Page 2 of 3
Re: Why......
Posted: 13 Jun 2009, 14:53
by Skilgannon
You sure do have a funny way of making a point. Made me lol anyway. Apparenlty the code is quite....erm.....patchy shall we say, in places. Or so I've heard.

Re: Why......
Posted: 13 Jun 2009, 19:32
by Kothar
It could have been coded better. but keep in mind the game was made to run on computers that had Pentium 3 processors or lower, with graphics cards that have 128mb or lower and less than 1 gb of ram. So they didn't really expect people to try to do things that the engine can't handle. they probably thought that DX would only last as long as all the other games of the time.
Re: Why......
Posted: 13 Jun 2009, 23:08
by Skilgannon
Kothar wrote:It could have been coded better. but keep in mind the game was made to run on computers that had Pentium 3 processors or lower, with graphics cards that have 128mb or lower and less than 1 gb of ram. So they didn't really expect people to try to do things that the engine can't handle. they probably thought that DX would only last as long as all the other games of the time.
Aye true. For the record, DX can run on a PII 400Mhz, 128Mbs RAM, ATI Rage Pro with Voodoo2. At least, that's the lowest I've ever played it on. As long as you don't do stupid s
.hit like spawnmass lam 100, you'll have no probs.

Re: Why......
Posted: 14 Jun 2009, 20:08
by ~][FGS][Nobody~
Well, if you spawn 100 lams, even actual PCs start lagging.
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 00:53
by Skilgannon
Hmmmm, even a brand new one with uber hardware?
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 01:06
by Kuchcik
Skilgannon wrote:Hmmmm, even a brand new one with uber hardware?
Yes. The engine can't handle that kind of crap, it's just isn't optimised for this.
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 04:16
by Kothar
I just guessed about the hardware specs tbh, I just thought back to what I had in my computer back in 2000, I didn't have the game then but my computer had half a gb of ram a cheap ATi graphics card and a pentium 3 processor.
but yeah even now with a quad core processor and 4gb of RAM 100 lams would lag like hell.
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 09:52
by ~][FGS][Nobody~
You got 512MB RAM in 2000?
Wow...
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 12:22
by ~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~
I have 512mb ram RIGHT FKING NOW
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 14:11
by Skilgannon
CHRiS CRYBABY wrote:I have 512mb ram RIGHT FKING NOW
2.5 Gbs. Pwned.
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 14:50
by Kuchcik
Skilgannon wrote:CHRiS CRYBABY wrote:I have 512mb ram RIGHT FKING NOW
2.5 Gbs. Pwned.
and prolly can't even make use of them. good luck.
Re: Why......
Posted: 15 Jun 2009, 16:36
by Skilgannon
Hmmm, actually no. It does get used when GMod's running. Source 2007 engine lags this machine to f.uck on some of the bigger maps I have. Probably be better off with 4.
Re: Why......
Posted: 16 Jun 2009, 12:38
by Kuchcik
Skilgannon wrote:Hmmm, actually no. It does get used when GMod's running. Source 2007 engine lags this machine to f.uck on some of the bigger maps I have. Probably be better off with 4.
which you can't use on a 32bit system
gg
Re: Why......
Posted: 16 Jun 2009, 13:17
by Skilgannon
Yes you can. You can't use more than 4 Gigs on a 32bit system. Now, where the f/uck did I read that........
Re: Why......
Posted: 16 Jun 2009, 14:10
by Kuchcik
Skilgannon wrote:Yes you can. You can't use more than 4 Gigs on a 32bit system. Now, where the f/uck did I read that........
you sir, are misinformed. maximum allocateable size is 3.5GB, counting in the graphics card memory