> So how is that blog coming along?

In case you're talking to me, I must admit that I haven't even started yet, and I probably won't. This I already told you, but thanks for asking again anyway.

You really should start a blog. I'm sure there are many people who'd like to hear you talk about how poorly MorphOS performs in timeout mode, benchmarked by someone who is doing things wrong, compared to how the voices in your head tell you MorphOS should perform. Go for it. I hear there are many sites out there these days that make it easy to start a blog.

Here is a link for you to get you started.

> You really should start a blog.

Your wish is taken note of, but I won't comply, sorry.

> I'm sure there are many people who'd like to hear you talk about how
> poorly MorphOS performs

People won't read that from me, neither in my blog (which doesn't exist) nor here on MorphZone.

> benchmarked by someone who is doing things wrong

Why should I talk about your benchmarks in a blog of mine?

> compared to how the voices in your head tell you MorphOS should
> perform.

Guruman who told about 140 FPS in 800x600 resolution resides in my head? Interesting theory.

> Go for it.

I won't, sorry.

> I hear there are many sites out there these days that make it easy to
> start a blog. Here is a link for you to get you started.

What use is that link to someone who doesn't want to start a blog?

> I got 148.1 fps in 800*600 on Mac Mini :P
> How? I set all graphics options to minimum, sound off, all game options to off.

Finally ;-) Setting everything to minimum/off is however not the way the 140 FPS were reached with the 2010 driver as can be seen from the videos, right? :-)

@Andreas_Wolf

Can't really tell. We're talking about texture quality, vertex/lightmap shadows and so on (everything you can disable through the in-game menu). I've tested that too and Cim's right (148 FPS or so). I can't remember what were the settings on the video (I need to see it again, not sure if the settings screen was shown at all), that surely cannot be spotted by just watching the gameplay.

[ Edited by koszer 13.06.2012 - 06:14 ]

> Can't really tell. We're talking about texture quality, vertex/lightmap
> shadows and so on (everything you can disable through the in-game
> menu). [...] I can't remember what were the settings on the video
> (I need to see it again, not sure if the settings screen was shown at
> all), that surely cannot be spotted by just watching the gameplay.

Fair enough. I think the settings screen wasn't shown.
I guess in order to know whether MorphOS 3.0 contains the 2010 driver or not, it remains only to be tested if at those same settings, the MorphOS 2.7 driver only reaches about 46.7 FPS. If it reaches more, then we can conclude that higher settings were used during the presentation, and thus the MorphOS 3.0 driver would not be the one from 2010.

Andreas, I once again have to urge you to start a blog. Think about how much you could earn on ad revenues by breaking the news to the world that MorphOS 2.7 existed in October 2010.

> Andreas, I once again have to urge you to start a blog.

So I once again have to reject your urging.

> breaking the news to the world that MorphOS 2.7 existed in October 2010.

Yeah, make that "MorphOS 2.6 driver" then. Thanks for the note. And I also have one for you: The presentation was held in November, not in October ;-P
Or do you want to claim that there is a difference between the R200 3D drivers of MorphOS 2.7 vs. MorphOS 2.6 regarding 3D performance? If yes, would you please provide proof of that? If no, then it doesn't matter for the questions at hand and the MorphOS 2.7 driver is as good as the MorphOS 2.6 one to provide the answer. After all, it was you who used the 2.7 driver to unsuccessfully make a point in a discussion about performance improvement of the 3.0 driver over the 2.6 driver.

P.S. Not that it matters, but the real base value is that from the MorphOS 2.4 driver, as the 2010 improvement refers to the prior improvement that was shown a year before, i.e. in 2009.

46,7 FPS is roughly the speed I get with full details in MorphOS 2.7 on two different Minis (49,4 on 1.83GHz and 45,3 FPS on 1,5GHz). With MorphOS 3.0 using the same settings best results I got is 60,4 FPS on 1,83 GHz Mini and 54,5 on 1,5GHz Mac Mini which is 22,27% and 20,31% faster than in 2.7. As I said before best speedup is noticable in 16 bit modes where 3.0 is faster 40-50%.
Andreas, please don't feed the troll anymore. Just ignore him. Just look at his nickname - that tells us everything.

I know that Andreas is trolling, but I don't think anyone is going to stop him from spewing his insane nonsense and crying that there might have been changes made to the 3D subsystem of MorphOS in the past year and a half.

OK, I've made my homework properly. Here are the results:

Quake 3 with vanilla q3config.cfg (renamed the old one, so the game created new), Mac Mini 1.5 GHz, 64 MB VMEM. TGLSYNC set to 0, r_primitives set to 2.

1. Setup/System/Graphic Settings:High Quality. Changed screen res (to 800x600), geometric detail (to high) and texture detail (to highest)

2.7 - 47,7 FPS
3.0 - 59,4 FPS

2. Setup/System/Graphics Settings:Fastest. Changed only screen res (to 800x600) and texture detail (to lowest)

2.7 - 80,4 FPS
3.0 - 117,5 FPS

3. Setup/System configured like above, but this time Setup/Game options changed to off (except crosshair and simple items). Sound off.

2.7 - 88,0 FPS
3.0 - 133,9 FPS

No way settings #3 were used in the film from 2010. With these settings Q3 looks very poor.

> I know that Andreas is trolling

And I know that you are lying.

> spewing his insane nonsense

Care to quote me on any of that, Mr. liar?

> and crying

Not on my side, Mr. liar.

> that there might have been changes made to the 3D subsystem of MorphOS
> in the past year and a half.

Of course there have. And I stand by my assessment that what we have in MorphOS 3.0 is below expectations in view of what was shown in 2010. And I can back this up with hard and cold numbers, provided by people here in this thread who, as opposed to you, have no reason to spread lies.

> 46,7 FPS is roughly the speed I get with full details in MorphOS 2.7 [...]
> ([...] 45,3 FPS on 1,5GHz).

Thanks. So we can rather safely assume that the 140 FPS presentation was performed with full details on.

> With MorphOS 3.0 using the same settings best results I got is [...] 54,5 on
> 1,5GHz Mac Mini which is [...] 20,31% faster than in 2.7. As I said before
> best speedup is noticable in 16 bit modes where 3.0 is faster 40-50%.

Thanks. So we can hope that the 2010 driver that was shown to be more than twice as fast as the one included in MorphOS 3.0 will come with a later update.

Wolf_Andreas,
Quote:

Actualy I was talking TO Andreas and refering to YOU. Please stop provoking Andreas and post something usefull for change. And what's the deal with the nickname? You can't figure your own nickname or something? :P

> 1. Setup/System/Graphic Settings:High Quality. Changed screen res
> (to 800x600), geometric detail (to high) and texture detail (to highest)
> 2.7 - 47,7 FPS
> 3.0 - 59,4 FPS

Thanks for confirming Cim's results.

> 2. Setup/System/Graphics Settings:Fastest. Changed only screen res
> (to 800x600) and texture detail (to lowest)
> 2.7 - 80,4 FPS
> 3.0 - 117,5 FPS
>
> 3. Setup/System configured like above, but this time Setup/Game options
> changed to off (except crosshair and simple items). Sound off.
> 2.7 - 88,0 FPS
> 3.0 - 133,9 FPS
>
> No way settings #3 were used in the film from 2010.
> With these settings Q3 looks very poor.

And I'd say that settings #2 can be ruled out as well because 80.4 is way more than 46.7.

I have posted plenty of useful things showing that Andreas is full of shit, and just needs to make up stuff to cry about. And I'm gonna do it again now.

I'm gonna present two scenarios.

Scenario 1: The by now infamous presentation was done with the default Quake 3 setttings. As I have shown above, it's possible to get very close to the infamous 140 FPS with the default Quake 3 settings.

Scenario 2: The by now still infamous presentation was done with all settings maxed out, with a non-default resolution, and while MorphOS 3.0 contains a completely new TinyGL with a completely new driver, the MorphOS team, wanting to keep all the best stuff for themselves, decided to intentionally cripple the driver and take out everything that makes it fast, in part just to spite Andreas.

Which of these two scenarios seem more likely to you? If you're a troll, you'll likely go with scenario 2. If you're likely to score more than 60 on an IQ test, you might go with scenario 1.

> I have posted plenty of useful things showing that Andreas is full of shit

No, you posted plenty of false statements, intentional false statements (i.e. lies), misconceptions and ad hominem attacks.

> and just needs to make up stuff to cry about.

Wrong on both accounts. No crying here, and you're the one making stuff up.

> And I'm gonna do it again now.

Making up stuff, that is.

> The by now infamous presentation was done with the default Quake 3 setttings.
> As I have shown above, it's possible to get very close to the infamous 140 FPS
> with the default Quake 3 settings.

Was it 800x600 resolution? Anyway, 84.6 FPS with MorphOS 2.7 is proof enough that your explanation makes no sense, as for getting 140 FPS by an improvement of 200% you need a base value of about 46.7 FPS, not the 84.6 that would lead to your fantasy 253.8 FPS you tried to pass as my claim in your usual way of uttering lies. I have explained this simple math to you already, but you obviously failed to grasp it.

> non-default resolution

You mean Guruman reported a wrong resolution?

> the MorphOS team, wanting to keep all the best stuff for themselves, decided to
> intentionally cripple the driver and take out everything that makes it fast

There are other scenarios I can imagine, for instance that some things which made the 2010 driver that fast were stable enough to show Quake 3 but not mature enough for other applications and thus for a public release, and that resources so far were too scarce to remedy the last glitches that hold back a public release.
That scenario wouldn't make the MorphOS Team look as bad as your suggestion, though.

> in part just to spite Andreas.

Then they failed miserably as I don't feel spited by the MorphOS Team in the least.

> Which of these two scenarios seem more likely to you?

They both seem nonsense to me. Just because you can't imagine a third one doesn't mean there can't be a third one.

> If you're a troll, you'll likely go with scenario 2.

I don't, so does that mean you don't consider me a troll any more?

> If you're likely to score more than 60 on an IQ test, you might go with scenario 1.

Is simple math not part of IQ tests any more these days?

Am I on Amigaworld ?