Max Payne and the 3dMark2001 demo

***Flatty*** · July 30th, 2001

Hello to everyone, first post here

Well I've got a really simple question. Do you remember the "hall demo" in 3dMark2001? This was taken from the MaxED engine, am I right?

Ok, so let's sart with questions:

a) I didn't see any reflective surface on Max Payne, is there anyone? Just a question, not a complain

b) in the Mark demo, every shot was able to "break" a surface, I mean you could actually notice there were some "missing" parts on columns, walls and so on. A shot's hole was not a bitmap (either with bump mapping or not) but was a true hole (at least it looked like...). In Max I noticed bullets produce bitmaps on walls (of course well done holes

.

c) the 3dMark demo looked like a lot better in visuals. I use a GeForce II mx on a 1000 Mhz AMD Athlon and Max Payne runs fine at highest detail (@800x600 no slowdowns). Even with all the details set to maximum, I notice no great effects as I could notice in the Mark demo

Ok, here it goes. Enlight me!

------------------
-| Flatty |-

[This message has been edited by Flatty (edited 07-30-2001).]

JD · July 30th, 2001

For me the stupidest thing is that the 3DM2K1 demo looks better than the game but it also runs at a higher FPS than the game on my PC ?????.

Other bizzare things are I get the same FPS in 1000x700x32, 1100x800x32, 1200x900x32, 1000x700x16, 1100x800x16, 1200x900x16 and the very simular FPS no matter whether i have min of max detail.

***Flatty*** · July 30th, 2001

Hi JD,

yes I forgot to metion it: at HIGHEST detail, with reflective surfaces, bullet holes, 32bit ect... the 3dMark demo runs really smooth at 1024x768. Cannot say the same on the final game, where I have to force resolution to 800x600 and (in some minor cases) reduce to 16bit the color-depth. Of course I can keep all the details to "full"

Ther's no comparison with the 3dMark2001 demo, why?