Max Payne is going to run slow on your computer unless you turn down all of the eye candy. If you think the graphics look OK on the official website, they're going to look a whole lot worse when you get the game.
RED FACTION hip or hipe?
- Thread starter (S0B)Devils Advocate
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Max Payne was great fun...for about five hours, which is how long it took me to complete it. Many people would probably go through it faster.
I'm having the same experience as Advocate, in Win98. I think Direct3D as a whole is getting less stable for me lately for some reason. Unreal Tournament seems to lock up within 10-15 or so minutes (and coincidentally, it seems to lock up when I'm in the lead 
) of play in D3D, but I just got done playing a few sessions with the [not so] new OpenGL driver at unreal.epicgames.com of a few hours each.. and no lock ups yet.
Red Faction locks up within literally three second in-game. The first time, I saw that my name was Parker. The next time I tried it I barely saw the controls for the elevator (or whatever it was) before I locked up..
) of play in D3D, but I just got done playing a few sessions with the [not so] new OpenGL driver at unreal.epicgames.com of a few hours each.. and no lock ups yet.Red Faction locks up within literally three second in-game. The first time, I saw that my name was Parker. The next time I tried it I barely saw the controls for the elevator (or whatever it was) before I locked up..
It worked fine on my PC. Was it just me or was the animation of the people when they were running just horrible. They looked like robots.
SimplyCosmic
ERGO. VIS A VIS. CONCORDANTLY.
There is a difference between "not supported on" and "will not run on".
Companies that say their product is "not supported on" Windows 2000/XP are saying that they don't have enough experience within their technical support staff with those operating systems to feel confident that they will be able to currently provide technical support for those environments.
Companies that say their product "does not run on" Windows 2000/XP are saying that they have crap programmers who cannot program to basic code portability standards and that their code is not fully complient with the full suite of DirectX API's and that you shouldn't be surprised if other compatibility problems pop up with other bits of software and hardware even on a Windows 9x platform.
A program that doesn't run well on Windows 2000/XP is one thing. A program that doesn't run at all on Windows 2000/XP is a sign of really poor programming. If a program is written to industry basic coding standards, it will run on 2000/XP. If a program is written to use the published DirectX API standards, it will run on 2000/XP.
These game companies need to wake up and quick. It was one thing when 2000 came out because they had the excuse that it was a "business" OS. However, Windows XP Home is only a few short months away from release, and software companies with shoddy standards still aren't ready after knowing about it for almost two years.
but in case of a game demo, doesn't support can also mean that w2k code is not yet finished, and they don't want bug reports on it knowing that it'll be fixed. or something.
SimplyCosmic
ERGO. VIS A VIS. CONCORDANTLY.
Um ... There's no difference between "Win9x" code and "Win2000/XP" code. The same code is used on both with no change.
If the program does not run at all under Windows 2000/XP, and it's not a problem with a specific piece of hardware not being supported properly, then the code itself is poorly written, and does not conform to the API's and code specifications that Microsoft has made painfully available through the MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network).
If the program does not run at all under Windows 2000/XP, and it's not a problem with a specific piece of hardware not being supported properly, then the code itself is poorly written, and does not conform to the API's and code specifications that Microsoft has made painfully available through the MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network).
ok. maybe it's lousy code then; it was said in the game that it "doesn't support W2K", which seems to be a nice way of saying that.
it must be my stupidity, but i thought...
1) that win9x and win2K are not the same code-wise - isn't there some difference between nt and 9x?
2) that xp was the first rewritten win version for a long time
obviously i was wrong. please clarify, simplycosmic...
[edit]you have already tried Windows RG ? [/edit]
it must be my stupidity, but i thought...
1) that win9x and win2K are not the same code-wise - isn't there some difference between nt and 9x?
2) that xp was the first rewritten win version for a long time
obviously i was wrong. please clarify, simplycosmic...
[edit]you have already tried Windows RG ? [/edit]
Allow me to pontificate for a moment
I have grown just plain SICK of Devs who hide behind the "Win2k is not designed for games so we wont support" excuse. Fact is, With just about every game (execept the one that wont run) I see a decent frame-rate and stability boost running it in 2K. If it was universaly supported it would be the ULTIMATE gaming OS (among the Windows)
This to me has just become another barometer of good Devs and A-Hole devs. The good ones will actualy support the A-Holes (EA Sports) Will just feed you that line of BS and kick you off the line. I wonder why Sierra still supports 2k.... I guess they are the exception, being a bunch of suit-wearing a-holes now.
I have grown just plain SICK of Devs who hide behind the "Win2k is not designed for games so we wont support" excuse. Fact is, With just about every game (execept the one that wont run) I see a decent frame-rate and stability boost running it in 2K. If it was universaly supported it would be the ULTIMATE gaming OS (among the Windows)
This to me has just become another barometer of good Devs and A-Hole devs. The good ones will actualy support the A-Holes (EA Sports) Will just feed you that line of BS and kick you off the line. I wonder why Sierra still supports 2k.... I guess they are the exception, being a bunch of suit-wearing a-holes now.
SimplyCosmic
ERGO. VIS A VIS. CONCORDANTLY.
Let me answer those in reverse:
Windows XP Home and Professional are both based on the NT Kernel, which has progressed from NT to 2000. So, the home version will now use the same type of kernel that has been in the professional versions for some time.
Now, there is a difference in the underlying code between the 9x family and the NT/2000/XP family. However, that will not affect code written for a particular program, whether it be run on either 9x or NT. Even though the basic operating systems are different, the API's are the same. So, if a programmer writes a game, for example, up to Microsoft's DirectX specifications, then a coded function in the program (say "DrawTriangle()") will do the exact same thing under Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP, provided they have the same version of DirectX.
To perhaps oversimplify the meaning of the term, this is what is known as "abstraction" in programming. That is, you write code for an abstracted or generic machine, and the different machines will take care of the specifics.
This is why a cleanly written spreadsheet program will run on all versions of 9x and NT, and a properly written DirectX game will run on every Microsoft OS that has that version of DirectX.