UT 2003 on my Radeon 8500

Some benchamrks on a variety of platforms at different CPU speeds too:

http://www.pcgames.de/external/browser/?article_id=56350&image_id=196566&HARDWARE=yes

And if you can read German the link to the page: http://www.pcgames.de/index.cfm?menu=030101&article_ID=56350

Interesting to note that the Radeon 8500 is slower (by 1fps in all resolutions) than the Geforce Ti500. [OK it is interesting to me! ]

 

Doomtrooper Plz post your D3D reg settings

Doomtrooper, Could you please post your ATI D3D reg settings as when I test UT2003 using my 8500 the jungle scene doesn't render the ground.
Instead I get a pale blue floor. Thanks inadvance.

 

Acctually, after playing completely through Halo, SP/MP games have to be at *least* at that level to impress me. Lots of pollies, nice textures and oodles of bumpmapping

The UT "stuff" i have seen looks a lot better than whats shown in that demo. It looks a lot like what was shown in Germany a coupple months ago.

UT 2003, has HUGE maps, Lots of detail, lots of very detailed textures etc etc. Those rock textures look like they are still the ones from the origional game. I think the buld that this leaked demo is based on still has a *TON* of missing content. most of the ut textures are way over the 512x512 ones seen in games like SOF2.

This leak is simply not the real deal.

 

Dont start judging things from leaked demos. Remember all of the BS that went on went the Alpha Technology test was leaked last year? I can not beleived that from a miss placed texture in a leaked demo thats old you are already going to pass judgement on it?

 

http://ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180009

"The version of the game out there is missing a whole bunch of features. It has mediocre performance, lacks a ton of AI code, has unfinished levels, doesn't have Karma physics in it, has unfinished menus, lacks a ton of sound effects and music, has unbalanced, untweaked weapons, and generally is indicative of something still too early to even be called "beta"."

The demo has among its default settings the following. Uh, so I am told anyways.


[WinDrv.WindowsClient]
WindowedViewportX=640
WindowedViewportY=480
FullscreenViewportX=800
FullscreenViewportY=600
Brightness=0.800000
Contrast=0.700000
Gamma=0.800000
UseJoystick=False
CaptureMouse=True
StartupFullscreen=True
ScreenFlashes=True
NoLighting=False
DeadZoneXYZ=True
DeadZoneRUV=False
InvertVertical=False
ScaleXYZ=1000.000000
ScaleRUV=2000.000000
MinDesiredFrameRate=10.000000
Decals=True
NoDynamicLights=False
TextureDetailInterface=Normal
TextureDetailTerrain=Normal
TextureDetailWeaponSkin=Normal
TextureDetailPlayerSkin=Normal
TextureDetailWorld=Normal
TextureDetailRenderMap=Normal
TextureDetailLightmap=UltraHigh
TextureMaxLOD=0
TextureMinLOD=0
NoFractalAnim=False
UseAnisotropicFOV=False
MultFOVX=1.000000
MultFOVY=1.333333
ScaleFOVX=1.000000
ScaleFOVY=1.000000

 

I totally agree with the last few comments by Hellbinder, jb, and Babel. This "leak" is obviously an early version (902?) and to base a negative opinion of the entire game on it would be foolish. Yes, the textures are poor, no dynamic lighting, or all the goodies we will expect in the final release... In fact, it's most obvious there is a lot left out. The character models are worse than the original UT... IMHO "left out" features shouldn't be the base of an opinion with this leak for the entire game.

Now I can see why the developers get in such a fit about these leaks. Obvious, "in your face", basic issues such as the fact that this is an early build w/out many features is translated into a "full version" review/opinion.

I think it's easy to see what's missing and having messed with it for a day I think it's great. The overall layout of the game is impressive, the map designs are wonderful, and it looks like they paid attention to detail in the overall structure of the game. I'm higly impressed and seeing the holes and gaps within the game design only excites me all the more knowing that it can only get better than this leak.

 

Gotta agree with what was said before, considering this is an early leak, I actually find it quite impressive, to say it looks only slightly better than the current UT is an extreme understatement. There are obviously things missing/broken like dynamic lighting, some textures, images of the models in the menus, proper shading of character models - but the levels themselves are rather cool, the landscape engine rocks, and geometry complexity is a definite improvement over what most current games show, including the latest Q3A based shooters. When comparing it with one of those like SoF2 or JK2 I can't help but feel very excited, graphically it looks far more complex, and on my system it runs smooth as silk. So far I played it at 1024x768x32 with 4xS FSAA forced (just love this AA mode) on my Ti4200 and I haven't had a stutter yet (never had more than 3 enemies on screen yet though, maybe that would slow it down), sweet!

Would like to make some more performance tests, just gotta find that framerate display ...

Edit: As exciting as it is, I feel a bit bad about this whole leaked demo thing though, maybe I'll just just delete the stuff again and wait for the real demo now that my first blast of curiosity is satisfied, the Epic guys seem to be pretty pissed about this and rightly so ...

 

It may be a demo that leaked, but it's still illegal to spread it. Epic and Infogrames even go as far as mailing mods at some forums to halt any discussions regarding the leak. You may ask why, and whether they are over-reacting.

The answer is: no, they are not. Daniel Vogel summed it up nicely with "you only get one chance to make a first impression," and that's very true in the case of such a highly anticipated game as UT2003. It's not the fanboys that's the problem, it's not the hardcore UT players craving a sneak preview of things to come--most of them will buy the game regardless, no matter how "good" or "bad" a demo may look.

The "problem" is the large group of casual gamers and fans of competing games such as CS and Q3A. One glance at the demo, one forums post that's negative (and based on the "facts" of an old version), and the game might simply be dead for them. "doesn't look any better than Q3A, and the weapon balancing sucks, too." "lol, you just fell through the floor. and they took how long to make this run?" Such opinions, once made, will influence any future dealings with the game and may have a strong effect on the final decision whether or not to even bother trying out the OFFICIAL DEMO, mind purchasing UT2003. After all, "I already saw the demo three weeks ago, and it wasn't that great." Reasoning that content and engine build were probably outdated by a couple of months doesn't really help, because doubts about the product's quality are already there, however slight. And anybody with some brains and/or knowledge about marketing and PR knows that's one thing to avoid (or to play with ).

In short: any unofficial leak of this kind will hurt sales. It might hurt them little, it might hurt them much--but the damage is done.

ta,
.rb

 

good karma

imo the karma math/physics engine will really make future unreal offerings shine.. doom3 is nice to look at, but karma makes my jaw drop every time..

http://www.beyondunreal.com/dl.php/demos/unreal_engine_karma.zip

 

DOOM3 will apparently offer a similar physics engine.

 

http://www.beyondunreal.com/dl.php/demos/ut2wmv.zip
love the shot of the model falling down from the top, bouncing off all the rungs on the way down..

if doom3 offers something comparable, I'll be quite pleased..

 

heh, i was actually first to get that physics demo on the net a while ago, it was an exclusive on either pcgamer or pczone - cant remember which, but woz on the CD so i uploaded it quicker than you could say 'blueyonder broadband'.

RoLo

 

Build 927 is supposed to have been leaked, anyone have it yet and want to compare it to build 906?

 

RE: UT2003

Runs great on mine too, I benchmarked it. but at at 640x480. was getting 90-100 fps.. I play it at 1024.. I gotta finish donwloading the newest leak.. its the full game beta!

 

I can't believe another version has been leaked as well, it is 900 MB which is huge, here is what mark rein said about it

*edit* another interesting post by mark

 

Maybe they optimize the geometry in half and the textures away, but honestly I can't see this running on a TNT2.

 

As per usual people are overstating the effects of a video card. It's the CPU that counts, even with all the T&L and other work off loaded to the GPU.

A TNT2 with a 800MHz P3 should be just fine for this game at 800*600 with medium settings. That's basically what a person I know is running the current demo with some slowdown, but optimizations should clear that up. Then again, I question the level of optimizations we'll see from EPIC, wasn't it Sweeny who said we don't do inline assembly and things of that sort.

I really hope MS made some reasonable strides with their optimizing compilers with their latest version of VC++.