Minimum Spec?
by Mike Fosker · in Torque Game Engine · 10/17/2005 (8:13 am) · 12 replies
I'd like to know what the minimum specs would be for a machine that is going to run the games made with Torque.
I've tried running the demo on a number of different test machines at work, and I've been unable to get it to run on anything with win98.
I am not sure if this is a software issue, like old versions of DirectX or whether it's the OS, or if it's just the very slow processors and the very poor 3d cards.
Does having all the additional tools in the demo mean that a higher spec is needed than would be required from a finished game?
I'm planning on making some very basic software, small terrains, simple interiors, no network code, no AI but I would like to be able to run on some pretty archaic machines, what are my chances.
Ta
I've tried running the demo on a number of different test machines at work, and I've been unable to get it to run on anything with win98.
I am not sure if this is a software issue, like old versions of DirectX or whether it's the OS, or if it's just the very slow processors and the very poor 3d cards.
Does having all the additional tools in the demo mean that a higher spec is needed than would be required from a finished game?
I'm planning on making some very basic software, small terrains, simple interiors, no network code, no AI but I would like to be able to run on some pretty archaic machines, what are my chances.
Ta
About the author
#2
I'm not really sure the exact spec, I guess the older the better.
I also tried it on my girlfriends old laptop, Win2k 600mhz celeron & some old graphics card that I can't remember. It would load the Menus but would give an error when trying to load a mission. Worth pointing out that I used to run 3D Studio MAX 4 on that machine.
I'm not so worried about whether I can get decent performance, more whether I can get anything to run at all.
The windows 98 machines that I tried wouldn't run the demo at all, just launched DOS window and then sat there. The laptop did launch, but would not run the missions.
It's good to know that the issue is not that it doesn't work in win98, as I would hate to cut out that market.
Thanks
10/17/2005 (9:20 am)
I'm aiming at sub 500Mhz pentiumII, 64 - 128Mb RAM with very old gfx cards, 2-8mbI'm not really sure the exact spec, I guess the older the better.
I also tried it on my girlfriends old laptop, Win2k 600mhz celeron & some old graphics card that I can't remember. It would load the Menus but would give an error when trying to load a mission. Worth pointing out that I used to run 3D Studio MAX 4 on that machine.
I'm not so worried about whether I can get decent performance, more whether I can get anything to run at all.
The windows 98 machines that I tried wouldn't run the demo at all, just launched DOS window and then sat there. The laptop did launch, but would not run the missions.
It's good to know that the issue is not that it doesn't work in win98, as I would hate to cut out that market.
Thanks
#3
10/17/2005 (9:27 am)
Is there a console.log file in the directory you launch the game from? It might have some error messages in it that will help narrow down the problem.
#4
10/17/2005 (9:46 am)
I dont have much to add here but I can also vouch for it not being a win98 issue. Im using win98 myself and i havent had any problems when it comes to torque.
#5
I did look at the console log, and I compared it to the one that is on my other system (which worked fine) and I found there were quite a few errors that were common to both of them.
Coming at this from a different angle, if I made a really basic program, with just some flat ground, a sphere and one texture, what do you reckon the worst computer that it would run on would be? :)
Cheers
10/17/2005 (2:48 pm)
Thanks for the replies, I did look at the console log, and I compared it to the one that is on my other system (which worked fine) and I found there were quite a few errors that were common to both of them.
Coming at this from a different angle, if I made a really basic program, with just some flat ground, a sphere and one texture, what do you reckon the worst computer that it would run on would be? :)
Cheers
#6
Absolute minimum specs on a Windoze machine are probably something like:-
Windows 98
Pentium II 400
128 Mb RAM
OpenGL or DirectX compatible 3D graphics accelerator with 16Mb VRAM
DirectX compatible soundcard
If you have more RAM and/or VRAM, you might get away with a slightly slower CPU.
10/17/2005 (5:04 pm)
I initially ran the demo in Windows 98 (SE) on a machine with a Pentium II 400, 128 MB RAM and an ATI Rage video card with 8Mb VRAM. However, some of the menu text was corrupt. Upgrading the video card solved this.Absolute minimum specs on a Windoze machine are probably something like:-
Windows 98
Pentium II 400
128 Mb RAM
OpenGL or DirectX compatible 3D graphics accelerator with 16Mb VRAM
DirectX compatible soundcard
If you have more RAM and/or VRAM, you might get away with a slightly slower CPU.
#7
10/17/2005 (6:47 pm)
When it comes to minimum specs, I was always under the impression that when it comes to opengl, if the user doesnt have a graphics accelerator card, that it would fallback to software rendering by default. I'm sure the average torque app would require hardware acceleration, but if you remove the terrain, keep from using difs, and use dts objects with simple geometry, it would seem to me that one could get away with rendering using software only. comments?
#8
10/17/2005 (8:52 pm)
The software version of OpenGL included with Win98 only supports version 1.1 commands and is extremely slow.
#9
10/17/2005 (11:48 pm)
Speaking of minimum spec. What would you guys recommend as a target spec for todays indie games? Do you think pre Geforce 2 is still a must?.
#10
10/18/2005 (12:58 am)
I'd say GeForce 2 is a fine minimum, onboard cards are even starting to catch up to that. I tried running my Torque Demo App on computers at school today with some SIS integrated whatever graphics, and it was running about the same as some other computers there that had GeForce2MX's in them. If you're doing a full 3d game (not just accelerated 2d) I don't see why you should shoot lower than that.
#11
As far as the terrain goes, I don't know what would have better performance.. flat ground where there are lots of polys on screen or rocky ground where at least some of the polys are not rendered. I think the terrain engine optimizes fairly well. The terrain object seems quite quick , I've certainly not seen it as a bottleneck, What might be an issue is transparency.. and video memory.
Keep your textures small and your models simple with some good use of LOD and you should be OK, as far as rendering goes anyway.
There's a load of options you can set to control the rendering,not had a play with these too much, but I reckon you should be able to get decent enough performance on your target spec. Just don't re-write Doom3...
10/18/2005 (3:18 am)
If you just want flat ground, I would remove the terrain object completely and use DTS shapes as you can control the number of polygons being rendered better. As far as the terrain goes, I don't know what would have better performance.. flat ground where there are lots of polys on screen or rocky ground where at least some of the polys are not rendered. I think the terrain engine optimizes fairly well. The terrain object seems quite quick , I've certainly not seen it as a bottleneck, What might be an issue is transparency.. and video memory.
Keep your textures small and your models simple with some good use of LOD and you should be OK, as far as rendering goes anyway.
There's a load of options you can set to control the rendering,not had a play with these too much, but I reckon you should be able to get decent enough performance on your target spec. Just don't re-write Doom3...
#12
I should clarify that I am not actually planning on doing a game that is completly flat, but I'm trying to get an idea of what level of hardware I would need to be able to launch and run a very basic game, once I find that out I can think about adding features to it.
Cheers
10/20/2005 (5:07 am)
Thanks for all the help and comments. I should clarify that I am not actually planning on doing a game that is completly flat, but I'm trying to get an idea of what level of hardware I would need to be able to launch and run a very basic game, once I find that out I can think about adding features to it.
Cheers
Torque Owner Jason Farmer
I get decent framerates on a 1.8 Athlon .5 gig ram.. GeForce4 card.
What sort of archaic machines we talking about here? 486? Pentium1 or 2...? 64mb ram?..
It might be better to ask what sort of performance people have wrangled out of your target minimum spec.. What sort of frame rates they got and the tricks they employed to get them.
(Edit: Forgot to add my GFX card)