VOGONS


Reply 20 of 26, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-10-30, 21:11:

You can stack SETMUL BPD VPD on top of that for a bit more slowdown.

Doubt it will get you to 286 speed but it might shave off a point or two in 3DBench. Loosening memory timings in the BIOS can slow things down a bit more as well.

Just tried that. Got a score of 8.9. This included setting to 120MHz, L1/L2 cache off, VPD, BPD, and the Tseng ET4000AX ISA video card.

I then tried with an OAK EGA/VGA card instead, and got down to 6.2. This is slightly slower than a 386 SX-25 I previously benchmarked. Still a bit too fast for my copy of Police Quest 2 though.

It's kinda funny to me I can throttle a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 to perform slower than I can throttle a Pentium MMX. 😅 (And that's without needing to change anything in the BIOS.)

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 21 of 26, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Incidentally, just ran into another quirk when testing Blackthorne.

With either L1 or L2 cache disabled, it works fine. But with both L1 and L2 cache disabled, the game wouldn't start (froze up).

It seems to freeze as a result of having music enabled. Didn't seem to make a difference whether I selected General MIDI or Sound Blaster support. Tried a couple different sound cards, but still the same issue.

If I disabled music and had both cache disabled, the game would start.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 22 of 26, by RetroPCCupboard

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-30, 21:01:

I would be interested to see if there is any difference. I tried looking up different versions of PQ2. There are different version numbers on different disk releases. Not sure what version the GoG (or Steam) ones are supposed to be.

Well, I confirm that the GOG release is different! There is a speed difference on the intro screen. A quite pronounced difference when L1 cache is enabled. Less so when L1 cache is disabled. The non-GOG release plays at proper speed even running the game with L1 cache enabled.

Also there are differences in the resource files and EXEs. See photos below. In each photo I did DIR to first see what's in GOG release then DIR to see same list in this unknown release:

20241031_071333.jpg
Filename
20241031_071333.jpg
File size
1.49 MiB
Views
147 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
20241031_071239.jpg
Filename
20241031_071239.jpg
File size
1.54 MiB
Views
147 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

I note also that the GOG release seems to have copy protection in it. It asks me to enter the last name of someone from their photo. But in the GOG manual I can't see any names next to the photos. So I had to Google for mugshots with the names. Surely the GOG release must have the answer to the question somewhere in the documentation?

The unknown release I have seemingly has copy protection removed.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-30, 21:01:

FWIW, I tried again slowing down my Pentium MMX 233. I set it to 120MHz (slowest the motherboard will allow), disabled L1/L2 cache, and used an ISA video card (Tseng ET4000AX chipset). Even with that, it wasn't slow enough for Police Quest 2. 3DBench reported 10.7 FPS. This is about 2.7x faster than my 12MHz 286, which gets 3.9 FPS on the same benchmark.

Note also that I am running this system with 72 pin EDO RAM. Considerably slower than the 168 Pin SIMMs (this motherboard supports both).

Reply 23 of 26, by jmarsh

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-10-31, 07:30:

I note also that the GOG release seems to have copy protection in it. It asks me to enter the last name of someone from their photo. But in the GOG manual I can't see any names next to the photos. So I had to Google for mugshots with the names. Surely the GOG release must have the answer to the question somewhere in the documentation?

Check the start menu folder entry that gets installed for the game, there should be an image in there.

Reply 25 of 26, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-10-31, 07:30:

Well, I confirm that the GOG release is different! There is a speed difference on the intro screen. A quite pronounced difference when L1 cache is enabled. Less so when L1 cache is disabled. The non-GOG release plays at proper speed even running the game with L1 cache enabled.

Also there are differences in the resource files and EXEs. See photos below. In each photo I did DIR to first see what's in GOG release then DIR to see same list in this unknown release:

That's wild, I wonder how that other version isn't speed sensitive? Could be the removal of copy protection or just being a different version entirely? I would have thought that if there was a non-speed sensitive version it would be a newer version, but maybe not?

I also notice it has six RESOURCE files, so I wonder if it might be from a 5.25" disk copy (since those used 6 disks).

I've got an old boxed copy of the game with original disks (both 3.5" and 5.25") that are labelled version 1.002.011. Don't know if the disks work, but I might try to install it from those and see what happens.

Note also that I am running this system with 72 pin EDO RAM. Considerably slower than the 168 Pin SIMMs (this motherboard supports both).

Noted. I haven't tried my system with EDO RAM, so don't know how much more than would slow it down.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 26 of 26, by RetroPCCupboard

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-31, 22:48:

That's wild, I wonder how that other version isn't speed sensitive? Could be the removal of copy protection or just being a different version entirely? I would have thought that if there was a non-speed sensitive version it would be a newer version, but maybe not?

I am not sure, but I notice that the filename of the main exe is different between the two releases. Whatever has been done, was achieved without changing the file size. Both are identical size. I guess I could compare the two in binary to get an idea how different they are.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-31, 22:48:

I also notice it has six RESOURCE files, so I wonder if it might be from a 5.25" disk copy (since those used 6 disks).

I've got an old boxed copy of the game with original disks (both 3.5" and 5.25") that are labelled version 1.002.011. Don't know if the disks work, but I might try to install it from those and see what happens.

Yes, I was wondering if the number of resource files was due to the floppy disk size that the releases were based on.