[spydrct02]

Read it ALL or you will miss something:

I find it funny (more like eye rolling) how Doom 3/Half Life 2/other games give me a solid 60 fps no problem, yet Graal struggles to keep at it's capped 20 fps (ESPECIALLY on V2, but also on V4). I'm finding that more and more people are also having the exact same scenario as I. I'm thinking Graal needs to run more off the video card to give less stress on the processor - which can also get rid of the ugly 20 fps deal. Not to mention alt+5 isn't showing the FPS. It makes the bytes/sec (alt+4) go away, though.

I've never messed with a real Linux OS, just an emulator for it, but some are saying Graal runs significantly better in Linux? I get 10-13% CPU usage in an empty level while not moving at all, but I get 22-45% CPU usage while moving in the same level. When bitmap fonts are turned off, I get 22% while idle and 32-47% while moving. Now add about 10 idle players and that's instant 40% CPU taken up. Now if I moved, I get up to 60%, not TOO bad. But that was with bitmap fonts enabled. With it disabled, I see numbers up to 82%.

Also I'm getting the impression Graal is more optimized for slower processors, because I had someone get on his old 500 MHZ Celeron and race me across levels. Guess whose computer won? Not mine--he FLEW through the levels as if it didn't even bother loading them. I had an experience like that when I used Graal 3. I'm pretty sure Graal 3 used the video card a little bit more (if not fully) than 2 and 4 do (both OpenGL and Direct3D modes were flawlessly fast). I am saying Graal 3 ran much better than any other versions. Am I right that V3 used the video card for rendering everything? I never encountered DirectDraw in V3, while V2 and V4 use it (and to repeat myself, 3 runs the fastest out of the bunch).