Where's my sexy graphics!?

[clari_player]

I hope the subject caught some attention.

I installed the latest ut2003 demo but it runs to lesser quality and speed than windows 98. That's not fair! I wan't Linux to be better than Windows.

I have the latest nvidia drivers installed, but of course the game shouldn't even run if they weren't there.

Example. The Sky is really pixelated, the main menu's horizontal bars don't fade out in a smooth gradient and the frame rate is slower.

It's still playable but it's noticeable that Windows beats it hands down

Am I missing a library? Has anyone made similar observations? It's funny 'cause I read a review praising ut2003 for having superior frame rates in Linux.

[nouse66]

are you sure you have the video settings right in the game?

[clari_player]

Yeah. I have the graphics pumped up above windows but still the graphics are shot. Well, not satisfying after seeing the alternatives.

It's like back in the dark ages at the introduction of 3d acceleration. At the mo linux looks like I haven't got a graphics card in and there's no pixel smoothing whereas Windows looks like it has.

[myshkin]

thats wierd. the demo plays well on my pc, except a few sluggishness when accesing menu and stuff. id say it takes about 10 seconds into the game then it starts to settle down.

[nouse66]

Originally posted by clari_player
Yeah. I have the graphics pumped up above windows but still the graphics are shot. Well, not satisfying after seeing the alternatives.

It's like back in the dark ages at the introduction of 3d acceleration. At the mo linux looks like I haven't got a graphics card in and there's no pixel smoothing whereas Windows looks like it has.

what kind of hardware do you have? try running glxgears from a terminal window and see what fps you get.

[clari_player]

I get about 1576.200 FPS

The Frame rate isn't really the problem, it's the pixelation of things like the main menu and the environment graphics.

Another example is the terminal screens in the bombing run which are there pretty much to show you which way to go. In Windows they show a symbol, in Linux it just looks like static - pixels that haven't rendered.

If I knew how to get a screenshot of what I'm trying to describe, I would.

I have a P4 1.8Ghz
256Mb memory
Nvidia Geforce 2 MX

The glxinfo gives this:
name of display: :0.0
display: :0 screen: 0
direct rendering: Yes
server glx vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
server glx version string: 1.3
server glx extensions:
GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer
client glx vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
client glx version string: 1.3
client glx extensions:
GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_visual_info,
GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context, GLX_SGI_video_sync,
GLX_SGIX_swap_group, GLX_SGIX_swap_barrier, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_NV_float_buffer
GLX extensions:
GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_ARB_get_proc_address
OpenGL vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
OpenGL renderer string: GeForce2 MX/AGP/SSE2
OpenGL version string: 1.4.0 NVIDIA 43.49
OpenGL extensions:
GL_ARB_imaging, GL_ARB_multitexture, GL_ARB_point_parameters,
GL_ARB_texture_compression, GL_ARB_texture_cube_map,
GL_ARB_texture_env_add, GL_ARB_texture_env_combine,
GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3, GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat,
GL_ARB_transpose_matrix, GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object,
GL_ARB_vertex_program, GL_ARB_window_pos, GL_S3_s3tc, GL_EXT_abgr,
GL_EXT_bgra, GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_minmax,
GL_EXT_blend_subtract, GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint,
GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array, GL_EXT_draw_range_elements,
GL_EXT_fog_coord, GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays, GL_EXT_packed_pixels,
GL_EXT_paletted_texture, GL_EXT_point_parameters, GL_EXT_rescale_normal,
GL_EXT_secondary_color, GL_EXT_separate_specular_color,
GL_EXT_shared_texture_palette, GL_EXT_stencil_wrap,
GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc, GL_EXT_texture_cube_map,
GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp, GL_EXT_texture_env_add,
GL_EXT_texture_env_combine, GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3,
GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic, GL_EXT_texture_lod,
GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias, GL_EXT_texture_object, GL_EXT_vertex_array,
GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat, GL_KTX_buffer_region, GL_NV_blend_square,
GL_NV_fence, GL_NV_fog_distance, GL_NV_light_max_exponent,
GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil, GL_NV_pixel_data_range, GL_NV_point_sprite,
GL_NV_register_combiners, GL_NV_texgen_reflection,
GL_NV_texture_env_combine4, GL_NV_texture_rectangle,
GL_NV_vertex_array_range, GL_NV_vertex_array_range2, GL_NV_vertex_program,
GL_NV_vertex_program1_1, GL_NVX_ycrcb, GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap,
GL_SGIS_multitexture, GL_SGIS_texture_lod
glu version: 1.3
glu extensions:
GLU_EXT_nurbs_tessellator, GLU_EXT_object_space_tess

visual x bf lv rg d st colorbuffer ax dp st accumbuffer ms cav
id dep cl sp sz l ci b ro r g b a bf th cl r g b a ns b eat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0x21 16 tc 0 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 0 0 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x22 16 dc 0 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 0 0 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x23 16 tc 0 16 0 r . . 5 6 5 0 0 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x24 16 tc 0 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x25 16 tc 0 16 0 r . . 5 6 5 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x26 16 dc 0 16 0 r . . 5 6 5 0 0 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x27 16 dc 0 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None
0x28 16 dc 0 16 0 r . . 5 6 5 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None

[clari_player]

Okay, here's some screenies to show what I'm getting at. The settings are both at 1024x768 with 16bit color.

Here's the windows screen shot (http://www.wbhsmusic.orcon.net.nz/Shot00000.jpg)

and here's the Linux screen shot (http://www.wbhsmusic.orcon.net.nz/Shot00001.jpg)


When I exit ut2003 this message come up in the shell. I don't know if it's related to my crap renderings though.

Xlib: extension "XiG-SUNDRY-NONSTANDARD" missing on display ":0.0".

[bwkaz]

Umm? I don't see a difference, at all...

The ground in the Linux shot is greener...

Your brightness needs to be raised in both of them...

But other than that, I don't see any difference at all. Could it be antialiasing? Try export __GL_FSAA_MODE=<number>, where <number> depends on the FSAA you want. Read the nVidia README, Appendix E, for what different values of the variable mean for different nVidia cards.

Then, from the same terminal, start UT2k3 and see if whatever you're talking about goes away.

[steve301]

Try and make sure that in your propeties for the video card you are using 24bit color, thats what the diff is between the two shots you got.

[clari_player]

Mmm, ok. Here's another screenshot (http://www.wbhsmusic.ocon.net.nz/pic1.jpg)

Just look at the sky!! Very pixelated.

I typed this in at the shell.

glenn@localhost:~$ export __GL_FSAA_MODE=3
glenn@localhost:~$ ./ut2003_demo

It does jack all to be blunt. There is 2 underscores first isn't there? No matter, I tried both anyway.

Yes, the display is at 24bit.
The antialiasing is shot to pieces. Is there any way to test it like you can test the frame rate with glxgears. I'm not sure if my above commands are actually registering with the computer.

[bwkaz]

Your link seems to be broken, I'm getting "host not found" errors...

Anyway, setting __GL_FSAA_MODE (yes, there are two underscores at the beginning of it -- but then, reading the README would have told you that ;)) to 3 will disable FSAA on every card but the GeForce, GF2, and Quadro/Quadro 2 Pro cards.

The only setting that enables some sort of FSAA on every card is 4; try that one. Again, the README would have told you this information. ;)

[clari_player]

Oh, oops I did do a glenn@localhost:~$ export __GL_FSAA_MODE=4

The previous post was me copying and pasting the last one I did in the shell when I was trying to see if there was any difference between 3 and 4, I tried 5 too.

Is there anything like glxgears that shows the amount of antiaiasing going on?