archsan wrote:

I've read something like this before, but I'd like to see it quantified. In other words compared to Banshee/V3 etc (or even an S […]
Show full quote

idspispopd wrote:

Rendition Verite is only slow in Mode X/Y (eg. Doom). It is quite capable in VESA modes,

I've read something like this before, but I'd like to see it quantified. In other words compared to Banshee/V3 etc (or even an S3 Trio). Any DN3D SVGA/XGA/SXGA/UXGA benchmark out there? I couldn't find one.. OTOH, almost too many quake benches! 😀

No Tualatin, but I find this though: http://gona.mactar.hu/v1000/
~20fps at XGA, not there yet.

Quake 1: http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/benchmark … tware-rendering
DN3D at 1024x768 is quite demanding, I doubt a K6-3 can do very much better. And that's a V1000 PCI, a V2200 AGP will be better.

[EDIT] OK, I looked into this and I'm a bit confused.
According to Gona's benchmarks the K6-III+ is not much faster than either the P166 or the Cyrix. But for each CPU a different mainboard is used which might make a difference.
Still, 22.9 fps equals 17587.2 KB/s and the measures transfer rate is 77568 KB/s so the transfer from RAM to screen buffer should take less than 25% of the available time.
Don't know what's going on here. VESA LFB makes a difference with DN3D but he doesn't say anything about this. V1000 should have VESA 2.0.
The transfer rate is quite good for a PCI card IMO. I remember my AGP Rendition V2200 reaching or exceeding 133MB/s, the theoretical maximum for PCI cards.

Gamecollector wrote:

Is there a good guide for DN3d levels? Because when I try to play this *censored* game (version 1.3d, Come Get Some) - I always […]
Show full quote

Is there a good guide for DN3d levels?
Because when I try to play this *censored* game (version 1.3d, Come Get Some) - I always have 59 enemies killed and 2 missed in E1M1, "Hollywood Holocaust". And this thing make me mad!!! 🙁
P.S. Wikia think there are 58 enemies on this level. Yeah, right...
P.S.S. By the way, is there a way to check level info (enemies/secrets) in-game, like Tab in Quake?

Gamefaqs (http://www.gamefaqs.com) is always a good place to look for game-related help, as it has FAQs/walkthroughs/cheats for countless games, and a forum for each game too. It's not always the best place to look for technical help, as they are gamers more than technical, but it's always a good site to check.

Has anyone ever run any of the Build Engine games on a DOS machine at 1280x1024 with sound and a decent framerate, or do you pretty much need a beefy XP machine with VDMSound?

When I had a P4 1.5GHz with a Geforce 3 I was using Win98SE and the build games I have all ran well at this resolution. I could even push them to 1600x1200 and have a decent gameplay. NTVDM w/ VDMSound and nolfb just cripples their speed.

What did you use for sound?

A PCI SBPCI 128 can work (Motherboards may vary - mine's SiS-based). Still would need that "sblive crash fix" though, but NOLFB and the other "make game work xp!!!!" fixes aren't needed for 9X on very very fast machines.

I don't consider VDMSound as an option. Never have, never will.

So what are the best P4 chipsets for audio support under DOS?

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

What did you use for sound?

I had a SBLive at the time. I had to boot in pure DOS to avoid crashing.

I'm not sure about pentium 4. I think the ICH9 is the last one to work but I'm not sure. The PT880 ultra from via is good and it supports prescott and core2 (I had the 775-dualvsta with sblive, and sound worked in real-mode dos).

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Has anyone ever run any of the Build Engine games on a DOS machine at 1280x1024 with sound and a decent framerate, or do you pretty much need a beefy XP machine with VDMSound?

I played through the entire One Unit Whole Blood game pack at 1600x1200. This was on DOS 6.22 on an Athlon 1.3GHz with a Radeon 9700 Pro and a Philips Acoustic Edge soundcard. Ran real smooth.

I just realized that changing the resolution on these games does not change how much you can see (scope) but how much detail there is in what you do see. I was expecting it to be like polygon-based FPS like Quake 2, which let you see more of the playfield. Is this correct? Can't believe I had been mistaken for so long...

Quake 2 didn't let you see more of the playfield unless it's vertically and it's 1280x1024 (which is a 5:4 aspect, and Quake engines only officially did Vert+).

Adding horizontal expansion (Hor+) had to be done in a few custom engines, unfortunately many of the popular oft-recommended ones don't do this, and when they do, they do it wrong (like requiring new gamex86.dlls for it, not necessary when it could be done in the renderer itself)

Interesting. I always thought that increasing the resolution increased your "field of vision."

So, if you're playing 640x480 and there's a barrel on the left and right edges of your screen, and then you switch to 1280x960, the barrels will still be on the edges? Sorry to be so simplistic in my description.

Yes.

Whether or not you get an increased fov depends on the fov value itself. Technically you could go full 1920x1080 and the output image would still retain the same 4:3 fov except with greater detail and bottom/top regions chopped off.

Anyways, messing with the original fov can affect difficulty balance, making the game easier than it should.

So funny that I always had this assumption. So fov never changes even for modern FPS?

Of course it does change. I'm just talking about the fact that fov is not dependent on resolution and vice versa.

So fov changes by aspect ratio only?

Proper FOV calculation IS dependent on resolution though. If it wasn't, you'd get a strange stretched look for every resolution as game FOV also plays in part of 3d viewport aspect control.

and 🤣 even the Quake2 dos port in 320x200 demonstrates the chopping of the top/bottoms, which is incorrect behavior given 320x200's real screen aspect (Quake2 never supported 320x200). he should force 320x240 fov aspects for all reses in dos

I see relevant for this discussion, that status bar on build games is designed for 320x200 and when stretched on higher resolutions it's distorted, some pixels have more rows or columns than others. The only resolutions that respect the aspect ratio of the status bar are 320x400 (which glitches on DOSBox, part of the player sprite disappears), and 640x400, which is not available via setup but can be edited by hand in the duke3d.cfg file. It looks fantastic on a CRT, without showing how low resolution the textures and sprites are.