get a faster pc.

To better understand the situation you need to say your CPU and what resolution you are using.

Higher resolution -> More pixels to draw -> Slower
Facts of life.

For Blood, you may also consider BloodCM which supports high resolutions in a true 3D environment, although not 100% faithful to the original.

Make sure you're using a resolution that doesn't require scaling to fit your screen, i.e. native ratio, 16:9, 16:10 whatever you have. That speeds it up a lot.

You're not the only one with a computer not fast enough to run this game properly.

^ don't use surface

In 1997 not many people played Blood at hi-res either, it's far less "properly" and more luxury. The "proper" canonical res is 320x200.

IF you seriously want to play Blood in hi-res all smooth just get a P4 northwood dos machine already

leileilol wrote:

In 1997 not many people played Blood at hi-res either, it's far less "properly" and more luxury. The "proper" canonical res is 320x200.

People played Blood later too. It was popular a couple of years, as had excellent multiplayer.

IF you seriously want to play Blood in hi-res all smooth just get a P4 northwood dos machine already

DOS machine without ISA would be funny.

RaVeN-05 wrote:

When i use high resolutions in blood this will drop fps, does it possible somehow to overdrive(accelerate) it?

or if does not will be best to do it in dosbox source code. (as suggestion)

i think it will also affect Chasm - The Rift to become playable at high resolutions

Blood is built on a raycaster engine. Raycasters do not run at high resolutions very well (and by that, I mean actively setting the rendering options in a BUILD engine game like Blood/Duke3d/Redneck Rampge to 1024x768 or higher will result in the game running slower). Running a raycaster game at 320x240 game resolution (but hitting Alt + Enter on dosbox to stretch it up to fullscreen) will not make it run any slower, it's only if the actual rendering engine has to cast more rays that will slow it down.

Run the games setup and select VESA 640x480 for optimal speeds, and run the game in fullscreen. If it runs slow for you still, hit CTRL + F12 a few times to knock DOSBOX's clock cycles up. If you're running the GOG or steam version which comes pre-loaded with a dosbox conf file, the cycles will already be at 100%.

If it's still running slow, you must be running this on a system that dates back to when the dinosaurs existed.

Okay, Thank you forum a lot =) The BloodCM is awesome, but back to original DOS Blood and also CHASM.
UNIVBE Drivers seems helps to speed up. Also LFB is faster mode than Banked?
Also for some games DOS32A Extender makes them faster?
About Chasm: The Rift there is file DPMI16B.OVL seems this game writed on pascal, running CWSDPMI before game, makes error, "can't handle 16bit apps"
Where i can find DPMI16B.OVL i think if i find latest version of shared files it can help speed up.

Also there is QDOS with some interesting things
http://dk.toastednet.org/QDOS/

http://dk.toastednet.org/QDOS/FASTV110.ZIP -> Enable Write Combining and Linear Frame Buffering. Greatly speeds up Quake.
http://dk.toastednet.org/QDOS/MTRRLFBE.EXE -> by RayeR -- Faster video modes under DOS.

Both not works under dosbox even with combination of UNIVBE

But any way authors is managed to speed up video under real dos. So its possible under emu too.
They writed a way mre faster algorithm of transfering data.

I am still believe that it can done faster.

RaVeN-05 wrote:

I am still believe that it can done faster.

It's doubtfully you can significantly improve fps in Blood except by game's settings, emulator's settings or better hardware. The highest resonable resolution for Build engine games is 640x480. This should be handled acceptably even on not very modern CPUs in DOSBox.
note: machine=vesa_nolfb is recommended for Build games

I got Blood running smooth in 1024x768 on P4 2.4 GHz with Windows XP, Daemon Tools for CD image mounting, SoundFX 2000 for SoundBlaster emulation, SAPUCDEX for Audio-CD support, and some other patches (NOLFB, CLI2NOP).

So you either get a really fast PC for DOSBox, or an older PC with Windows XP and a lot of tweaking, or a classic PC from the era.

Qbix wrote:

get a faster pc.

How mature of you.

qbix is right though

get a faster pc

Well. Even if he or she had the latest state of the art, DosBox would pretty much fuck up the performance anyway.

and thread is closed since everything that can be said has been.

//Posted with my Core i7 930 from 2010 which runs blood great