scott wrote:

> One of my favourites too, although even on the latest processors it 
> still struggles to achieve 60 (or even 30 sometimes) FPS at high 
> resolutions (read 1920x1200).  I wonder if they could rewrite it using 
> the graphics card, the routines used look like they would lend 
> themselves very well to being written on the graphics card.


I find this post shocking on a number of levels...

When I first had Geiss, I remember my mum's poor old Pentium I 233 MHz 
thing with 16 MB RAM *dying* trying to run it. The poor thing would 
stutter along at roughly 12 FPS with 320x240 at 30% letterbox. Last 
night, I tried it on my current PC. Even at the highest settings I could 
use, it was still exceeding 75 FPS. Seriously, the screen was just a 
blur. It was *way* too fast.

I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm also 
confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200. (Mine 
won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to why you 
would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...

Post a reply to this message