 of 781, by jwt27

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kodai wrote:

Well, that makes like simpler then, 🤣 The Audician 32 Plus it is then. \m/ 😄 \m/

That's the YMF719 (or 718?). You'll probably want an YMF754, 744 or 724 card, these are PCI 😉

I don't know how their A3D/EAX support compares to the Aureal/Creative cards though. (maybe something for Phil to investigate? 😀)

Reply 208 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Every card has its strengths. For A3D, I wouldn't use anything but a Vortex 2 cards. I would stick to Kodai's plan, and use both cards. You can just disable the Yamaha in Windows if you like.

BTW, as a single card, the Yamaha works great in Windows. No complaints.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 210 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Is Doom playable on a 386? This is the question that I will answer with this video. I built a 386DX-40 PC and benchmarked Doom at all quality and screen size settings.

What do you think? Do you think it's playable or not? Please share your thoughts!

Video link: Is Doom playable on a 386?

And also: Playing Doom on a 386

Kh3zhFx.png

Last edited by PhilsComputerLab on 2015-07-09, 19:48. Edited 2 times in total.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 211 of 781, by vetz

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

My opinion is that its not playable with todays requirements of frames pr second. Back in the day I'm sure most people would say it were playable.

3D Accelerated Games List (Proprietary APIs - No 3DFX/Direct3D)
3D Acceleration Comparison Episodes

Reply 212 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
vetz wrote:

My opinion is that its not playable with todays requirements of frames pr second. Back in the day I'm sure most people would say it were playable.

Cool! I remember playing it on a 386 and Doom was one of the reasons I wanted to upgrade ASAP. So even back in the day, I wasn't happy with it.

The benchmark results above are from a high powered 386DX-40 with 256 KB Cache. If you had a SX or DX-25, then the outcome is even worse.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 213 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Added this video because of the relevance to the other one:

And also: Playing Doom on a 386

Clearly when music and sound is playing, and in later levels, the 386 struggles. Often it's very hard to aim and time the shots. Quite a few pauses when the game loads sounds. Maybe a limitation of 4 MB RAM?

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 214 of 781, by Evert

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Haha, that must have been the most frustrating and painful test ever conducted by anyone. In my opinion, Doom should be played at about 30-40 FPS. If you play with only a keyboard on a DOS machine I think that 60FPS or more is a bit too fast.

sigpic2689_1.gif

Reply 215 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Evert wrote:

Haha, that must have been the most frustrating and painful test ever conducted by anyone. In my opinion, Doom should be played at about 30-40 FPS. If you play with only a keyboard on a DOS machine I think that 60FPS or more is a bit too fast.

😵 Hes it was a bit boring to do the 18 benchmark runs...

When playing, the engine caps out at 35 fps. I find a Pentium to be a nice Doom machine. Even a IntelDX4, benches just under the 35 fps mark. And in-game levels become a lot more demanding as you progress through the game.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 216 of 781, by Evert

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Well, what framerate would you consider acceptable for Doom? Me and a friend actually had this discussion the other day about certain types of control schemes being better suited to certain frame rates. I actually think that 60-70FPS might be a bit too fast for certain DOS games. Quake, for example works better with a higher framerate because of the fast gameplay (thanks to the keyboard and mouse controls), whereas a keyboard only FPS game like Blood might be better suited to a lower frame rate.

sigpic2689_1.gif

Reply 217 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I play Doom pretty much like a modern FPS. AWSD + Mouse 😀

A keen observer noticed me running NOVERT, a little tool that stops you going forward when you move the mouse forward. You can remap the keys inside DOOM setup. With AWSD + mouse, you can play Doom extremely fast.

So a good framerate would be on a machine that can hold that 35 fps constantly, even when the action is intense.

As for the other games? Hmm. 120 fps on an old CRT monitor? 🤣

I've got no experience with such high frame rates. In the days of LCDs, 75 is the highest the screens I have can go. Back in the day I believe 85 Hz was the highest I was using.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 218 of 781, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Hello everyone!

I finally got around to updating the Tweak Guide for Strike Commander!

Video: Strike Commander Tweak Guide GOG

I am covering the following tweaks:

- Graphics: Nice full-screen 4:3 aspect ratio correct image

- Sound: Higher sample rate for better sound quality

- Music: Setting up and configuring General MIDI

- Joystick: Thrustmaster Flight Control System, Configuring POV hat and Rudder

- Playing on DOS Gaming PC: Burning an original installation CD

Download links:

Virtual MIDI Synth: http://coolsoft.altervista.org/en/virtualmidisynth#download

SoundFonts: http://coolsoft.altervista.org/en/virtualmidi … ynth#soundfonts

YouTube, Facebook, Website