VOGONS


First post, by varrol

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hey, this is my first post here 😀

Screamer 2 was always one of my favourite games - I remember playing it when I had Pentium 120MHz with 64MB of RAM in the middle of 90's. There are 4 modes - low res - low color, hi res - low color, low res high color and hi res high color. Back then I remeber playing hi res - low color with no problems.

My current setup for it is: Asus P5A, Pentium 200MMX, 256MB RAM, GF 2 MX400, ISA ESS 1869 (but playing with no sound now)
Running boot into DOS from Windows 98 with extended memory option

And now hi res - low color is unplayable - quite low fps.

I've tried also windows game Sega Rally Championship - despite low requirements, it's also pretty slow.

I checked on AMD K6-2 350MHz and was fine, even able to run Screamer 2 in high res - high color (FPS not great though) -> so CPU does make a difference.

Unfortunately I don't have much time to play with my old computer stuff, so want to narrow down what to check - do you have any suggestions? I'm thinking of running benchmarks and compare to similar machines + remove all no used pci/isa cards.

AOpen AX6B+ | P3 1G | 1GB ECC REG | FX5200 | CT4500
AOpen AX59pro | K6-2 450M | 256MB | Rage 128
Asus CUBX-E | P3 1G | 512MB | GF4 TI4200 | YMF719E-S
Asus P3B-F | P3 933M | 384MB | Radeon 9200 | CT4520
Asus P5A | P55C 200M | 256MB | Riva TNT | CT3600

Reply 1 of 14, by collector

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Wrong forum. This forum is for DOS games on modern systems. Ask old hardware and driver/configuration questions in Marvin. Marvin, the Paranoid Android

The Sierra Help Pages -- New Sierra Game Installers -- Sierra Game Patches -- New Non-Sierra Game Installers

Reply 2 of 14, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
meljor wrote:
ALI Aladdin V revision D and E […]
Show full quote

ALI Aladdin V revision D and E

With 512 kB Level 2 Cache, 128 MB are cacheable
With 1024 kB Level 2 Cache, 128 MB are cacheable

ALI Aladdin V revision G

With 512 kB Level 2 Cache, 512 MB are cacheable
With 1024 kB Level 2 Cache, 4096 MB are cacheable

+ try univbe for the gf2mx
from memory screamer hires modes ran acceptably around 1GHz cpu, maybe you remember playing 3dfx version?

Open Source AT&T Globalyst/NCR/FIC 486-GAC-2 proprietary Cache Module reproduction

Reply 5 of 14, by Falcosoft

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
rasz_pl wrote:

last release is from 2002 and apparently did support gf2, varrol might also try nolfb

1.Yet, UNIVBE is still absolutely pointless for a GF2. UniVBE was meant for SVGA cards that implemented SVGA resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768) in a non-standard way (partly because no standards existed) and/or had no integrated VESA 2.0 Bios extensions. Neither is true for a GF2. There is no GF2 that lacks Vesa 2.0 and linear frame buffer support (the key component to get speed gain from using UNIVBE).
2. Utilities like NoLFB are compatibility fixes that mask/modify some reported features, and never were intended as performance enhancing tools. Specifically NoLFB's main purpose is to disable reporting linear frame buffer support (that is the faster option, but not supported by NT kernel) so that VESA 2.0 DOS programs can run under XP by using banked frame buffer modes (that are always slower).

You can try to run it under Win9x instead. Some cards use a lower Bootup GPU/MEM clock until Windows drivers are loaded so it may sound no so intuitive at first, but you can get better DOS performance under Win9x than under pure DOS with some cards.

Website, Facebook, Youtube
Falcosoft Soundfont Midi Player + Munt VSTi + BassMidi VSTi
VST Midi Driver Midi Mapper

Reply 6 of 14, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Falcosoft wrote:
rasz_pl wrote:

last release is from 2002 and apparently did support gf2, varrol might also try nolfb

1.Yet, UNIVBE is still absolutely pointless for a GF2. UniVBE was meant for SVGA cards that implemented SVGA resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768) in a non-standard way (partly because no standards existed) and/or had no integrated VESA 2.0 Bios extensions. Neither is true for a GF2. There is no GF2 that lacks Vesa 2.0 and linear frame buffer support (the key component to get speed gain from using UNIVBE).
2. Utilities like NoLFB are compatibility fixes that mask/modify some reported features, and never were intended as performance enhancing tools. Specifically NoLFB's main purpose is to disable reporting linear frame buffer support (that is the faster option, but not supported by NT kernel) so that VESA 2.0 DOS programs can run under XP by using banked frame buffer modes (that are always slower).

yes, that was the reason for me proposing univbe - to try disabling features, limiting card to vesa 1.2 etc

Falcosoft wrote:

You can try to run it under Win9x instead. Some cards use a lower Bootup GPU/MEM clock until Windows drivers are loaded so it may sound no so intuitive at first, but you can get better DOS performance under Win9x than under pure DOS with some cards.

too early, nvidia had no dynamic clocks until afaik FX (ram only) on desktop and gf4 on mobile

Open Source AT&T Globalyst/NCR/FIC 486-GAC-2 proprietary Cache Module reproduction

Reply 7 of 14, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I bet you are remembering with nostalgia lenses. Back then slow was <10fps in my mind because I never felt >30fps.

On a Pentium 200, there's no way this game plays smoothly in SVGA unless you are using a Voodoo for 3d acceleration.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 8 of 14, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I cant get this game to play in 640x486 on my P133 without the Voodoo addon, the performance is unplayable. You are remembering, you probably played at VGA.

A youtube video: https://youtu.be/2fM9OfB4Jvk Go to 17:08 to see it running like SHIT on an early PII.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 10 of 14, by varrol

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Amazing how demanding this game was at that time - it may be true that my memory is not correct - or I accepted lower fps back then. For sure my 15" CRT screen was better to see it than my current 17" LCD. On AMD K6-2 350MHz though its pretty good - and at least runs in highest settings (on 200MMX won't even start).

AOpen AX6B+ | P3 1G | 1GB ECC REG | FX5200 | CT4500
AOpen AX59pro | K6-2 450M | 256MB | Rage 128
Asus CUBX-E | P3 1G | 512MB | GF4 TI4200 | YMF719E-S
Asus P3B-F | P3 933M | 384MB | Radeon 9200 | CT4520
Asus P5A | P55C 200M | 256MB | Riva TNT | CT3600

Reply 12 of 14, by AlexZ

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

My Pentium III at 840Mhz still gets only about 25FPS in SVGA so there is definitely a limit in place. It isn't the best experience as to have smooth rendering you need at least 40 FPS. Interestingly the VGA version runs much smoother.

Pentium III 900E, ECS P6BXT-A+, 384MB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB, Voodoo 2 12MB, 80GB HDD, Yamaha SM718 ISA, 19" AOC 9GlrA
Athlon 64 3400+, MSI K8T Neo V, 1GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 512MB, 250GB HDD, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS

Reply 13 of 14, by RandomStranger

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
clueless1 wrote on 2019-03-14, 20:59:

I bet you are remembering with nostalgia lenses. Back then slow was <10fps in my mind because I never felt >30fps.

On a Pentium 200, there's no way this game plays smoothly in SVGA unless you are using a Voodoo for 3d acceleration.

I second this. Happens to me all the time. Remembering that a game looked or ran much better than it actually did 20+ years ago.
Human memory is unreliable.

sreq.png retrogamer-s.png

Reply 14 of 14, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Also known as graduation goggles.. You remember things in a much better light than they really were.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.