So slow...

[Buginator]

Well, we only use 1 function from the 1.3 list you posted, but that kicks in only if you have that.
Nothing else from 1.3-2.1 (yet).



Maybe the devs got a better answer, since I just don't see the cause of the issue you are having, especially if the 2.0.x ones work ok.

[cliff]

I did a little bit of digging around, and I found a relevant forum thread from the 2.0.8 days here.

r2896 changed texture-clamping from GL_CLAMP to GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE, which apparently triggers a software fallback on ATI cards.

Apparently DevUrandom came up with a fix for this problem for 2.0.8, but unfortunately any versions between 2.0.8 and 2.0.10 completely crash for me, so I cannot test them out. The 2.1 betas do not crash, so I assume whatever crash has been fixed, but the GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE software fallback fix hasn't been included. I looked through the patches on gna.org, and haven't found any reference to the fix, only the change from GL_CLAMP to GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE.

Do the 2.1 betas have his fix implemented? Maybe you already checked that earlier. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated.

[Olrox]

I think V22 Osprey died a long time ago...
xD

[cliff]

Problem still occurs with RC1.

[lav_coyote25]

I think V22 Osprey died a long time ago...
xD

you are so wrong wrong wrong. xD


http://www.spacewar.com/reports/CV_22s_ ... t_999.html

[EvilGuru]

Problem still occurs with RC1.

Please file a bug report. Give as much information as you can about your system and drivers.

Regards, Freddie.

[Olrox]

you are so wrong wrong wrong. xD


http://www.spacewar.com/reports/CV_22s_ ... t_999.html

hahahahaha xD
Sorry, I haven't been watching TV very often lately

[cliff]

Please file a bug report. Give as much information as you can about your system and drivers.

Here's the link to the bug report, I tried to include as much information and background as I could.

http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/179

[Dred Dante]

I have some answers for this problems with slow running.

When i had a integrated intel video card 32Mb, i tried to play warzone. I downloaded few first versions (it was 1 year ago), and i coudnt play cause the game was so sloowly that it was not playable. Even working with main menu, and any options was so slow, that was absolutely unplayable.

Now i bought a new radeon 9550 with 128Mb. When i downloaded warzone, installed it, any version that i run on my computer it works wonderfull. Bot why? ---->

You see, I think that is all about the colour pallette. When i tried to run game on older video card the max colour pallette i could set was 24 bit. The option was 16, or 24 bit. On booth game was not playable. Now im playing game on my new video card, and its set on 32 bit colours. It works wonderfull. But.... when I change the pallette from 32 bit, for example 16 bit, or 24 bit... it runs again so sloooowly. So in my opinion the colour pallette has a major effect on game.

Please test it on your computer, swith colour pallette on desktop, and see what will happen with the game, post it here. Maybe im wrong, but this is my opinion.

[lav_coyote25]

actually it was due to the small amount of on board gfx card memory.

[Dred Dante]

The requirement is minimum 2MB SVGA card for basic game. So the newest version, with all fireworks, cant require even more than 16 MB of memory of gfx. 32 MB gfx Card is more than good for this game.

[EvilGuru]

The requirement is minimum 2MB SVGA card for basic game. So the newest version, with all fireworks, cant require even more than 16 MB of memory of gfx. 32 MB gfx Card is more than good for this game.

What a load of rubbish. Try adding up the amount of memory required by all of the textures which we load (text also counts as it ends up as a texture).

Regards, Freddie.

[lav_coyote25]

What a load of rubbish. Try adding up the amount of memory required by all of the textures which we load (text also counts as it ends up as a texture).

Regards, Freddie.

just off hand freddie - how much would that be - just so we are all on the same math page.

[Dred Dante]

What a load of rubbish. Try adding up the amount of memory required by all of the textures which we load (text also counts as it ends up as a texture).

Regards, Freddie.

Im talking about minimum reqirements, not pulling the game to the limits! Every idiot knows that 128 bit textures will need more power! im talking about 32 the lowest, just to play.

But if You say thats a load of rubbish, then ok. Its a load of rubbish.

[EvilGuru]

just off hand freddie - how much would that be - just so we are all on the same math page.

It would need to work it out. It is not constant. If you graphics card supports texture compression then it will be reduced somewhat. Furthermore, all text rendered onto the screen is done so via a texture. You can add a counter which is incremented whenever a texture is loaded.

Additionally, most operating systems reverse some VRAM for hardware accelerated desktop compositing. The original game only got away with 2MiB VRAM as it did all of the rendering it software and just copied it to the graphics card. Hence only a small amount was ever used (as the real, low-res textures were kept in memory).

Regards, Freddie.