Source code errors (?)

Report bugs, bug fixes and workarounds here.
Guest

how quaint :)

Post #21by Guest » 25.06.2002, 18:09

Ignatz wrote:and you moved UP from a geforce 2 to a rage 128?


what kind of drugs are you smoking? :?


You should at least be able to read. The GeForce 2 GTS is on my PIII 1GhZ/512MB Linux machine at home, the ATI card is on my office machine, a PIII 750MHZ/512MB.

Note, the card is an ATI Rage128 2000PRO.

There may be slower R128 cards, I do not know. Did you have 512MB Ram as well? What is your clock frequency of the RAMDAC and the CPU?

Note also, I use DRI Linux drivers under X86Free 4.20. There has been a substantial performance increase with X86free 4.x relative to 3.x and also due to the latest DRI drivers. This may make some difference with what you were using.

Since you have a GeForce now, why do you not contest my fps rates from my GeForce 2 GTS, too??;-))

Why should I exagerate with a cheep ATI card, if my old GeForce2 is a factor 5 faster anyway...

Since you are such a nice guy;-), I shall put up for you the glxgears framerates tomorrow, when I am back in the office.

Bye Fridger

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 18
With us: 18 years 6 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #22by t00fri » 25.06.2002, 18:14

And just to prevent misunderstandings:

The framerate of 550 fps refers to 16 bit color as is standard with Linux. 24/32bit TrueColor would of course dramatically lower that rate.

Bye Fridger

Ignatz

Post #23by Ignatz » 25.06.2002, 18:19

well youre a persistent liar if not a convincing one


no i did not "have 512 ram" i had 256

the processor is a 1.3ghz athlon


the card was a rage 128 2000 pro

the card was dog slow

slow under linux with xfree 4.2 dri

slow under windows with ati's opengl drivers

slow under windows ME with ati's directx 8 drivers
slow under windows XP with ati's directx 8.1 drivers

it is simply a crappy card


my old voodoo banshee pci was faster

my new geforce4 mx 420 leaves it in the dust.. and its the lowest geforce4 model there is... people give it a hard time because it is "not a real geforce4 as in a geforce4 Ti

as far as the reading comment yes i missed you saying its in a different machine

you also seemed to have missed me saying "take a screenshot and prove it"

Ignatz

Post #24by Ignatz » 25.06.2002, 18:21

And if you think 512 megs is somehow "necessary" for glxgears you have a real problem

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 18
With us: 18 years 6 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #25by t00fri » 25.06.2002, 18:29

Ignatz wrote:well youre a persistent liar if not a convincing one


no i did not "have 512 ram" i had 256

the processor is a 1.3ghz athlon


the card was a rage 128 2000 pro

the card was dog slow

slow under linux with xfree 4.2 dri

slow under windows with ati's opengl drivers

slow under windows ME with ati's directx 8 drivers
slow under windows XP with ati's directx 8.1 drivers

it is simply a crappy card


my old voodoo banshee pci was faster

my new geforce4 mx 420 leaves it in the dust.. and its the lowest geforce4 model there is... people give it a hard time because it is "not a real geforce4 as in a geforce4 Ti

as far as the reading comment yes i missed you saying its in a different machine

you also seemed to have missed me saying "take a screenshot and prove it"


I looked the exact card name up with my dealer:

It's an ATI XPERT 2000PRO AGP4x with a Rage 128 chip and 32 MB.
It costs 49 Euro right now.

I cannot put up screenshots since my WEBspace is reserved for professional matters. I can only quote the fps output from glxgears along with a readout of the /proc directory that shows that this card exists and is connected to the AGP slot in my machine;-).

I really have no idea what makes you believe I had any reason not to say the truth. It's very simple: I never lie.

I can just agree with you that if it was my private machine, I would get rid of this card as fast as possible...

Bye Fridger

Ignatz

Post #26by Ignatz » 25.06.2002, 18:32

fair enough


by the way celestia is a nice program :)

Topic author
Little_Tux
Posts: 4
Joined: 23.06.2002
With us: 18 years 4 months

Post #27by Little_Tux » 25.06.2002, 19:08

Finally celestia! Thank you Dragon, i never thought to search for celestia in rpmfind ...
Celestia is very slow .. i've an Intel740 (8mb?) in a PII 350mhz but I don't use this computer to play games: i can't put wine working ... (yet!)

Thank you two very much for your help,

Diogo

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 18
With us: 18 years 6 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #28by t00fri » 25.06.2002, 19:16

Little_Tux wrote:Finally celestia! Thank you Dragon, i never thought to search for celestia in rpmfind ...
Celestia is very slow .. i've an Intel740 (8mb?) in a PII 350mhz but I don't use this computer to play games: i can't put wine working ... (yet!)

Thank you two very much for your help,

Diogo


Congratulations! For your computer/card, the framerates may be OK. But before knowing your hardware, they seemed abnormally slow.

Bye Fridger

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 18
With us: 18 years 6 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #29by t00fri » 26.06.2002, 08:37

t00fri wrote:ATI Rage 128/32MB card in my PIII 750MHZ office machine that also runs with DRI. glxgears gives about a factor 5 speed increase due to the hardware support, i.e. 500-600 fps.

Ignatz wrote: t00fri... are you sure youre not bullshitting just a little
...sounds EXACTLY like bullshit to me....
...what kind of drugs are you smoking?
...well youre a persistent liar if not a convincing one


Exact brand name of my card:
---------------------------------------
ATI XPERT 2000PRO AGP4x with a Rage 128 chip and 32 MB.

It costs 49 Euro ~ 49 $ right now.

1280x960, 16bit color, standard size of glxgears:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
glxgears -info
GL_RENDERER = Mesa DRI Rage128 20010405 Pro AGP 4x x86
GL_VERSION = 1.2 Mesa 3.4.2
GL_VENDOR = VA Linux Systems, Inc.
GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_polygon_offset GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_MESA_window_pos GL_MESA_resize_buffers GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_PGI_misc_hints GL_SGIS_pixel_texture GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp
2409 frames in 5.0 seconds = 481.800 FPS
2574 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.800 FPS
2573 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.600 FPS
2535 frames in 5.0 seconds = 507.000 FPS
2573 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.600 FPS
2572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.400 FPS


1024x768, 16bit color, standard size of glxgears:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
glxgears -info
GL_RENDERER = Mesa DRI Rage128 20010405 Pro AGP 4x x86
GL_VERSION = 1.2 Mesa 3.4.2
GL_VENDOR = VA Linux Systems, Inc.
GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_polygon_offset GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_MESA_window_pos GL_MESA_resize_buffers GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_PGI_misc_hints GL_SGIS_pixel_texture GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp
2630 frames in 5.0 seconds = 526.000 FPS
2919 frames in 5.0 seconds = 583.800 FPS
2918 frames in 5.0 seconds = 583.600 FPS
2874 frames in 5.0 seconds = 574.800 FPS
2919 frames in 5.0 seconds = 583.800 FPS
2863 frames in 5.0 seconds = 572.600 FPS


How about a little apology for your "bullshitting ...liar". Remember,
lots of people are reading your "self-qualifying" remarks here...;-))

Bye Fridger

PS: Of course, I could have manipulated all those numbers above. No
problems, just continue denying that the numbers above are correct;-))

DragonSpirit

heh, whats the point?

Post #30by DragonSpirit » 26.06.2002, 18:53

I really personally do not see what the frame rate has to do with the actual code/compilation errors that anyone has. The hardware had little to do with the problems that are occuring with Celestia, when the hardware problems come into effect is after the actual program has the ability to run... that is... after its compiled, or say on windoze.... after you download and run the exicutable precompiled for you. So, I mean, unless its running slow or bad, I don't understand what the frame rates information will help with.

Little_Tux I do not know much about what Direct Renduring Modules you would use to get that particulater hardware to work, personally have not seen that one before although
http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/DRIbeginner.html might help you. if not there is a irc network you can fire up xchat or BitchX and type in /server irc.opennetworks.net once connected type /join #mandrake there are many good poeple there willing to help and actually answer questions with practical answers and will not lead you to unessessary steps and such. If on windows a client called mIRC will do the same thing as the other two I mentioned.

Now as for Celestia, I like it, its a tad bit slow on my old hardware but runs smoothly nevertheless. Infact I showed it to my father and he downloaded it on his machine were he is. He used the Windows one but still it looks very nice and I like it and I thank you for making such a nice application. Only two bugs I ran across are the crash at Saturn that I see is mentioned on some other posts, and whenever I am heading for a star I noticed the flare is buggy, it seems to want to move all around in a small square like area and sometimes is nto there. I imagine this also might be due to my hardware, but I thought I might mention it anyway.

Thank you,

Dragon

Here is that link again:
http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/DRIbeginner.html
Of course since you are using Mandrake 8.2 I woudl suggest using the DRI modules included on the cds if you are able to. If not ask some of the peoepl in the channel on irc, they may be able to help you, although I cannot ever make any promises on all that.

DragonSpirit

oops

Post #31by DragonSpirit » 26.06.2002, 18:55

Use the second link, I goofed, not the first of either two.

Ignatz

Post #32by Ignatz » 07.07.2002, 09:30

from your first post i was responding to:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t00fri



Joined: 29 Mar 2002
Posts: 271
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2002 10:03 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is really hard to understand, since you apparently have compiled successfully a large number of routines. Just in order to make sure that your routines have not been damaged (e.g. by a Windows editor), gzip starbrowser.cpp and starbrowser.h and send them to my email address which you find below.

At least your ./configure output looks very good /now/.

What is quite horrible is that your graphics installation is also not working, just as I have suspected. You do not have direct rendering enabled, i.e NO 3d hardware support of your card. Celestia will not work properly even if your compilation would work...You made the usual mistake that you installed both the software openGL lib (Mesa) and possibly your hardware support. Both interfere and things do not work if you do not know how to set the symbolic links...

Your framerate is much too low. I get 2592 fps, for example!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


from your posting of your framerates:

2918 frames in 5.0 seconds = 583.600 FPS
2874 frames in 5.0 seconds = 574.800 FPS
2919 frames in 5.0 seconds = 583.800 FPS
2863 frames in 5.0 seconds = 572.600 FPS

572 - 583 FPS is not 2592 FPS :D

i think this is an understandable misunderstanding

you can see how it might look like you were inflating the numbers?

but i can see how you got your figure... the 2592 was obviously for five seconds :wink:


i feel perfectly justified in calling you on that... my wording should have been a bit less harsh though

Ignatz

Post #33by Ignatz » 07.07.2002, 09:54

just looked back through and i do see where you said 500-600 fps later so i do apologise.. it was the original number that i looked at when i posted

:)

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 18
With us: 18 years 6 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #34by t00fri » 07.07.2002, 10:51

Ignatz:
-------

Ignatz wrote:just looked back through and i do see where you said 500-600 fps later so i do apologise.. it was the original number that i looked at when i posted

Your last sentence is incorrect!

You did NOT believe the 550 fps of my ATI card
and called me /a persistent liar/ on that basis. Here is the quote of
two consecutive previous mails:

t00fri wrote:550 fps is really slow for nowadays typical hardware performance its
1/5th of my old GeForce 2 card. What do you want? If you find this
fast then you probably own a Matrox card;-). I have not bought that
machine, it is my office machine and not meant for 3d. Here is the
relevant part of my XF86Config

Ignatz wrote:sounds EXACTLY like bullshit to me....
sorry but i used to have a rage 128 myself
t00fri wrote:And just to prevent misunderstandings:

The framerate of 550 fps refers to 16 bit color as is standard with
Linux. 24/32bit TrueColor would of course dramatically lower that rate.
Ignatz wrote:well youre a persistent liar if not a convincing one

Not even now, after all this unpleasent mail exchange, were you able to
correctly read my original mail on the basis of which you produced
your utterly unappropriate remarks! No, before your "apology", it took you /yet another/ long "bullshit"-type letter (right above) until you finally "stumbled" over the fact that from the start my statements were /both/ precise /and/ correct!

This is from my mail on the basis of which you /repeatedly/ called me
"bullshitting", a "persistent liar" etc...
This mail is /just above your first one/ (one mail in between)

t00fri wrote:As a comparison, I have a ATI Rage 128/32MB card in my PIII 750MHZ
office machine that also runs with DRI. glxgears gives about a factor
5 speed increase due to the hardware support, i.e. 500-600 fps. This
is still bad, of course, in an absolute sense since my oldish GeForce
2 GTS gives 2592 fps with a PIII 1GHz.

I guess the matching of my statements about the ATI card in my office
machine to the subsequent measurement could barely have been more precise.

t00fri wrote:Exact brand name of my card:
---------------------------------------
ATI XPERT 2000PRO AGP4x with a Rage 128 chip and 32 MB.

It costs 49 Euro ~ 49 $ right now.

1280x960, 16bit color, standard size of glxgears:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
glxgears -info

GL_RENDERER = Mesa DRI Rage128 20010405 Pro AGP 4x x86
GL_VERSION = 1.2 Mesa 3.4.2
GL_VENDOR = VA Linux Systems, Inc.
GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_transpose_matrix
GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array
GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_polygon_offset
GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture3D
GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias
GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_MESA_window_pos GL_MESA_resize_buffers
GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_PGI_misc_hints GL_SGIS_pixel_texture
GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp
2409 frames in 5.0 seconds = 481.800 FPS
2574 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.800 FPS
2573 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.600 FPS
2535 frames in 5.0 seconds = 507.000 FPS
2573 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.600 FPS
2572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 514.400 FPS


Given my considerable activity in this forum, I guess most people
(except you, of course) know meanwhile what kind of graphics cards I
am using in my /TWO/ computers!

I really love these "fast-shooter" types...


Fridger

Ignatz

Post #35by Ignatz » 07.07.2002, 11:17

ok toofri...

2592 = 583

a dog is a cat

black is white

night is day

and youre not a liar


fair enough?
time for your medication now


:lol:

seriously though this is getting very old

you said 2592
you said ati card

i said you were lying

i didnt know at the time you had two cards/machines

i do now and can accept that you were talking about the gf2 when i thought you were talking about the rage 128

i called you a liar because i thought you were saying you had 2592 on the rage 128

any questions?

Ignatz

Post #36by Ignatz » 07.07.2002, 11:21

maybe im wrong maybe 2592 IS the same as 583?


:wink:

Ignatz

Post #37by Ignatz » 07.07.2002, 11:27

t00fri



Joined: 29 Mar 2002
Posts: 272
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2002 10:03 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is really hard to understand, since you apparently have compiled successfully a large number of routines. Just in order to make sure that your routines have not been damaged (e.g. by a Windows editor), gzip starbrowser.cpp and starbrowser.h and send them to my email address which you find below.

At least your ./configure output looks very good /now/.

What is quite horrible is that your graphics installation is also not working, just as I have suspected. You do not have direct rendering enabled, i.e NO 3d hardware support of your card. Celestia will not work properly even if your compilation would work...You made the usual mistake that you installed both the software openGL lib (Mesa) and possibly your hardware support. Both interfere and things do not work if you do not know how to set the symbolic links...

Your framerate is much too low. I get 2592 fps, for example!

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:


Return to “Bugs”

Who is online