tracer Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 Yes, you have a point, I forgot to think that the screen shots were taken not by the moniter view. And I also didn't take in to consideration that it was Macs this thread was discussing. I never really had any customers with Macs, so never really worked on em. I hear that the newer Macs are a whole lot better though. Thanks for the info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dirtweasle: So - I should hold off on getting this new card too?If CM would be the only reason you would be getting it, yes. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecumseh Posted November 7, 2002 Author Share Posted November 7, 2002 The JPEG quality is not involved here. JPEG compression is introducing it's usual effects to these pics, but only in a subtle way. The effect is dwarfed by the effect of CMBB using lower res textures. Also the different quality of geforce vs radeon is not to blame. This effect is also dwarfed by the effect of CMBB using lower res textures. CMBB has introduced a new system of downsampling or compressing textures on mid-to-low-end video cards (32mb and under), this is obvious. Looking at my version of CMBB I noticed it straight away. The bug is that it seems that gf3 and gf4 mac cards are compressing textures like they are a 32mb card. If, for example, BFC released a patch which stripped out all the code that determines the user's video card (and compresses textures appropriately), I think Michael's CMBB would look great and run fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecumseh Posted November 7, 2002 Author Share Posted November 7, 2002 DW - this is only for mac cards. The GeForce range might work fine with CMBB on the PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 Originally posted by tecumseh: DW - this is only for mac cards. The GeForce range might work fine with CMBB on the PC.Oh... well that's different, sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Originally posted by L.Tankersley: On the other hand, the Mac Radeon drivers apparently don't support transparent smoke (from fires, smoke shells, explosions and gun blasts).That's a new bug, either by Apple or ATI. My Radeon PCI 32MB does thransparencies just fine. I wonder what cards are affected. 8500 at least, but how about others? [ November 07, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Jarmo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger4325 Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 fellows, i use a xp1900 with 512 ddr ram, gforce4 4200 64meg.... the 64 has a greaterband with than the 128 meg 4200...with a 21 inc monitor and i can trully say cmbb likes like a mill.. bucks i use 8 times over sampling, aa is 4x with todays games you really want to have a solid up to date system. its easy with so many deals online....fight on and watch out for the tigers.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Originally posted by Jarmo: That's a new bug, either by Apple or ATI. My Radeon PCI 32MB does thransparencies just fine. I wonder what cards are affected. 8500 at least, but how about others?It's not Apple's bug - my Rage Orion shows transparent smoke just fine on the same computer, same OS, same ATI driver update. But, it is low on texture memory and framerate sucks. The OEM ATI Rage Pro that came with the machine also shows transparent smoke but is even worse than the Orion framerate-wise. I'm pretty sure someone had a 7500 card that displayed smoke. Anybody with a 9000 series out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Originally posted by tecumseh: CMBB has introduced a new system of downsampling or compressing textures on mid-to-low-end video cards (32mb and under), this is obvious. Looking at my version of CMBB I noticed it straight away. The bug is that it seems that gf3 and gf4 mac cards are compressing textures like they are a 32mb card. If, for example, BFC released a patch which stripped out all the code that determines the user's video card (and compresses textures appropriately), I think Michael's CMBB would look great and run fine.The odd thing is that when I went from BO to BB, one of the first things I noticed was how much sharper everything looked on the same system, card (2 MX) and everything. I want to point out that a very close and careful examination of screenshots taken before and after I switched to a higher screen resolution showed a tiny improvement in sharpness, but not that you would immediately notice. Another thing worth noting is that smoke looks a whole lot better on the new card. It's truly transparent now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Has anyone had any luck getting antialiasing to work on CM? 8500 is supposed to be able to do it, dont know of Geforce.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 I replaced my 64mb Radeon 8500 with a GeForce 4 Ti4200 128mb a few weeks ago. Without FSAA, the Radeon's image quality is sharper, the GF is more blurry. But with FSAA at 4xs, the game is gorgeous with the Ti, not a jaggie in sight. The Radeons, including the 9700, do not provide 16bit AA, and even at 1600x1200, the Radeon's image is not as sharp as the Ti at 1024x768 with 4xs FSAA. To me, the textures look the same with both cards and I have not noticed any downsampling. In addition, with the Ti, I now have fog. Not exactly a showstopper, but it adds greatly to the atmosphere of the game. The GeForce is also very fast. On my system (Athlon 1.2 ghz @ 100 mhz, 512 mb sdram, Windows XP pro), I run CMBB at 1024x768, 4xs FSAA, 8x anisotropic filtering (41.03 drivers) and the game is very smooth on all but the largest scenarios. Currently, the GeForce 4 Ti4200 gives you the most bang for the buck in CMBB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterGoodale Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 JC, I have a Radeon 9000 Pro with 128 mb of Mem and I can set both Ansiotropic Filtering and FSAA to 16x. The game is absolutley gorgeous with these settings and no bluttiness or jaggies AT ALL. Is that what you meant when you said Radeon does not support 16 bit FSAA? I'm not real sharp on Video cards so I'm a little confused. What is the best settings for the 9000 Pro I have with this game? Is it just trial and error? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 MasterGoodale, Radeon drivers do not support AA in 16 bit games or table fog, this is not a bug but a design decision made by ATI. They only support AA in 32 bit games. Since CMBB is a 16 bit game, AA does not work with a Radeon. When I would turn on AA in CMBB with my Radeon, I would get a series of black horizontal lines on my screen. Even if you have FSAA turned on, it will not work in a 16 bit game. The art of finding the best video settings for a game is a lot of trial and error. I usually start with all settings to the max and then lower the settings until the frame rate is smooth. With the 9000 pro, depending on your processor and monitor, you should be able to run at 1600x1200 or 1280x960 with 16x Anisotropic filtering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterGoodale Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Thanks! I had no idea. So I won't be able to see fog with this new $150 card!!?? :mad: :mad: That makes me very angry JC. Very angry indeed. Men will die miserable deaths for this. It must be the Ansi Filtering that is giving me the great graphics then. I have both FSAA and Ans Filtering turned up high and I have the texture quality and stuff like that on Max. I wonder why I'm not getting the black lines??? weird. . . I have the very latest drivers though. My machine is a PIII 866 with 512 MB SDRAM and the 128 MB Radeon 9000 Pro. That's all I know. My monitor is also brand new (ViewSonic) and it's 19 inch and very good. I have the resolution at 1224 x 768 or something like that. Thanks for the info I'll do some more tweaking to see what's up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misery Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 JC_Hare, The GeForce is also very fast. On my system (Athlon 1.2 ghz @ 100 mhz, 512 mb sdram, Windows XP pro), I run CMBB at 1024x768, 4xs FSAA, 8x anisotropic filtering (41.03 drivers) and the game is very smooth on all but the largest scenarios.Do you have issues with pre-game menu text using the 41.03 drivers? I have virtually the same setup and cannot use the 41.03s because the text disappears. Thanks and sorry bout the off topic post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Don't worry about the off topic post, after all misery loves company ....sorry, could not resist. Yes, I have the same issue, which appears to be in all 40.xx drivers. There is a workaround, when you first start the game, the scenario screen will be blank. You then press ctrl+alt+delete to go to deskstop. You then reenter the game and the scenario list should be back to normal and the rest of the game should be trouble free. It's a bit of a pain, but just based on my unscientific "eyeball" test, the 41.03 drivers appear to be faster and smoother than the 30.82. [ November 11, 2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts