Home › Forums › General Discussion › A First Person Shooter in 96k???

  • This topic has 16 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • 20/04/2004 at 9:38 am #3129
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      http://www.theprodukkt.com/

    • 27/04/2004 at 9:03 am #11854
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      thats cool, 96k?
      and you need a monster pc to run it.

      guess they dont need people to do your job anymore pete ;)
      its all done in code…

    • 27/04/2004 at 10:59 am #11855
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Can the code make tea for eveyone?????;)

    • 27/04/2004 at 11:04 am #11856
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      HA!

      at least you know your place…:D

    • 27/04/2004 at 11:08 am #11857
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      In Muff!

    • 27/04/2004 at 12:42 pm #11862
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The funny thing was when everyone saw this demo, everyone went “yeah but the framerate is crap”

      (no pleasng some folk)

    • 27/04/2004 at 12:52 pm #11863
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The framerate was acceptable on my machine, anyway a low framerate doesn’t take away from the achievement IMHO.

    • 27/04/2004 at 1:02 pm #11864
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      framerate was acceptable on my machine[/quote:189493d313]
      read with extreme sarcasm:
      well look at mister fancy pants:)

      have you seen any of the 64k music demos that have been done – i’m sure there are a lot of em.
      they are also extremely impressive.

    • 27/04/2004 at 1:06 pm #11865
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Yeah I’ve heard some, class altogether. My computer can play them without dropping a beat:D

    • 27/04/2004 at 1:12 pm #11866
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      is the pc yours or torcs pete…tell the truth…

    • 27/04/2004 at 2:02 pm #11869
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Am I that transparent :o
      :( IT BELONGS TO TORC!!!

    • 27/04/2004 at 2:18 pm #11871
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It keeps the file size small because it has a very heavy dependancy on DirectX and there are no textures included in it. Meaning that it is doing everything in basically real-time running straight off your video card and CPU…… just sayin

    • 27/04/2004 at 2:24 pm #11872
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      thats why the minimum spec is a gf4 up with 128mb ram,
      and 512mb system ram.
      its all run time.

    • 27/04/2004 at 4:37 pm #11874
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Spinning bumb mapped earthy thing near the end is very very cool. They must have some textures, even if they are just hard coded into it (Argh, non-data-driven code…)

      Dave

    • 27/04/2004 at 6:34 pm #11880
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      thats why the minimum spec is a gf4 up with 128mb ram,
      and 512mb system ram.
      its all run time. [/quote:07a70b7b62]

      Work PC: Athlon 2000XP, 1 GB Ram, GeForce FX 5200 with 128 MB.

      ….and it still runs like a doggy on it.

    • 30/04/2004 at 9:45 am #11937
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      the FX5200 chipset is kinda rubbish.
      thats probably letting you down :(

      i didn’t read much about it – but i got the impression it was the equivalent of a lower end gf3
      (i’m preparing to be corrected…:))

    • 30/04/2004 at 9:55 am #11938
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Yeah that could be the problem, still though…128 MB onboard RAM in the thing, ya think it could be a bit better :p

      I think its ATI for our next upgrades – wahoo

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 16 reply threads
  • The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.