Ok, NS2 as been able to start on ubuntu 13.10 with the new build 263 on the beta channel.
on a i7 4770S with hd4600
Using kernel 3.11.0-17-generic using the standard MESA:
OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Haswell Desktop
OpenGL core profile version string: 3.1 (Core Profile) Mesa 9.2.1
OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 1.40
OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
With 1920x1080 or any resolution, with all the bling effects turned off or in low, I get 5 fps, not very playeble on the training i couldn't kill the Gorge that moved.
Going to try it out with the oibaf PPA for the latest MESA 10. Will report back in 15 mins.
It gets a bit better, up to 7 fps, but it's still hard to play, with:
OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Haswell Desktop
OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.2.0-devel (git-4ca8439 saucy-oibaf-ppa)
OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 3.30
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
It has been stated since before the alpha was even released that Integrated Graphics were not supported.
Sure it is great it can run on them, as on older versions of intel IG's the game would just turn around and laugh at you before not even starting, but you need a video card with at least 1GB of dedicated video memory. I used to have a nVidia 250 512mb, and could get no more than 15fps, as well as many texture bugs. I was told quite clearly that it is because it doesn't meet minimum requirements. Sure enough, once I got a 1GB card it worked much better. Now I have a 2GB card, and it is massively better.
Minimum:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 2.6 ghz
Memory:2 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB VRAM and support for Shader Model 3 (e.g. ATI X800, NVidia 8600 or better)
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
Recommended:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 3.0 ghz
Memory:4 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB, AMD 5770, NVidia GTX 450 or better
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
Other Requirements:Broadband Internet connection
It has been stated since before the alpha was even released that Integrated Graphics were not supported.
Sure it is great it can run on them, as on older versions of intel IG's the game would just turn around and laugh at you before not even starting, but you need a video card with at least 1GB of dedicated video memory. I used to have a nVidia 250 512mb, and could get no more than 15fps, as well as many texture bugs. I was told quite clearly that it is because it doesn't meet minimum requirements. Sure enough, once I got a 1GB card it worked much better. Now I have a 2GB card, and it is massively better.
This again... look, my little Intel HD 4000 runs NS2 just fine under Windows 7 at about 40 FPS when I take the time to dual-boot. I may only play casually, but it is perfectly enjoyable. Not a single person with an integrated card has requested it to run "well" on it, so can we please drop the hardware bashing and just stay on topic.
As a side-note, thanks a bundle to Max for making the patch.
It has been stated since before the alpha was even released that Integrated Graphics were not supported.
Sure it is great it can run on them, as on older versions of intel IG's the game would just turn around and laugh at you before not even starting, but you need a video card with at least 1GB of dedicated video memory. I used to have a nVidia 250 512mb, and could get no more than 15fps, as well as many texture bugs. I was told quite clearly that it is because it doesn't meet minimum requirements. Sure enough, once I got a 1GB card it worked much better. Now I have a 2GB card, and it is massively better.
This again... look, my little Intel HD 4000 runs NS2 just fine under Windows 7 at about 40 FPS when I take the time to dual-boot. I may only play casually, but it is perfectly enjoyable. Not a single person with an integrated card has requested it to run "well" on it, so can we please drop the hardware bashing and just stay on topic.
As a side-note, thanks a bundle to Max for making the patch.
Hardware bashing :P I think you are a little too sensitive...
I was merely quoting Flayra who advised that the game was not going to run on IG's. The fact it does is a BONUS.
It has been stated since before the alpha was even released that Integrated Graphics were not supported.
Sure it is great it can run on them, as on older versions of intel IG's the game would just turn around and laugh at you before not even starting, but you need a video card with at least 1GB of dedicated video memory. I used to have a nVidia 250 512mb, and could get no more than 15fps, as well as many texture bugs. I was told quite clearly that it is because it doesn't meet minimum requirements. Sure enough, once I got a 1GB card it worked much better. Now I have a 2GB card, and it is massively better.
This again... look, my little Intel HD 4000 runs NS2 just fine under Windows 7 at about 40 FPS when I take the time to dual-boot. I may only play casually, but it is perfectly enjoyable. Not a single person with an integrated card has requested it to run "well" on it, so can we please drop the hardware bashing and just stay on topic.
As a side-note, thanks a bundle to Max for making the patch.
Could you benchmark ns2 on those 3 configs? : windows dx9, opengl and linux opengl.
Could you benchmark ns2 on those 3 configs? : windows dx9, opengl and linux opengl.
Sure, I could, you will have to give me some time though, but I should be able to do it around the beginning of March (I am abroad right now). Is there any standardised way to do the benchmarking? Running training, chasing Gorges and trying to manually keep track of the FPS seems less than ideal to me. '^^
Could you benchmark ns2 on those 3 configs? : windows dx9, opengl and linux opengl.
Sure, I could, you will have to give me some time though, but I should be able to do it around the beginning of March (I am abroad right now). Is there any standardised way to do the benchmarking? Running training, chasing Gorges and trying to manually keep track of the FPS seems less than ideal to me. '^^
I took the time to get it done a bit earlier than expected. As a test I logged onto the same empty server and jumped around in the Biodome lobby for at least 30 seconds or so. The settings were quite simple, the same that I have been using before. 800x600 as the resolution, all other settings at the lowest possible (you can actually set the resolution to 640x480, but the UI is just terrible to navigate when going below 800x600. At 800x600 I can at least do everything apart from commanding). Thanks by the way to the devs for the lighting setting being added with the latest patch.
Here is how my Intel HD 4000 performs:
Windows 7 x64 (D3D9): FPS on a range of ~40 to ~75, averaging around ~50. Very much playable and enjoyable.
Windows 7 x64 (OpenGL): The GLSLCompiler.exe crashed if I tried to launch the game, I edited the configuration file manually to get back to D3D.
Linux x64 (OpenGL): FPS on a range of ~3 to ~50, averaging around ~10. Not playable, unless you want to stare at a wall, odd flickering artefacts of up-side-down renderings of the loading screen when loading and loading times being terrible in comparison to Windows 7 x64 (D3D9).
Initially I suspected that there was some correlation between Windowed, Fullscreen (Windowed) and Fullscreen. But on all platforms there appears to be no substantial effect on the performance when switching between the three (except that Linux lacks Fullscreen as an option, I think this is due to some OpenGL hackery).
So, my current judgement is that you will have to stick to dual-booting. Whether the problem is with shoddy drivers, lacking OpenGL capabilities when it comes to shaders, poor OpenGL implementation or game code, I don't have a clue. Anything that I ever produced game-wise never came close to a 3D-engine.
My experience is that the opengl implementation is basically the same in terms of graphics quality when compared to dx9 or dx11. Using windows I get roughly comparable fps. It seems to me that mesa might be the issue. Keep in mind that the linux stack is much less homogeneous than the windows stack. As an example: the linux box I test on gets a 50% ish drop by using cinnamon as my window manager when compared to gnome 3 fallback.
My experience is that the opengl implementation is basically the same in terms of graphics quality when compared to dx9 or dx11. Using windows I get roughly comparable fps. It seems to me that mesa might be the issue. Keep in mind that the linux stack is much less homogeneous than the windows stack. As an example: the linux box I test on gets a 50% ish drop by using cinnamon as my window manager when compared to gnome 3 fallback.
Agreed about the comments regarding the Linux stack, this is one of the things that hopefully will improve if Valve sticks to its commitment regarding SteamOS. For the record, I am running LXDE as my window manager, no fancy effects etc. just the bare essentials. So the performance that I reported should be about as good as it currently gets on my system. About the drivers, I have questioned whether Intel is really committed to fully supporting Linux, I am still sceptical, Nvidia on the other hand is doing a fine job and ATI appears to be improving (or so I have heard...). But I am rambling here, if someone comes up with a way to benchmark and compare the performance of the drivers between the platforms so that we can know where the difference in performance stems from, it would be most welcome and I would be very happy to read about it.
This again... look, my little Intel HD 4000 runs NS2 just fine under Windows 7 at about 40 FPS when I take the time to dual-boot. I may only play casually, but it is perfectly enjoyable. Not a single person with an integrated card has requested it to run "well" on it, so can we please drop the hardware bashing and just stay on topic.
So what? This doesn't change the officially supported devices that the developers have posted in these forums as well as the store page? It's not hardware bashing to state what is officially supported.
IF you get it to run : Awesome, lucky you!
IF you cannot: I suggest you follow the recommendations on the store page and purchase a dedicated graphics card to play this FPS.
No further support will be given for IG for this product.
This again... look, my little Intel HD 4000 runs NS2 just fine under Windows 7 at about 40 FPS when I take the time to dual-boot. I may only play casually, but it is perfectly enjoyable. Not a single person with an integrated card has requested it to run "well" on it, so can we please drop the hardware bashing and just stay on topic.
So what? This doesn't change the officially supported devices that the developers have posted in these forums as well as the store page? It's not hardware bashing to state what is officially supported.
Not necessarily, but I think this thread has had quite enough of pointing this out (see page one). When @Soul_Rider made his original comment @vvro was happily discussing the current performance he was getting with the latest patch after being able to run the game. Look at what @vvro was saying, not a single complaint, thanks to the devs and everything. I most respectfully don't think that @Soul_Rider, or you for that matter, has added anything to this thread since the last patch that wasn't stated previously. This is turning into a meta discussion though, please consider this my final statement on this matter, you are most welcome to disagree with me.
Comments
Mesa support!
on a i7 4770S with hd4600
Using kernel 3.11.0-17-generic using the standard MESA:
OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Haswell Desktop
OpenGL core profile version string: 3.1 (Core Profile) Mesa 9.2.1
OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 1.40
OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
With 1920x1080 or any resolution, with all the bling effects turned off or in low, I get 5 fps, not very playeble on the training i couldn't kill the Gorge that moved.
Going to try it out with the oibaf PPA for the latest MESA 10. Will report back in 15 mins.
Thanks for the progress.
OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Haswell Desktop
OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.2.0-devel (git-4ca8439 saucy-oibaf-ppa)
OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 3.30
If you need any testing on this, just say.
Sure it is great it can run on them, as on older versions of intel IG's the game would just turn around and laugh at you before not even starting, but you need a video card with at least 1GB of dedicated video memory. I used to have a nVidia 250 512mb, and could get no more than 15fps, as well as many texture bugs. I was told quite clearly that it is because it doesn't meet minimum requirements. Sure enough, once I got a 1GB card it worked much better. Now I have a 2GB card, and it is massively better.
Minimum:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 2.6 ghz
Memory:2 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB VRAM and support for Shader Model 3 (e.g. ATI X800, NVidia 8600 or better)
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
Recommended:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 3.0 ghz
Memory:4 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB, AMD 5770, NVidia GTX 450 or better
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
Other Requirements:Broadband Internet connection
This again... look, my little Intel HD 4000 runs NS2 just fine under Windows 7 at about 40 FPS when I take the time to dual-boot. I may only play casually, but it is perfectly enjoyable. Not a single person with an integrated card has requested it to run "well" on it, so can we please drop the hardware bashing and just stay on topic.
As a side-note, thanks a bundle to Max for making the patch.
asa@asa-thinkpad:~$ glxinfo | grep OpenGL
OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Ivybridge Mobile
OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.2.0-devel
OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 3.30
OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
OpenGL core profile profile mask: core profile
OpenGL core profile extensions:
OpenGL version string: 3.0 Mesa 10.2.0-devel
OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30
OpenGL context flags: (none)
OpenGL extensions:
Hardware bashing :P I think you are a little too sensitive...
I was merely quoting Flayra who advised that the game was not going to run on IG's. The fact it does is a BONUS.
Could you benchmark ns2 on those 3 configs? : windows dx9, opengl and linux opengl.
Sure, I could, you will have to give me some time though, but I should be able to do it around the beginning of March (I am abroad right now). Is there any standardised way to do the benchmarking? Running training, chasing Gorges and trying to manually keep track of the FPS seems less than ideal to me. '^^
http://wiki.unknownworlds.com/ns2/Linux_Guide#Getting_Backtraces
Thanks:)
I took the time to get it done a bit earlier than expected. As a test I logged onto the same empty server and jumped around in the Biodome lobby for at least 30 seconds or so. The settings were quite simple, the same that I have been using before. 800x600 as the resolution, all other settings at the lowest possible (you can actually set the resolution to 640x480, but the UI is just terrible to navigate when going below 800x600. At 800x600 I can at least do everything apart from commanding). Thanks by the way to the devs for the lighting setting being added with the latest patch.
Here is how my Intel HD 4000 performs:
Windows 7 x64 (D3D9): FPS on a range of ~40 to ~75, averaging around ~50. Very much playable and enjoyable.
Windows 7 x64 (OpenGL): The GLSLCompiler.exe crashed if I tried to launch the game, I edited the configuration file manually to get back to D3D.
Linux x64 (OpenGL): FPS on a range of ~3 to ~50, averaging around ~10. Not playable, unless you want to stare at a wall, odd flickering artefacts of up-side-down renderings of the loading screen when loading and loading times being terrible in comparison to Windows 7 x64 (D3D9).
Initially I suspected that there was some correlation between Windowed, Fullscreen (Windowed) and Fullscreen. But on all platforms there appears to be no substantial effect on the performance when switching between the three (except that Linux lacks Fullscreen as an option, I think this is due to some OpenGL hackery).
So, my current judgement is that you will have to stick to dual-booting. Whether the problem is with shoddy drivers, lacking OpenGL capabilities when it comes to shaders, poor OpenGL implementation or game code, I don't have a clue. Anything that I ever produced game-wise never came close to a 3D-engine.
Edit: s/tree/three, s/expect/except/
Agreed about the comments regarding the Linux stack, this is one of the things that hopefully will improve if Valve sticks to its commitment regarding SteamOS. For the record, I am running LXDE as my window manager, no fancy effects etc. just the bare essentials. So the performance that I reported should be about as good as it currently gets on my system. About the drivers, I have questioned whether Intel is really committed to fully supporting Linux, I am still sceptical, Nvidia on the other hand is doing a fine job and ATI appears to be improving (or so I have heard...). But I am rambling here, if someone comes up with a way to benchmark and compare the performance of the drivers between the platforms so that we can know where the difference in performance stems from, it would be most welcome and I would be very happy to read about it.
It's not hardware bashing to state what is officially supported.
IF you get it to run : Awesome, lucky you!
IF you cannot: I suggest you follow the recommendations on the store page and purchase a dedicated graphics card to play this FPS.
No further support will be given for IG for this product.
Not necessarily, but I think this thread has had quite enough of pointing this out (see page one). When @Soul_Rider made his original comment @vvro was happily discussing the current performance he was getting with the latest patch after being able to run the game. Look at what @vvro was saying, not a single complaint, thanks to the devs and everything. I most respectfully don't think that @Soul_Rider, or you for that matter, has added anything to this thread since the last patch that wasn't stated previously. This is turning into a meta discussion though, please consider this my final statement on this matter, you are most welcome to disagree with me.
Edit: s/anything/everything/