Oolite Bulletins

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:00 am**

How about you play Crysis under bootcamp for a while, then go back to Oolite and see how fast the framerate is? Yall might look into Cube 2 too, it's a great FPS that runs fast without that much power but is highly expandable.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:54 am**

there are some good 4gig graphics cards for mac, but they prefer the just very recently superceded models, according to my graphics consultants, and are not specified for current models.

Leadtek PCIe Quadro FX5800 4GB

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:05 am**

Laptops will never... NEVER be better gaming platform than desktops. I don't care if it is PC, Apple, or strawberry juice with little umbrellas.

The reason is this: Laptops use system memory for integrated graphics and have no real video memory whatsoever.
System memory being DDR/2/3...

Graphic cards (as, NOT integrated graphics) use GDDR/2/3/4/5 chips that give much MUCH better performance. They run at much higher frequencies and, off course, don't hijack system memory (which makes the score 2:0 for desktops).

If you compare a desktop and laptop with same GPU, CPU, chipset and amount of memory, and all running at same speeds, you would see a staggering difference at any video benchmark or in-game FPS rate.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:06 am**

Chaky wrote:
The reason is this: Laptops use system memory for integrated graphics and have no real video memory whatsoever.
System memory being DDR/2/3...

Not true of all laptops. For instance, current-gen 15" and 17" MacBooks (except the cheapest 15" model) have both integrated graphics and a discrete graphics chip with 256 or 512 MB of dedicated VRAM. You can of course get discrete chips from other manufacturers, and significantly better ones from, say, Alienware.

However, that’s still a slow, low-power discrete GPU and an even slower, lower-power GPU in an expensive computer. (Read that three times fast: “slower lower power mower”.)

Still, “better” is always subjective. If a system’s graphics performance suffice for the games you’re playing (and a 9600M should be more than enough for Oolite, for instance), other factors dominate. I’d rather play Spider on my phone than on a Mac Pro. (But if anyone wants to send me a Mac Pro to test this hypothesis, they’re welcome.)

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:38 am**

Ahruman wrote:
For instance, current-gen 15" and 17" MacBooks (except the cheapest 15" model) have both integrated graphics and a discrete graphics chip with 256 or 512 MB of dedicated VRAM.

Laptops with true VRAM? That's a newsflash to me.

Ahruman wrote:
Still, “better” is always subjective.

My term of "better" is strictly numbers: memory transport rate, bus pipeline capacity, memory/GPU frequencies and comparison of FPS rates of one game on different machines as the final and indisputable result.

I have 7800 GT with 512 MB GDDR3 VRAM and in most first-person shooter games I get same, if not better performance than, say, HP laptop with 4 gigs of system RAM (2 Gigs dedicated as VRAM) and 9800 GTX chip and dual core CPU (mine is single).

I mean, 9800 chip is "better" than 7800, no doubt about that, but lack of real VRAM kills the performance in any aspect. System RAM just can't cope with that much data being transfered, and ultimately caping the FPS rate.

Off course, I'm talking Crysis or COD5. Oolite is not THAT needy. (and it hope it will never be)

P.S. I hope I haven't strayed off topic too much.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:17 am**

I think you are correct, but not for the reasons you give. Laptops will ~~always~~ for the foreseeable future have to compromise on size, weight, heat and power management, which are not so great concerns in desktops. It will therefor pretty much always be possible to build a better (at least more performant) desktop than you can laptop.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:00 pm**

Chaky wrote:
Laptops will never... NEVER be better gaming platform than desktops. I don't care if it is PC, Apple, or strawberry juice with little umbrellas.

The reason is this: Laptops use system memory for integrated graphics and have no real video memory whatsoever.
System memory being DDR/2/3...

Graphic cards (as, NOT integrated graphics) use GDDR/2/3/4/5 chips that give much MUCH better performance. They run at much higher frequencies and, off course, don't hijack system memory (which makes the score 2:0 for desktops).

If you compare a desktop and laptop with same GPU, CPU, chipset and amount of memory, and all running at same speeds, you would see a staggering difference at any video benchmark or in-game FPS rate.

My (work) Dell XPS1730 has two 512MB 9800GT M gfx cards in SLI mode - that's 512MB each of dedicated VRAM on top of the 6GB of physical RAM (Vista - soon to be Windows 7) that the machine has. (an easy test is to remove all but 1GB of physical memory - which in your example would mean the machine had no memory to boot up the OS with)

But as the thing weighs 6.2kg, the huge battery only lasts 1hr if you unplug it from the mains, it has a 230W PSU, its effectively a portable desktop with a built-in screen, and not really a "laptop" at all.

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:51 am**

Cmdr James wrote:
I think you are correct, but not for the reasons you give. Laptops will ~~always~~ for the foreseeable future have to compromise on size, weight, heat and power management...

Add "production cost" to that list. That's the main party-pooper IMO.

I mean, I'm not saying that it is impossible to build a laptop that tops everything a custom-built desktop does... only, that laptop would be (give-or-take mass production/consumption factor) double the price..

And its battery would be more like desktop's UPS.. like DH's example.

And now, let's get back on topic.. (which I forgot what it was)

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:05 am**

Hello everyone,
I am using Ubuntu OS with 2 GB RAM. I have installed this game and it is running smoothly. No problem at all. It's looking nice. Picture quality is also good.

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:21 am**

Hi Maria, welcome to the Friendliest Forum this side of Riedquat(tm).

Which version of Ubuntu are you running?

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:41 am**

JensAyton wrote:
Chaky wrote:
The reason is this: Laptops use system memory for integrated graphics and have no real video memory whatsoever.
System memory being DDR/2/3...
Not true of all laptops. For instance, current-gen 15" and 17" MacBooks (except the cheapest 15" model) have both integrated graphics and a discrete graphics chip with 256 or 512 MB of dedicated VRAM.)

Indeed, On my MacBook Pro, I see:

Code: Select all

NVIDIA GeForce 320M:
  Chipsetmodel:	NVIDIA GeForce 320M
  Type:	GPU
  Bus:	PCI
  VRAM (totaal):	256 MB
  Fabrikant:	NVIDIA (0x10de)

On my MacBook was also Windows partition that runs with bootcamp. Im am a complete windows novice, but out of curiosity I downloaded Oolite for windows and fired that up. Plays nice. Now I have to figure out how to transfer mac files to the windows partition, as the partition is read only from the mac without option to change it. (any tips ?)

I see small differences in the log, ran from the same computer. Apple is very conservative in its OpenGL versions.

Code: Select all

Opening log for Oolite version 1.77 (x86-32) under Windows 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 64-bit at 2013-02-01 14:51:36 +0100.
2 processors detected.
Build options: spoken messages, mass/fuel pricing.

14:51:36.543 [dataCache.notFound]: No data cache found, starting from scratch.
14:51:38.084 [display.mode.list.native]: Windows native resolution detected: 1280 x 800
14:51:39.034 [joystick.init]: Number of joysticks detected: 0
14:51:39.082 [rendering.opengl.version]: OpenGL renderer version: 3.3.0 ("3.3.0"). Vendor: "NVIDIA Corporation". Renderer: "GeForce 320M/integrated/SSE2".
14:51:39.082 [rendering.opengl.extensions]: OpenGL extensions (246):

----

Code: Select all

Opening log for Oolite version 1.77.1 (x86-64 debug) under Mac OS X Version 10.7.5 (Build 11G63) at 2013-02-03 10:37:22 +0000.
Machine type: MacBookPro7,1, 8192 MiB memory, 2 x x86 (Penryn) @ 2400 MHz.
Build options: spoken messages, mass/fuel pricing, heavy OpenGL error checking, JavaScript console support, Debug plug-in support, OXP verifier, localization tools, debug GraphViz support, JavaScript profiling.

11:37:26.418 [dataCache.rebuild.explicitFlush]: Cache explicitly flushed with always-flush-cache preference. Rebuilding from scratch.
11:37:27.027 [display.fullScreen.temp]: Selecting modern full-screen controller.
11:37:27.099 [rendering.opengl.version]: OpenGL renderer version: 2.1.0 ("2.1 NVIDIA-7.32.12"). Vendor: "NVIDIA Corporation". Renderer: "NVIDIA GeForce 320M OpenGL Engine".
11:37:27.099 [rendering.opengl.extensions]: OpenGL extensions (134):

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:01 pm**

Eric Walch wrote:
On my MacBook was also Windows partition that runs with bootcamp. Im am a complete windows novice, but out of curiosity I downloaded Oolite for windows and fired that up. Plays nice. Now I have to figure out how to transfer mac files to the windows partition, as the partition is read only from the mac without option to change it. (any tips ?)

This might help.. seems you can enable read-only access from Windows for free.
http://www.macbreaker.com/2012/02/acces ... ndows.html

See also HFSExplorer:
http://www.catacombae.org/hfsx.html

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:13 pm**

Eric Walch wrote:
On my MacBook was also Windows partition that runs with bootcamp. Im am a complete windows novice, but out of curiosity I downloaded Oolite for windows and fired that up. Plays nice. Now I have to figure out how to transfer mac files to the windows partition, as the partition is read only from the mac without option to change it. (any tips ?)

A simple USB-stick works fine on my Mac.

Martin

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:28 pm**

Teschnertron wrote:
[A simple USB-stick works fine on my Mac.

I already thought so.

I never worked with windows, so it is a bit troublesome to work me trough all the options. I now managed to link to the network disk. That also holds my saved games and all the installed OXP's.

I was already pleased that it automatic connected to my router without defining wifi settings. Apparently that part of settings is shared between mac and windows. (I still have to find were it is set).

Diziet Sma wrote:
[This might help.. seems you can enable read-only access from Windows for free.

That is about bootcamp, that I have installed. Not sure if it will enable accessing the Mac part of the internal drive as that is encrypted with the mac account password. Transferring trough external devices is probably the easiest solution.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:28 pm**

Eric Walch wrote:
Diziet Sma wrote:
[This might help.. seems you can enable read-only access from Windows for free.
That is about bootcamp, that I have installed. Not sure if it will enable accessing the Mac part of the internal drive as that is encrypted with the mac account password.

Yes, I'm aware of that..

The point is, bootcamp comes with drivers that you can install in Windows, so that it can access/read your Mac partition directly. And, if you can't find/transfer them easily, the article also has a link so you can download and install them directly from within Windows. At worst, you'd have to provide a login password to access the drive.

HFSExplorer is another Windows program that does much the same thing. I've often used similar programs to access Linux partitions from within Windows, which normally can't read Ext2/3/4 filesystems.

Once installed, you can browse your Mac files directly from Windows. Seems like an easier way to go than faffing around with external drives.

Oolite Bulletins

Buying a Mac

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: