Half-Life problem
AuthorityAction
Missouri Member
From what I've heard Half-Life plays better in OpenGL mode, but it won't let me play in that mode. When I try to it says "This video mode is not supported by your video card" or something like that. The thing is, I have a AIW 9700 Pro. I should be able to play in OpenGL shouldn't I? 
Any ideas? TIA
Pic of video drivers:
Any ideas? TIA
Pic of video drivers:
0
Comments
Same error... :bawling:
I've been playing half-life/cs for a long time. I've been using Direct3D, but I was told that openGL runs better and I couldn't figure out why my AIW 9700 Pro wouldn't be able to play it.
Have you tried searching on www.steampowered.com? Most FPS-related issues end up there. You'll probably have to refine your search to 9700 wonder opengl (as steampowered doesn't accept 3 character searches.)
You can force it to run at 99fps by entering a command at the console, but I really don't see the point, why do you need higher than 55fps?
I was thinking about that, but since Direct3D is working I'm going to use that.
In your fashion.
I believe that this is a Windows Xp bug, and not any particular renderer's fault.
Vertical synch is disabled, and refresh rates are maxed for the resolution.
I will repeat what I said:
In my signature, that system hits 99 FPS, which is the HL engine's FPS hard-cap at all times. However, when using its implementation of DirectX, it never goes over 60 and (adding something new here) that's the highest it gets.. It likes to wallow around 40 and 30 fps..
Make sure anti-aliasing, vertical-sync, anisotropic filtering are all turned off.
Penguin: I haven't been able to find anything remotely similar to your problem.
[edit] faster refresh rates = less time crosshair takes to revert back to grounded position
People just have trouble distinguishing between 30 FPS on <i>film</i> and 30 FPS on <i>computers</i>.
30 FPS on film is find because all the objects blur together slightly at the edges. Each frame isn't the next, frozen, 100% static image in motion. Frames overlap slightly, cameras and eyes blur things together to get fluid movement. It's why pausing a DVD of someone in motion shows their figure blurred, but why you can track it and make sense of it.
If each frame of that person's movement had been crystal and blur-free, it'd look like crap.
Why do people still play with classic cars?
Why do you do a radio show?
Just because it's old, and/or an outmoded style does not mean it's not worth doing, watching, or playing.
But seriously:
I've stuck with CS since beta versions, when the awm was called the awp, and ALL models were left handed. Condition Zero was a major disappointment, despite the modelling.
Honestly, I've never taken a liking to any other multiplayer game. That, and I've been made quite a bit of money off of Lan Tourneys. My friends and I would usually go to a track (different Cities, different States,) and auto-x or drag for the fastest 1/4 mile on nat.asp'd or Turbo'd. Then we'd head to the local lan for some major slaughter.
And is still completely pointless. 55 looks fast and as I said, you can SEE faster, yeah, but who cares, 55fps is not slow and is not necessary. Take GTA (+ Vice City) and Halo, all of those games were capped at 30fps (though I do believe they do per frame bluring).
Just because you can SEE a difference, it doesn't warrant the point of actually doing it, you dont see me trying to get 600fps in other games, just because I can. The point is, as long as it is above 50fps, you shouldn't care.
How exactly can you "not be a fan of DirectX" I mean it's an API ffs, and I highly doubt you are a game creator which would be the only valid reason to not like an API in that manner.
DirectX as an API supports the same features as the OpenGL library, however its development cycle is considerably longer. In addition to this, effects rendered with OpenGL are considerably quicker to code, AND render than the same effect on the DX platform.
DX is a late-comer to the API field. Whilst it has received hearty support from the industry, and is doing quite well.. OpenGL's aforementioned superiorities makes it a priority to me.
If one API can render a game more fluidly than another, is it not now my concern also? As an end-user, I am concerned about performance...And that performance is in OpenGL.
So.. I ask you: Why does one need to be a game creator to dislike an API?
You just answered my question.
Basically you just said that OpenGL is easier to code for and renders quicker, which would be a reason to dislike D3D in favor of OpenGL.
You aren't making any sence. I pointed out the fact that OpenGL is easier to code for, which would be the job of a Coder, not and end user, and please write your posts out properly the first time round, not posting them as fast as possible, then editing them as it makes them a pain in the ass to reply to.
I was I fan of OpenGL over DirectX because it always seemed to run better, but lately it seems to be buggy in any game that I try, mainly from things like lighting having squares around them (GTA3/VC, Deus Ex). Which you will probably say contradicts what I said, but what I said was purely in context, which was:
That someone was trying to run something in OpenGL with no actual gain (in graphics or anything else) and simply not wanting to use Direct3D for those reasons was quite stupid and not a valid reason to hate Direct3D (simply due to it being an old game capped at 55fps for D3D which wasn't D3Ds fault in any way).
Enjoy the holiday season, y'all