Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Mesa/Gallium3D Work With The Open-Source Doom 3?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Michael, at what quality were the screenshots taken?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      More FUD.

      I played it with high quality using FOSS Radeon drivers on a crappy graphics card.

      It won't run at 1080p (it will, but it won't be playable), but a lower resolution like 1280x1024 is fine.
      I agree. I just tried it with my mobile HD 6550 (= HD 5650) on Ultra settings @ 1600x900 on mesa git. Runs very fluent. I see no reason whatsoever to reduce the graphics quality even a tiny bit.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        Michael, at what quality were the screenshots taken?
        Ultra quality...
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #14
          When it comes to blurry textures, the quality settings do not necessarily affect the engines judgement, as if it feels the hardware is not up to it, it will compress the texture drawing somewhat. I have seen this happening on the free Radeon drivers and also on some older Catalyst versions which did not detect my card properly. This is even more evident in Quake 4 than in Doom 3 or Prey. There are certain toggles you can do in the config to get around this though. Remember, back in 2004, they had to do everything possible to get it running on consumer level hardware.

          Doom 3 is running acceptably using the stock R600g drivers supplied by Fedora 16 on my Radeon HD 4670 with SwapbuffersWait turned off and Colour Tiling enabled. What I find interesting is it seems to hit around 60 or so FPS and then drop down to 40 or so almost every time it renders. It really looks like, to me at least, that it wants to max it out more but there is something holding it back, like a bottleneck or something. Would be interesting to see if that is real or not.
          Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 17 November 2011, 03:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            There are TONS of bottleneck, not just one...
            ## VGA ##
            AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
            Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
              I agree. I just tried it with my mobile HD 6550 (= HD 5650) on Ultra settings @ 1600x900 on mesa git. Runs very fluent. I see no reason whatsoever to reduce the graphics quality even a tiny bit.
              Look at the pictures. There are so may effects missing, it doesn't look any better then Low quality anyway.
              But hey, open-source drivers can render a 7 years old game. It must be some sort of a record, right?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                Look at the pictures. There are so may effects missing, it doesn't look any better then Low quality anyway.
                But hey, open-source drivers can render a 7 years old game. It must be some sort of a record, right?
                Yes, it looks somewhat basic but I don't have good idea how it should look. Some side-by-side screenshots would be nice.

                But the point was: The article said you somehow need to use the lowest quality settings on the open source radeon drivers and I don't see that.

                By the way: This is how it looks on my laptop:

                (Needs some Anti-Aliasing )

                If you want to talk about records, then I have lots of other propositions:
                Negative: Minecraft (OpenGL 1.4) renders at 4 FPS (minetest, manic digger etc. all have 50 fps).
                Positive: Unigine Heaven renders fine. It's just a bit slow. And probably some effects are missing.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                  Yes, it looks somewhat basic but I don't have good idea how it should look. Some side-by-side screenshots would be nice.

                  But the point was: The article said you somehow need to use the lowest quality settings on the open source radeon drivers and I don't see that.
                  http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/gra...s_3.html#sect0

                  Not jaw-dropping by today's standards, but you can see some bump mapping missing. I imagine that's easier to see on enemies then walls. Also check out the framerates on those video cards.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
                    There are TONS of bottleneck, not just one...
                    I never implied there was just one, just commenting on my own experiences. Just goes to show, feature-wise the free drivers are almost there, they just need some more optimizations. Compare that to how we were in 2007 before the ball started rolling.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      From my experience, Doom 3 in Wine runs much better than the native version (getting around 40 fps on Radeon HD 4550), probably because Wine does some optimizations while native binary is unoptimized and pretty much old now. In fact, I never really got the sound working right when running Doom 3 natively on Linux, the sound just disappears after some time. Never saw that happening in Doom 3 in Wine.

                      I was also surprised that Half-life 2 is actually playable and fluent on max settings using Mesa 7.12-git and Radeon driver.

                      By the way, framerates tend to be up to around 30% higher when running the game in single-user mode using xgame script, probably because there's no DE overhead that way.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X