Spring RTS Engine

Maybe, but C7-M is a lot worse than Atom. Also, you have VIA Chrome 9 as a integrated graphic card. I know it sucks because I have it, it's worse than a GeForce2. (but it is compensated by my Celeron-M, which is by the way superior to the Atom)

BTW, did adding 1,5 gigs of ram speed up the performance a lot?

So the question is, will an eeePC 901, with Atom 1.6 and Intel GMA 950 (which is a lot better than a VIA Chrome 9), be able to run medium-sized games (4vs4 on Comet Catcher) at a decent framerate?

I pretty remarkeble get better fps but that when really everything is turned off. And i am kind of forced to play BA. But still i dont complain playing on this netbook.

Would it be somehow possible mods would include lower texture maps and somehow the engine would read the smaller ones. This this sound pretty noobish to you?

I don't think you can go lower than BA, remember that the units and textures are directly from the original Total Annihilation. Playing on smaller (area or data size) maps really helps.

EDIT: Actually, you can, I remember the "Xect vs Myrn" (or something like that) mod worked pretty well on the iBook G4.
But then you'll have to find people willing to play with you...

BlueTemplar wrote:Maybe, but C7-M is a lot worse than Atom. Also, you have VIA Chrome 9 as a integrated graphic card. I know it sucks because I have it, it's worse than a GeForce2. (but it is compensated by my Celeron-M, which is by the way superior to the Atom)

I remember spring running poorly on my medium-level dual core Toshiba laptop with intel graphics too. It would always lag when the unit count started to rise. So I still say, why bother? Compared to the effort you spend trying to get a spring mod to be tolerable on a poor tiny machine, you could put much less effort into getting a better machine and play all mods.

BlueTemplar wrote:BTW, did adding 1,5 gigs of ram speed up the performance a lot?

It came with the 2 gigs. It's the highest level of the HP 2133 that is packaged with Vista Business (ooh, ahh).

BlueTemplar wrote:So the question is, will an eeePC 901, with Atom 1.6 and Intel GMA 950 (which is a lot better than a VIA Chrome 9), be able to run medium-sized games (4vs4 on Comet Catcher) at a decent framerate?

Peet wrote:Spring is barely playable solo on my 1.6 atom+intel 945, let alone in 5v5 dsd.

BlueTemplar wrote:but it is compensated by my Celeron-M, which is by the way superior to the Atom

Depends on how you define 'superior'. The Atom has a 2.5W tdp. The Celeron M 440 has a 27 watt tdp.

Yes, of course, I wasn't talking about the consumption, this is the beauty of the Atom.

So I still say, why bother?

"Because we can" (TM)

There is a point in somehow making Spring work nicely on a low end machine (or on a higher end machine with a weak GPU, like quite a few laptops used in business contexts):

You can relatively easily get a bunch of such machines together in a LAN (read, in an office environment ) and if Spring could be made to run well on that bunch of machines: instant RTS LAN party .

As a side note (which I will repeat at a lot of IMHO relevant places): by limiting the number of units to 100 (I managed at last to figure out how!) I got v 1.01 of Spring44 (Luettich or what it were called) to run really, really nicely, in spite of having a pretty weak GPU (intel 965GM... not the weakest but definitively not the most powerful either...).

So, besides of creating low end mods, it is possible to trim down the system requirements of already existing mods. Of course, not every mod works well from a gameplay perspective by having unit spam being limited... (But new, unexpected gameplay might surface as a result!)

yeah if we could have a netbook compatible version of spring, with a nice install package, it would open up a hueg demographic for it (imo KP would probably be well suited). Im interested cause i dont have nothing but a netbook atm and im bored to tears of stupid browser flash games.

BTW, isn't the number of units more of a CPU than GPU problem? (granted, integrated graphics weaken the rest of the PC).

HP 2133 that is packaged with Vista Business

OMG, WHY? Why do people have to torture computers like that? (OK, I know, they're not people, they are money-grubbing salesmen...)
What's wrong with Windows XP? It's a NETBOOK for god's sake!
No wonder you've got poor performance with spring... I bet you have a poor peformance overall!

You'd think KP would work great because it's a simpler game, but it's actually more ressource-heavy than BA, due probably to the huge unit count.

im bored to tears of stupid browser flash games

http://www.liliputing.com/2008/10/netbo ... to-go.html
http://wiki.eeeuser.com/list:games
There was also a great compatibility list for Atom-powered netbooks, but I can't seem to be able to find it anymore...
And if you want to play Crysis, OnLive will be available soon.

BlueTemplar wrote:

HP 2133 that is packaged with Vista Business

OMG, WHY?

I'm actually fine with it. I prefer Vista because I'm a vistahead and because XP is no longer supported. Like I said, 1.6ghz 2gigs it runs just fine, only not for Spring. I forgot to mention it's great for videos too, being that it's Vista business it also allows me to use it for faxing (yeah, I really do sometimes) and believe it or not, it works with aero. But I leave that off, it does slow it down

BaNa wrote:yeah if we could have a netbook compatible version of spring, with a nice install package, it would open up a hueg demographic for it (imo KP would probably be well suited). Im interested cause i dont have nothing but a netbook atm and im bored to tears of stupid browser flash games.

I'd like a flash-based 2-D replay viewer.

XP is still supported.....

Peet wrote:XP is still supported....

I've been tricked!

System:
ASUS 1000HE
Intel Atom N280 (1.66GHz / 667MHz)
Intel 945GME
2G Ram (upgraded from 1G, 2G is 667MHz, though the BIOS indicates it runs only at 533MHz)

My main interest is to be able to test changes, before i commit them, so really playing games is not a must for me.

Windows
the machine came with WinXP preinstalled (no linux version available for this model). Installed spring, set native resolution (1024x600), lowered a few settings, do NOT use hardware cursor (makes it flickering).
it ran fine, though i did not test a real game, only a short test BA against KAIK on brazillian battlefield.did nto check frame rate, but it appeared smooth.

Linux
i installed gentoo 9.04 netbook remix. this comes with the xserver-xorg-video-intel-2:2.6.3 driver. compiled spring GIT master (0.79.1.+), disabled shadows (in ~/.springrc, set Shadows=-1).
with native resolution, spring is unblayable slow, form the first second on. with 640x480 it runs with .. maybe 5FPS at start, and the map is all white (no texture, as known from eg ATI open source drivers).
glxinfo output:
http://pastebin.com/m7b028137

others have reported to be bale to run spring well under linux (even on that same model), and after searching the net, it seems as if opengl runs much faster on ubuntu 8.10 then on 9.04 for intel cards.

i hope to see more "reviews" from other netbook users!

I'm unable to play any games on my 1000HE at a reasonable rate, though I can play small BA/HA/MA matches.

At 24 viewdistance, frame rate starts around mid-thirties and drops to about eight during normal play in a two on two.

about that low end mods (with limited units) how about a turnbased mod (i thought somebody made it possible) --> something like advanced wars or ff/ogre tactics

Use unit limits?

Heck unit limited KP!

It is playable, but I don't like one on one. You can play limited two on two, preferably without Network.

BaNa wrote:yeah if we could have a netbook compatible version of spring, with a nice install package, it would open up a hueg demographic for it (imo KP would probably be well suited). Im interested cause i dont have nothing but a netbook atm and im bored to tears of stupid browser flash games.

What would it take to make a lite version of spring ?