...and another one (OpenGL)

benny · Post by **benny** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:47 am

@traumatic:
Yup .. my fps depends on the differents scene. Scene 2 and 4 runs slower than the others.

J. Baker · Post by **J. Baker** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:20 am

traumatic wrote:I uploaded a modified version with chooseable resolution and colour-depth. Do the different modes make a difference?

Thanks for your time!

It's runs at a constant 50 fps on all resolutions, except for 1024x768x32, the last scene drops to low 40's.

traumatic · Post by **traumatic** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:23 am

Thank you all for your responses!

Dare2 wrote: And as mentioned, everything looks cleaner (no fuzzy blobby renderings, no weave-type effects). I may actually be seeing something close to what you see.

hmm... in all resolutions? That's strange as I didn't change anything...

This is how it looks on my machine:

Did I already mention that I want my AMIGA back?
Everything was the same on any computer...

Post by **Dare2** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:00 am

lol @ Amiga sentiment.

Don't know why, but v1 is fuzzier and slower than v2. Interesting.

Those images are pretty close to what I see, just crisper (the images).

Mind you, my setup fails to deliver decent images for just about anything with high-intensity graphics, so you are way ahead of most of the pack.

J. Baker · Post by **J. Baker** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:31 pm

J. Baker wrote:
traumatic wrote:I uploaded a modified version with chooseable resolution and colour-depth. Do the different modes make a difference?

Thanks for your time!
It's runs at a constant 50 fps on all resolutions, except for 1024x768x32, the last scene drops to low 40's.

That's weird, I woke up this morning and tried this again and got the same results as last night. So, I tried the first one again and was able to go above 50 fps. So I went back to the second one and tried it again and now it's fine.

This just may be my computer only, unless you use microsoft as well...lol...jk.

traumatic · Post by **traumatic** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:40 pm

J. Baker wrote:[...] I woke up this morning and tried this again

Wow! OpenGL-Breakfast. I like it!

This just may be my computer only, unless you use microsoft as well...lol...jk.

Yes, but I'll try Linux next because Danilo said in another thread that it was loading its files from nowhere...
that's a HUGE advantage IMHO

Justin · Post by **Justin** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:07 pm

at 1024x768 32bit droped a bit the under 33, the others run at 33 like before.

Hi-Toro · Post by **Hi-Toro** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:36 pm

I get a steady 112 here, in any mode!

traumatic · Post by **traumatic** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:11 am

Hi-Toro wrote:I get a steady 112 here, in any mode!

Must be a graphicscard from hell!

J. Baker · Post by **J. Baker** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:21 am

traumatic wrote:Wow! OpenGL-Breakfast. I like it!

A breakfast for champions.

Hi-Toro · Post by **Hi-Toro** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:05 am

Must be a graphicscard from hell!

Heh heh... it's a Radeon 9800. I wonder if the FPS code is just not working right? That said, there isn't all that much going on in terms of polygons (it's a cool demo though!), so maybe it is right...

GedB · Post by **GedB** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:40 pm

Just 16-19 here, but it still look good.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:40 pm

weird weird weird... framerate is stuck at 61..65 fps, no matter what i do, no matter what i change

could the nvidia drivers be limiting my opengl performance? or could it be a feature (ahum) of my gforce4? (asus)

anyway, looks nice!

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:48 pm

noticed the same thing here, moving the mouse will vary the reported framerate? i think that should not be the case...

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:47 pm

1 fps on sony pcg-sr1k