Slashdot Mirror


RTCW: Enemy Territory Test Released

Ant writes "Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory Test is released for Linux and Windows! It doesn't require the original game." See the news blurb and player guide.

188 comments

  1. Going to play it soon :) by Trinhbo · · Score: 2, Informative

    You guys can download it directly from this link in the bottom left corner.

    http://games.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/inde x.asp?section=april03

    I have to go to class soon but I'll sure as hell be playing it when I get back. I hope the single player isn't like the first one. I was impressed until those uber soldiers and skeletons started coming out. I love those realistic WWII games.

    --
    -Trinhbo [http://trinhbo.com]
    1. Re:Going to play it soon :) by HellKrisp · · Score: 1

      There will be no SP mode. It was dropped a while back (SP and MP were being developed seperately).

    2. Re:Going to play it soon :) by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      There will be no SP mode.

      What? Do you mean AT ALL? That's the one thing I missed when Q3A came out. The game is great and all, but even when you're not online, it's still kind of a MP mode (same can be said for Tribes et al, it's still a MP style game even when playing offline).

      That's why I fell in love with the id games. I could creap around in a dungeon (or turn on god mode and let off a bit of steam shooting imps or nazis or whatever with a gattling gun in Bring It On mode), or the same thing in some weird Hitler controlled Keep somewhere, and play the game myself. There was no "team" in it. It is just me against the world.

      Are you saying that I can't do this with this release (I don't mean the demo since RTCW demo was MP only), but I mean even in the final version?

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    3. Re:Going to play it soon :) by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      There is no single player, multiplayer only. The single player side wasn't "progressing as expected" and was canned

    4. Re:Going to play it soon :) by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      Yet mysteriously the X-Box RtCW will have "new" SP levels.....
      There seems to be something fishy going on.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    5. Re:Going to play it soon :) by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      not really, the RtCW on X-Box has been based on RtCW, the SP of ET was a different kind of game, you controlled a squad of players

    6. Re:Going to play it soon :) by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      But remember, ET took place at least partially in Egypt, as a prequel to RtCW. This is also where and when at least some of the extra missions in the Xbox version take place. So it is containing at least a little of the content that was supposed to be in ET. I am just worried they may not release the cooperative play patch for the PC version in an effort to boost the Xbox version's sales.

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    7. Re:Going to play it soon :) by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      There will be a multiplayer map released that is set in North Africa for ET MP. Afaik the X-Box game doesn't include you leading a platoon of soldiers does it? They probably just used textures and the layout but they don't use the AI and stuff that was being developed for ET SP. You've got to wonder does that really matter, they probably had these textures and layouts on the PC first anyway, and they _will_ still be coming in some shape

    8. Re:Going to play it soon :) by Kesh · · Score: 1

      Nope. No SP Mode at all. ET is going to be a free, multiplayer-only release now.

    9. Re:Going to play it soon :) by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think you are right about the Xbox version not having squads to command. I still think some of the levels will be the same, sans friendlies, but you are right that a lot of the ET content is just getting flushed down the toilet apparently.

      Too bad, as the working with friendlies idea could have been really fun. I suspect they are saving it for the sequel, probably to be shown off at this coming E3...

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  2. ahhhh, i knew there was a reason .... by thrashncarry · · Score: 5, Funny

    that my manager didn't turn up to work this morning. the bastard is sitting at home playing this!

    1. Re:ahhhh, i knew there was a reason .... by Eu4ria · · Score: 1, Funny

      So if your boss isnt in the office that means you can play it then. Who knows you might get to play against each other.

  3. Fileshack link FYI by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Fileshack link FYI by HellKrisp · · Score: 1

      Theres also Blueyonder if don't like queuing.. Unfortunately the Linux version doesn't appear to be up yet,

    2. Re:Fileshack link FYI by Beatbyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      BitTorrent anyone?

      et-linux-test-2.32.x86.run is the linux text filename

    3. Re:Fileshack link FYI by TTimo · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:Fileshack link FYI by mxs · · Score: 1

      http://f.scarywater.net/ has the Windows Test; the linux torrent has been posted here already ;)

    5. Re:Fileshack link FYI by mxs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Make that f.scarywater.net has the Windows Test; the linux torrent has been posted here already ;)

    6. Re:Fileshack link FYI by CAPSLOCK2000 · · Score: 1

      Cool, this one's really fast for me. Fully saturated at 300K . 3DDownloads gives me 60K max.

  4. What no Mac Version by norwoodites · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is there a x86 Linux version but no Mac Version?

    1. Re:What no Mac Version by FrenZon · · Score: 5, Funny
      Why is there a x86 Linux version but no Mac Version?
      Because they realised that the mac gaming scene is too dominated by Photoshop?

    2. Re:What no Mac Version by mrpuffypants · · Score: 2, Funny

      p34r my sk1llz with the "gaussian blur" filter

    3. Re:What no Mac Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The game engine was designed on x86 UNIX machines and ported to Windows. A Linux port is a no-brainer, and has been around for years now.

      Apples, on the other hand, have PPC chips. That's a lot of time and money to get the game ported, unless you design it for PPC Linux, which is just a simple compile.

      The open UNIX and Linux machines are the *only* OSs that can easily have code ported between the different CPUs.

    4. Re:What no Mac Version by rufo · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard much on this download/expansion pack/whatever the hell it is, but chances are that iD's Graeme Devine, who does most of the Mac work on the Quake 3 ports, may become involved. Give him a week or three to update his plan and maybe we'll get a version of it.

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    5. Re:What no Mac Version by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't mess with me or I'll difference cloud your ass and make you look all trippy.

      -B

  5. Re:That Was Fast by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1, Funny

    I guess that's maybe a sign that people actually do try to read the article before posting.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  6. Re:I've played this game already by the_bahua · · Score: 1

    Even though the linux version was slow on your machine,(and that's all, as far as we can see here) it will not be forever. If it's released for linux, then it would be a no-brainer to get it working properly.

    Or, you could just run it with wine. :)

  7. Re:That Was Fast by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    bwahahaha! I hope you hit +5, Funny for that great crack!

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  8. This is will not be a full blown retail game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTCW: Enemy Territory will be a multiplayer only game that is completely free. A while back Activison decided not to make it a full blow retail game but since so much of it was done they are going to make it free for everyone.

    1. Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. by fine09 · · Score: 1

      Yeah,

      I was wondering why they would make this free, I am not going to complain though, since I play Day of Defeat a lot(check it out if you want a good mp ww2 game) this should be a fun game to try out.

    2. Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. by Trinhbo · · Score: 1

      Free sounds great! While Day of Defeat is a great game, having a great game to play with sexy graphics is even more fun.

      --
      -Trinhbo [http://trinhbo.com]
    3. Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Why is it not an update to the retail RtCW then?

      I'm not complaining though - it just seems odd, given that it probably won't help retail sales!

    4. Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't think they would recoup the investment in packaging and boxes and distribution, support, etc, etc that making the game retail would require.

      It's better they do this, than the standard option in a situation like this, just shelving the game and never releasing anything.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      I think what the parent meant was that it would help increase retail sales of the original RTCW if this update required the original to run. I agree with him, it seems very odd that this is standalone.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    6. Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 1

      This is a release similar to America's Army: Operations ( http://www.americasarmy.com )...different means but same ends. I guess if the US Army can put out a game to try and interest boys in signing up for active service, we should also have a title that suggests some boys should also run around torturing non-Aryans and hoarding art and treasure...

      --
      Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  9. Re:I've played this game already by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    what the heck are you talking about?

    P-III 866 with a Geforce4 MX (Low end $39.00 geforce 4) it screams as well as UT2003 Quake3 etc... I get over 30fps all the time. (much more if I drop to sane resolutions like 800X600)

    Sounds like you either dont have a good videocard (read that as not having an Nvidia) or you have something horribly mis-configured.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  10. Re:I've played this game already by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

    Funny, since the original RTCW runs faster on my Linux box than my Windows machine, despite the Windows machine having a faster CPU (same RAM + gfx card). Maybe you're not running an accelerated 3D driver on your linux machine?

  11. No Mac Version?! What Gives?!? by LordYUK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone KNOWS that REAL gamers play on Macs. Only "n00bz" use linux as their gaming platform of choice.

    Nothing says "l33t g4m3r" more than fragging someone using a one button arrow mover.

    =)

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    1. Re:No Mac Version?! What Gives?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Nothin says unemployed hipster on a trust fund than playing video games on a mac...

    2. Re:No Mac Version?! What Gives?!? by FyRE666 · · Score: 0

      Everyone KNOWS that REAL gamers play on Macs.
      /me falls off chair laughing! Honestly, I didn't think there were ANY games available for OSX...

  12. Could this be a trend? by revividus · · Score: 1

    I hope so... The main link in the post seems already to be slashdotted, so I can't read all about it, but if, as it seems, this is a New Game, coming with a linux port right off the starting block, it certainly seems that would be a Good Thing.

  13. BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone got one of them up yet? Servers all getting slashdotted alrdy

  14. Re:I've played this game already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DON'T buy the Linux version

    Why should I buy it? As the site says: Wolfenstein Enemy Territory is a _free_, stand-alone, downloadable multiplayer game in which players wage war as Axis or Allies in team-based combat.

    But I will download the Linux version, and I bet it will run fast with the right drivers.

    ::jl

  15. Re:I've played this game already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! Another "framebuffer" troll that doesn't understand his Linux box.

  16. Re:I was hoping they would wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? That is a load of crap! I've been running the single player demo and it screams! Try using an NVIDIA card! If your complaining it's slow you can't be using a video card with commercial drivers. I'm using a GForce 4 I got for $50, and I play all the old loki titles, Max Payne, GTA 3, The Sims in winex, and UT2003, Castle Wolfenstien demo, Neverwinter Nights natively. Linux is a fine platform for games and in many cases it runs better than windows. Especially the windows games because it woould seem OpenGL is alot more efficient than Direct X!

  17. something's not configured right by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

    Since you posted as an AC, I'll have to assume this is a troll. Just in case its not, I've got to ask about your setup because it sounds like you don't have something set up right.

    What type of video card are you trying to use? Do you have the correct drivers installed?

    Try running glxinfo
    What does the third line of output show you? Is direct rendering enabled?

    --

    "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  18. New gameplay by Openadvocate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The important part, is there any new gameplay?
    From scanning the guide I'd say yes. I am looking forward to playing as "Covert OpS", I always liked blowing up enemy sentry guns in TFC.
    Besides from that, I must say that Desert Combat is providing a lot of new fun stuff too for BF1942, although in alpha stage and team strength/weapon balancing still are a bit off, and some strange errors, it's nice to see that we can expect more from the bf1942 platform that has many cool features but the original WW2 concept is getting old.

    --
    my sig
    1. Re:New gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Desert Combat is excellent. Now I'm just praying for a Linux version of BF1942 so my system doesn't slow down to a crawl after 3 hrs of play!

    2. Re:New gameplay by ZaMoose · · Score: 1

      Supposedly the new 3.0 version of WineX supports BF1942. I've yet to try it out, since my subscription lapsed...

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    3. Re:New gameplay by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, how about other great wars then?

      • American Revolution & Civil war

        Player takes aim with a musket, chance to hit is based on random numbers and skill, strafing in impossible and not allowed as you're to stay in formation. Reloading requires a tedious procedure and after getting hit, player is likely to still live and spend the rest of the game incapacitated, only to die of wounds later on anyways. No good game scenario here.

      • World War 1

        Player stares are mud walls of a trench most of the game, stands up after about half and hour, jumps over various obstacles and then into the next trench with the rest of the team, or rather what remains of it as half has been mowed down by machine gun fire. Player and team take aim at incoming opponents and evacuate trench of nescesarry. Repeat until all players are dead. No good game scenario here.

      • Gulf War 1 & 2

        Player either flies a B2 or F117 to fire cruise missiles, fires cruise missles from naval vessels or patrols the sky in an F18/A or F15. Opponents do nothing at all except pressing a few buttons, cauing a bunch of scuds to horribly miss their targets. Later stages of the game include patrol with AH64 helicopters and AH1 helicopters and driving a tank all the way to Bagdad. Opponent will finally get a chance to fight with no ammo and a jammed gun, facing two options: retreat or surrender. No good game scenario here either.

        Hence the abundance of WW2 games.

    4. Re:New gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desert Combat is based on Gulf war 1 and 2. The scenarios are great and include every weapon you've named. Maybe you should actually PLAY it before trying to say how it won't work?

    5. Re:New gameplay by swb · · Score: 1

      Some of your complaints about Revolutionary, Civil and WW I scernerios are some of my complaints about a lot of the FPS gaming scenerios -- not enough group combat situations. It's usually you vs. a zillion (sometimes limitless) enemies. I'd like to be able to participate in combat situations involving many vs. many.

      I also think you're overstating the civil war and the revolutionary war a little. A fair amount of both wars were more than formation rifle fire.

      Also, I think there's a great opportunity for someone to implement mounted cavalry battles.

      I'd also like to see battles involving Roman scenerios, especially Julius' Gaul campaign.

    6. Re:New gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually the Civil war was a marked change. The soldiers had rifles and much improved artilery. Also after the first few battles people realized that the old napoleonic tactics of "lets all go stand a thirty meters from each other in dense formation in an open field, and have at it", was not the best solution. Cover was sought, and artilery became far more important even when there wasn't a fort to siege.

      As far as the game play experince well, slow fighting, long marches, and very little in the way of kindnes to POWs or wounded. Though you weren't likely to die in battle, most likely some ghastly illness would take you, so a good part of the game would be running from anything that might get you sick. A good mini game would be picking out the wevils in ones hardtack.

    7. Re:New gameplay by dodobh · · Score: 1

      o Vietnam

      Player goes into jungles and swamps on foot.
      Enemy is better than player 99% of the time.
      Player may or may not get help from support lines.
      Player may randomly be hit by leftover chemicals from air strikes to destroy enemy troops.
      Pretty good scenario.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    8. Re:New gameplay by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Gulf War 1 & 2

      Remember Falcon 3.0? Arguably the best jet combat game ever created.. based on the Gulf War.

    9. Re:New gameplay by irn_bru · · Score: 1

      You forgot bonus points for team killing.

  19. Torrent by scatter_gather · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would someone put up a bittorrent link please?

    Thank you!

    1. Re:Torrent by TTimo · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/et-linux-test-2.32. x86.run.torrent

      I've setup a bittorrent tracker. It's very experimental so don't complain if it goes down.

    2. Re:Torrent by l8f57 · · Score: 1

      There seems to be an error in the link. Try http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/et-linux-test-2.32. x86.run.torrent for a download. I'm currently getting it at about 130Kb/s

  20. Doesn't require original RtCW? by mahdi13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could someone explain how that works? I realize that this is made by the same people that made RtCW, but skimping out of the original engine doesn't seem right. It's a faily new engine (tweaked off of Quake 3, but updated) so I don't see how/why they would do this.

    --
    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    1. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's my guesses (and none of these are based on what I've heard):
      1. It's not a moddable version of RTCW, it's a complete game
      2. Activision has payed Id for the license already, so it's Activision's choice if they want to lose money to give us a freebie
      3. It won't detract from sales of the engine to other companies

    2. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was made by the same group who produced RtCW, and Enemry Territory was going to be the big expansion everyone wanted. Unfortunately cost overruns and time forced it to be cut short, but they graciously decided to finish what was there and release it to the world.

      They've already paid the licensing fee for the engine, and since they're using the same engine here, they don't have to pay for it again.

      You're not getting any of the RtCW content, which is single and multiplayer, so they're not losing money there. And since this is a multiplayer-only mod, it can only boost sales of the existing retail product.

      So there ya go.

    3. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by zonix · · Score: 1
      Could someone explain how that works?

      I believe it's a standalone game, as in not an add-on, like say a mission pack.

      Did I understand you question correctly?

      z
      --
      What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    4. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      They aren't skimping out on the original engine. It is still using their modified Q3A engine, it is just new levels and such. Why would you think they ditched the Q3A engine they used?

    5. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that it doesn't require the original game primarily because it's a demo/test. It would be like downloading the demo for the original RTCW... the full version wasn't required for that either (it would kinda defeat the purpose of the demo)

      "This is a stand-alone, free multiplayer test of the ... game Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory." Wolfenstein (on the April 23 link)

      The final (full) version will likely require the full version of the original RTCW, I figure.

    6. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      The final full version will not require the full version of the original RtCW. Or any version of it, or a cd-key from it etc etc

    7. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 1
      And since this is a multiplayer-only mod, it can only boost sales of the existing retail product.
      Bzzzzzt - this isn't a mod, by the strict definition of the term "mod" - you don't need the original game to play. It might generate a few indirect sales, but that's it.
      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    8. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Schnapple · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually the story as I heard/read it was this:

      The single player portion of W:ET was being done by Mad Doc Studios (Star Trek: Armada 2, Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest), but it didn't progress as well as they (Activision) had hoped, so they cancelled it. However, the multiplayer portion, done by mod team Splash Damage (Q3F for Quake 3: Arena) wasn't having the same problem, so they decided to allow Splash Damage to finish it and release it. I think the idea was basically a "map pack" for RtCW, but it's a full fledged standalone game now.

      What's curious to me is this - Activision is releasing Day of Defeat as a retail product soon. DoD's main weakness is the ancient Half-Life engine, but W:ET is looking not-too-damn-bad with the Quake 3 engine and all, and it's free. *shrugs*

    9. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by kpansky · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bzzzzzt - the game is a mod. The test being released today is not. The demo is being released with all required media, but the final release will require RTCW installed.

      --

      --Kevin
    10. Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      Bzzzzzzzzt no it won't Splash Damage (the development studio) say so

  21. Because ... by theefer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... if there were a Mac Version but no Linux version, it wouldn't be on Slashdot.

    --
    theefer
    1. Re:Because ... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Not even here?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  22. Re:I've played this game already by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

    Maybe if he learned how to use the 3D acceleration on his graphics card in Linux it would run better. If you run OpenGL without 3D you'll be lucky to get 5fps no matter how fast your system is, turn 3D accel on and an average system (1.3Ghz, GeForce 3) can easily get 80fps with the Quake engine...learn how to use your system before you flame a product

    --
    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
  23. 30fps *is* slow by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    let us know when you're getting over 120

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30fps is more than playable however

    2. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      not in quake 3 (or quake 3 engine games), because the physics is fps dependant....you jump higher with 120 fps than with any lower or higher fps (except for 333 and some other strange values).

    3. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      so you hate watching Tv then and using a Xbox and Ps2 then?

      >30fps is UNDETECTABLE BY A HUMAN

      you retard.
      measuring above 30FPS is stupid.. as long as you dont drop below that number it.s cool.

    4. Re:30fps *is* slow by yarbo · · Score: 1
    5. Re:30fps *is* slow by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      He said he was getting much higher fps in 800x600 for example. That resolution is good enough for me at least, for fast paced games like that one is.

      Over 120? What exactly do you need 150 fps for? As long as they don't use to drop below 30-40, that's fine with me.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:30fps *is* slow by HellKrisp · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're interested in this kind of thing here is a link which explains it quite well.

    7. Re:30fps *is* slow by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      43 is one of the optimal values, so pretty much everyone should be fine...

    8. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, really, just because you can't point to some moron who makes an entire page of questions to try and answer a question. Your link provides no insight other than that persons THOUGHTS on the subject, then, on top of that, they throw in some facts. Some of them are relevant to this discussion and others are just facts that have NOTHING to do with FPS. The damn person even ends the page with a ton of questions to which he has NO ANSWERS for.

      Now go check medical books, and ask yourself why everyone else stays below 30FPS. You people who think more than that is better are the video card makers wet dream!

      By the way, the "blur" he talks about so much on that page is a byproduct of the eye not being able to snap the images to the brain fast enough, IT WILL HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT YOU LOOK AT PROVIDED THE OBJECT MOVES FAST ENOUGH!!

    9. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you more FPS is better people think you are right because ID programmed the game retardedly?!

    10. Re:30fps *is* slow by dolson · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      Afterimage is produced in low lighting conditions, such as movie theatres, which means that filmmakers can use less film to produce good results. There's nothing medical about it.

      If you can't tell a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, then you're blind and should go and see an optometrist.

    11. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIGH,

      Afterimage and Blur are two different things you idiot. Saying there is nothing medical about how your eye sees is just plain dumb. Blur is caused because YOUR EYES try to BLEND the AFTERIMAGES and has jack shit to do with lighting. Don't believe me, explain how you get the same effect on a BRIGHT SUNNY DAY asshat!

    12. Re:30fps *is* slow by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      Um no, just any FPS lower than a constant 43 sucks in a Q3 based game. The way ID made the engine certain values are better than others for jumping (off the top of my head the bottom three are 43, 76 and 127, could be wrong though)

      more fps doesn't always = better in your sense, but being able to mantain a mimimum FPS for better jumping _is_ betterin Q3 based games. FACKT

    13. Re:30fps *is* slow by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      gah, posted in reply to wrong person

    14. Re:30fps *is* slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps?

  24. Re:I've played this game already by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just have to jump in and second this.

    Although I got a much heavier-duty machine (PIV-2.4GHz / GF4-ti4600), I get on the average of 200 FPS (varies between 180 - 200 depending on the map) with every piece of eyecandy cranked to the max at 1024x768. RTCW is not slow on my box at all. Actually, I get lower frame rates in Q3A (120 - 130) for whatever reason. I dunno about that, but still, RTCW is not slow. (period)

    Disclaimer: granted I haven't played this yet since the servers are dead it seems, but I do get the same results out of UT2003 as you're reporting as well.

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  25. Re:I've played this game already by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

    was a tester for this game.

    I know you guys LOVE Linux, but please heed this advice - DON'T buy the Linux version. It is slow as HELL.

    The Windows version was smooth and a joy to play. The Linux version is so slow its almost unplayable.

    Take it from me, I've been playing this game for months.


    Then the Linux machine you were using was misconfigured. I've played RTCW on both sides of a dual boot box and if anything, Linux is a shade smoother.

    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  26. Re:I've played this game already by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

    For a *free* game. Don't *buy*, indeed.

    Yea, that part really kinda irked me about that post too. I've been giving id my money since (litterally) the very first Wolf3d came out for DOS on 5.25" floppies however many hundreds of years ago. I'll happily continue the trend.

    /me waits for Doom 3 to hit the shelves.

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  27. Re:I've played this game already by Tyreth · · Score: 1

    Buy? This game, from the beta to the final release, is free and doesn't require RTCW! I've just been playing it in Linux and it runs fine.

  28. Re:I've played this game already by 13Echo · · Score: 1

    That's flambait? I guess the truth hurts, doesn't it?

    Tom's Hardware and others have proved that the game is faster on Linux.

    He made a comment that the game is free.

    How is that flamebait?

  29. It's strange by juahonen · · Score: 1

    Googles Zeitgeist tells me 4% of people are using Macs whereas only 1% are using Linux. It would be more profitable to make a Mac game than a Linux game.

    Besides, I don't think Linux's graphics acceleration support is so mature a casual Linux-user would get the best performance from their machine. At least my Radeon 8500 gives me less FPS than TNT2 I previously had.

    1. Re:It's strange by GiMP · · Score: 1

      ATI's drivers aren't known for their speed in Linux, although I hear they show pretty pictures.

      Go nvidia if you want speed.

    2. Re:It's strange by st0rmcold · · Score: 1


      Because those stats are bogus, there are probably more linux users than mac users, but because linux dosen't always involve a sale, it's hard to track, that 1% is total shit.

      --
      Posting useless rant since 2003.
    3. Re:It's strange by juahonen · · Score: 1

      How do you know they're bogus? I know some users fake their User-Agent stings to match Win/MSIE to fool witty JavaScript writers. But I doubt Google would lie on purpose. Do you have any links that might shed some light to it? Like statistics which show there are more Linux users...

    4. Re:It's strange by juahonen · · Score: 1

      I want speed in addition to quality. nVisia's inexpensive gForce4-based cards do not offer the same 2D image quality ATI does. It's just that I need to boot to Windows if I want to play games...

    5. Re:It's strange by dinivin · · Score: 1

      At least my Radeon 8500 gives me less FPS than TNT2 I previously had.

      If that's the case, it's because you either don't have ATI's linux drivers installed, or you don't have them properly configured.

      Dinivin

    6. Re:It's strange by juahonen · · Score: 1

      Can you point me to some place where tuning them is discussed. I don't like to hack them myself. I've installed the FireGL drivers from ATI. They were the only drivers that I found from their site. Work fine with X, only OpenGL applications are slow, like 140 FPS with Radeon versus 250 with TNT2. My guess is OpenGL acceleration is not working, or something. But I don't know how to turn it on. nVidia's drivers were accompanied with nVidia's OpenGL implementation, but I didn't see anything like it with the FireGL drivers.

    7. Re:It's strange by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Maybe soo. But according to my weblogs I this month have 141582 classic MacOS hits and 8407 OSX hits. Linux are 17853 hits. Should they develop for classic then?

      Just a point that Zeitgeist doesn't tell you everything. My figures are from a stockmarket game so it's not an obscure Linux site or anything like that.

    8. Re:It's strange by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1
      It would be more profitable to make a Mac game than a Linux game.

      And just what would be the profit for them to distribute their free Mac platform game? I am guessing the release of Windows and Linux represents some common development tools for both platforms that are not supported, or as easily supported, on the Mac. Of course, this is a question for the developers....

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    9. Re:It's strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to consider that the Linux user market share is growing at this point in time, while the Mac share is stagnant, or falling. Yeah, I know all about the switch campaign, and it's probably doing a fine job of bringing ex-Mac users back into the fold, but it's not convincing PC owners to throw out their hardware.

    10. Re:It's strange by mobets · · Score: 1

      oh no! not 140 FPS! I'm all for higher frame rates, but once it gets higher than your monitor's refresh, you can't tell the difference. So, unless your monitor is running at greater than 140, quit your whining.

      On a more constructive note, I have a GeForce 2 GTS and had my brother's AIW 7500 for a couple weeks. While the ATI did look better most of the time, it sucked for trancparicy. Namely fog, bet also the blood splaters in Quake 3. The frame rate would drop like a rock. BTW, this was in windows w/ the latest drivers for both. So, maybe your problem isn't so much with the drivers as it is with the card itself.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    11. Re:It's strange by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Some? If you want to do uninterrupted web browsing, it's almost a must. (Fortunately, Opera makes it really easy. I assume that other linux browers do as well.)

      That said, based the computer owners I know, I would bet that Macs still outnumber Linux machines by a good two to one -- and that universities, which often deploy Linux extensively in computer labs, comprise a rather large proportion of total linux systems.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    12. Re:It's strange by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Linux is not a user OS. Organizations like Lindows, Mandrake, etc. are working on changing that, but no sane person would contend that Linux is currently good for the average user.

      In addition, the sales numbers don't affect this at all. The Zeitgeist tracks browser traffic, and Google gets approximately 1% of their browser traffic from Linux user-agents. That's especially interesting to me, since most geeks I know (read: Linux users) are also Google users, while Windows (and Mac) users are more likely to stick with what they know, i.e. Yahoo or MSN searches.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    13. Re:It's strange by bogie · · Score: 1

      "Besides, I don't think Linux's graphics acceleration support is so mature a casual Linux-user would get the best performance from their machine. At least my Radeon 8500 gives me less FPS than TNT2 I previously had."

      Outright wrong and you obviously don't have your graphics card setup properly.

      Linux > Mac for gaming performance in FPS's. I had also seen some tests where linux outpaced windows in framerates a while ago.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    14. Re:It's strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "glxinfo | grep direct" will tell you whether you've got hardware accelleration or not. If not check the permissions set in XF86Config-4::Section "DRI". If your radeon is being put to use it may be that your application is tapping features of the radeon that aren't available in the TNT2 -- i.e. a more sophisticated image at a lower fps. It might also be that your FireGL installation hasn't usurped XFree's MesaGL libs leaving you with too much software between your app and the card.

    15. Re:It's strange by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      2d quality? Who gives a rat's ass? Nvidia is 'good enough' and the 3d image quality and speed is better than 'good enough'. I've had zero complaints with my ti4200.

      Then again, I don't spend 90% of my time in Photoshop either. ATI might matter then, but right now, it doesn't.

    16. Re:It's strange by juahonen · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I was not precise enough. I measured the frame rate with glxgears with default window size. That's something like 320x200.

  30. This is only a TEST by GiMP · · Score: 1, Informative
    Thank you for your participation in the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (ET) Multiplayer TEST. This TEST consists of one multiplayer map and represents an unsupported version of the multiplayer mode of ET. The final release version of ET will include six multiplayer maps and a full campaign mode.


    This is *only* a test. This is not a full-release. Yes, *this* is free.. but the final version will, very likely, not be.

    1. Re:This is only a TEST by Dean+Sas · · Score: 4, Informative

      the final version *is* free, activision has stated this a few times, as someone whos still involved in the RtCW scene you will find this out by actually reading the official site, and many fan sites.

    2. Re:This is only a TEST by HellKrisp · · Score: 1

      The full version WILL be free and will be released only on the internet. This information comes straight from one of the developers speaking on IRC.

    3. Re:This is only a TEST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have talked to several of the people who have made ET in #splashdamage on Quakenet and YES the full game will be 100% free no strings attached. Now comes the real question, will you be able to crate mods with this free enginee?

    4. Re:This is only a TEST by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      The full release was supposed to be an expansion that would cost money, but the expansion was scrapped and now it is being released as a free multiplayer game that doesn't even require RtCW to play. In other words, it's sort of like America's Army. It's an organization releasing a product simply to say, "Hey, we're cool. We make good products, we're nice to our customers. Think about buying another one of our products some time down the line, eh?"

      Just to make sure there's no confusion: The final release WILL be free. This is a free beta test for a free game.

  31. Re:I've played this game already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now repeat after me...
    WiNODWS XP iS DA SHiT

    Nothing better since shoehorn isn't released yet.

  32. FilePlanet mirrors by Jay+Cornwall · · Score: 1, Informative
    For anyone with a FilePlanet subscription, here are the Linux/Windows clients:

    Linux Client || Windows Client

    And for anyone without a subscription, save your trolling and go find a freebie mirror. :o)

    1. Re:FilePlanet mirrors by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I suggest searching for and wolf_et_test.exe at FileMirrors. There were 9 mirrors that avoided FilePlanet hell when I looked.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  33. Re:I've played this game already by Ratphace · · Score: 1


    Ok, Mr. Gates, nice move trying to convince folks to stick to using windows and not using linux... ;)

  34. FFS! by CptSkydrop · · Score: 1

    I think someone just fragged the web server. hey you... put that rocket launcher down.

  35. sweet! maybe now... by clarkc3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the Germans will speak German! I mean, you are in 'enemy territory' after all, it should only make sense

  36. Re:I've played this game already by TTimo · · Score: 1

    Troll! Enough said..

    Well, a few points still:

    Q3A -> RTCW -> ET (in code base order)
    I never got complains about Q3A being slower on Linux than on Windows. Actually it seems it's a bit faster, probably related to the OS itself.

    There are a few areas in the Linux code that are using a C implementation instead of optimized asm. But that was never a noticeable performance hit, and gcc produces good quality code otherwise.

    I'm just a bit sad that you claim being on the id-beta list. Maybe instead of just being there you should have also *posted* there? In any case if you really are on the list, I should be ashamed of myself for letting you in there in the first place..

  37. there would be by asv108 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Considering apple.slashdot.org has an article every time Steve Jobs scratches his balls, the probability is very high that there would be an article discussing a RTCW port.

  38. Bittorrent Link for the Windows Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use this link for bittorrent download of the windows client version: Bittorrent Link

    And please forgive the se.cx, as its an actual bittorrent share site.

    1. Re:Bittorrent Link for the Windows Version by TTimo · · Score: 1

      We are hosting a tracker for bittorrent @ Id for a bit:

      http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/et-linux-test-2.3 2. x86.run.torrent

    2. Re:Bittorrent Link for the Windows Version by TTimo · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the fixed up URL

    3. Re:Bittorrent Link for the Windows Version by TopFlite211 · · Score: 1

      That's the Linux version....
      BitTorent for win32 is Here

    4. Re:Bittorrent Link for the Windows Version by heXXXen · · Score: 1

      both zerowing torrents are seeded by my 100mbit connection :D

  39. Re:I've played this game already by kanotspell · · Score: 1

    Hmm, maybe you are using software gl?!? I'm running ona a p3 8??, 512 MB, and a pos TNT2 card. Even with that card I'm getting an average 20-30 FPS Yea, it's not the greatest FPS but better than when I had that box running Win 2k

  40. Activision has it together... by itallushrt · · Score: 1

    You really have to hand it to Activision. Not only do they release Linux versions of some of their games, that always seem to run better than their Windows brother, but they do it in timely manner. Oh and let's not forget that this is FREE!

  41. Disguising yourself as an enemy by cjpez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never understood why games that go to so much trouble to be realistic do things like have players' names show up above them when you're targetting them, or "Don't shoot!" icons. I mean, really, you've got the ability to disguise yourself as the enemy; that's really cool. But then your teammates can automatically know it's you from afar just by leaving their crosshairs on you for a second or two. Riiiiight.

    1. Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Uhmm... I don't know about you but in real life I don't see a HUD that tells me how many cigarettes I have left, a little green bar that tells me how long I can drink and a counter showing how close I am to passing out. It's a game, Poindexter. There's nothing 'realistic' about running around with an MP40 shooting people who will just pop back into life a few seconds later. It's simulation. The information has to be conveyed somehow and clearly. Sheesh.

    2. Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy by pod · · Score: 1

      Well, in Quake Team Fortress you could play a spy class, which can disguise itself as enemy, ie, change to enemy skin. I believe the team color on the player list would also change, making a positive id very difficult if you haven't been paying attention, or haven't been a good team player. I always thought that was very cool, and played spy occasionally to amuse myself. Oh yeah, your weapons were an assassin blade, a sleeping dart gun, and a trippy fart cloud :)

      I so wish that game hadn't gotten so corrupted by cheaters, I'd still be playing it today.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    3. Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy by cjpez · · Score: 1
      Well, I disagree. The general trend seems to be moving more and more towards realism. Obviously you're going to have some health meters and stuff like that; you'd know you got hurt in real life, and you have to have a way of knowing that you just got hurt in the game. Also obviously respawning is an impediment to the realism, but that's just the framework for how the game is played. While you're alive and moving about, overall realism is more and more the point of these games. Why else would they be putting so much energy into having realistic weapons, realistic firing rates, realistic overheating, realistic terrain, more realistic interactions between players (having medics and people who are better at some things than others), etc... I think realism is very MUCH the point when you're playing the game, at least for "historical" games when you're battling it out in WWII. If I'm playing something set in WWII, I want to feel basically like I'm there; I don't want to have some laser beam, I don't want to have some teleport device, and I don't want to suddenly see a player's name above his head because some magical device knows it's my teammate.

      If realism wasn't the point, then you would have laser beams and teleportation devices and all that. What I'm saying is why not go all the way?

    4. Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it aims to be fun, not real. If you want realism go play Raven Shield. RtCW was always about fast fun gameplay, I personally prefer it that way.

  42. I grabbed the files form HappyPuppy by suedehed · · Score: 0

    http://www.happypuppy.com/games/index.jsp?gid=411, I actually subscribe to the fileswarm service (which uses the OnionNetwork CDN technology). Luvin the fact that on my cable modem I can get 750~800K !! Go Opt Online!

  43. Re:I've played this game already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonderful, you do of course understand this ISN'T RTCW, nor is it using the same engine RIGHT?!

  44. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +10 Funny
    200% Funny

  45. Mirror in Sweden by fredan · · Score: 1

    Probably too late but anyway, you can grab it from here.

  46. Re:I've played this game already by n3m6 · · Score: 1

    i used to play RTCW with a PIII 500mhz / 256M RAM / Geforce 4 MX card. had no problems whatsoever.

    Thanks.

  47. Free, NO REGISTRATION download. (windows) by 0biJon · · Score: 1
    --
    ?Who controls the past now, controls the future.
    Who controls the present now controls the past.?
  48. Re:Bittorrent Link for the Linux Version by TTimo · · Score: 1

    Didn't notice. That's for the Linux version actually, not the windows version.

  49. Re:That Was Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's a sign that the "mysterious future" feature for subscribers has finally reached the point of degrading the links by the time the non subscribers get to it. Make something shitty so you force consumers to buy the better option.

  50. What I would pay money for: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a whole new single-player tour of duty! I don't mind the MP maps but I rather play SP missions where it's not as hectic.

  51. Ooh, soldiers get to use mortars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, mortars are a godsend Never again will I have to choose between playing Wolfenstein or Scorched Earth!

    It's Wolfenstein! It's Scorch! Stop, you're both right!

  52. Engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain to me why they're using the Wolfenstein3d engine? That engine is so '92! Why not use something like the Quake 3 engine? I hope the Wolfenstein3d engine supports OpenGL.

  53. Ported to Linux for Servers not Gamers by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Why is there a x86 Linux version but no Mac Version?

    Some games are ported to Linux only because they want Linux based servers, not because the developer thinks a sizeable Linux gaming market[1] exists. However once your have the game server the client side game is only a small incremental step and the cost is no longer out of step with the size of the market.

    [1] The Linux gaming market does not include all those who would buy a Linux port of a game. It only includes those who would never buy a Win32 game. If in the absence of a Linux port a gamer merely buys the Win32 and dual boots or uses Wine then that gamers is already a customer. A Linux port would not generate a new sale; merely replace a Win32 sale with a Linux sale. There would be no new money for the developer; it is only new money from those who would never buy the Win32 game that justify the expense of a Linux port. As stated above, if you already have the server the client game cost is negligible.

    1. Re:Ported to Linux for Servers not Gamers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      once your have the game server the client side game is only a small incremental step


      Are you sure about that? I've assumed the server code that needs to be ported from a win32 game is strictly file and network I/O. Is there really any need for the rendering, sound, and UI portions of the game engine? The MOHAA Spearhead win32 server binary is 1/4 the size of the game binary. I ran spearhead_lnxded on a k6-400 with a Matrox G450 just to see what a game server would need and found no lack of playability. That leads me to believe that game server code can coordinate multiple clients without parsing a rendering path (for say, collision detection).


      I'm inclined to guess that the technical situation is the opposite of what you suggest. Releasing a linux game server binary would involve rewriting some I/O code that is wrapped around a fairly platform independent part of the whole engine. The client on the other hand must deal with user input, the sound system, the Windowing environment, and of course the 3D hardware. I don't think we'll ever play BF1942 on linux (even on top of WINE) as the engine was written for DirectX, but that hasn't stopped DICE from releasing a server. Look at MOHAA. The linux server has been out for a while, but the guys at icculus are still working on the client and that's a Q3/GL based game.

  54. Single Player Mods by Borg#9 · · Score: 1

    Are there any single player mods for RTCW out there?

    --
    Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
    1. Re:Single Player Mods by Dean+Sas · · Score: 1

      there are map packs (try www.rtcwfiles.com that may have some) No single player mods afaik though

  55. The final version will be FREE. by antdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Source. Hellchick (I think she works for Activision?):

    Some notes...

    There is no catch to it being free. The final version of Enemy Territory will also be free and stand alone. Completely free, no strings attached. There's no spyware, there's no collection of email addresses, we do not ask you to do us any "favors" and "get rid of a problem" for us in the future. The multiplayer was a labor of love for Splash Damage, id, and Activision, and it would just be a shame for all of that to go to waste. So you're getting a free game. No one believes us when we tell them this, and I can understand them. But it's true. :)

    Second, people seem to be having problems identifying team mates. There are two ways you can do this:

    - When you mouse over a team mate, you'll see their rank, name, and their health bar. You won't see anything when you mouse over an enemy.
    - The Axis and Allies have very different uniforms. The Allies have American tan utilities, while the Axis are wearing black coats or uniforms with red armbands (on all of them, I think).

    Quick tips:

    - There's a player guide that came with ET -- check it out for some info.
    - The voiceovers will often tell you what objective your team needs to accomplish at that moment.
    - The basic idea of the map is this: the Allies have to get the tank through the tunnel doors, then to the base (where it'll destroy the depot doors), then around the side of the base where it'll destroy the corner of the depot (allowing a second route in), and then finally dynamite the fuel dump. The Axis have to prevent this, and they have some command posts they can build and MGs in their base to help defend.
    - Engineers can plant land mines. They are very fun. :)
    - Covert Ops' can find planted land mines from the other team - use your binocs to scan.

    There's a lot more but maybe that will help people.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  56. Nope, side effect of Linux Servers by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    It's all about the servers. Ported to Linux for Servers not Gamers

  57. Try America's Army by SaraSmith · · Score: 1

    It's even free.

    www.americasarmy.com I really like it, you even tend to get less kids that act stupid on there, though they certainly exist.

  58. Bots? by wholewheatloaf · · Score: 1

    I won't get a chance to download this until late this evening, and I don't see anything in the readme or the guide concerning this.

    I was originally pumped to hear they were putting this out since there'd be bots incorporated into the game; are there any in the test?

    1. Re:Bots? by kikensei · · Score: 1

      No Bots.

  59. Re:I've played this game already by kikensei · · Score: 1

    While it isn't using RtCW it IS using the same engine (id's Q3A engine) and the ET test runs AWESOME!!! under my SuSE Linux box, as good or better than the Windows half of my dual boot.

  60. Verboten in Germany? by takotech · · Score: 1
    from the Activision site:
    "Important note for German users - Disclaimer: You are about to enter the Castle Wolfenstein website. The following pages may have content that is forbidden by law in Germany. Activision Germany GmbH is not responsible for the content of the following pages. By entering this site you approve having read this disclaimer."

    Anyone know which laws this page may have violated?

  61. Re:Verboten in Germany? by UberOogie · · Score: 1

    They have very strict laws in Germany about Nazi symbols and such.

    --
    "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
  62. More Mirrors by McCrapDeluxe · · Score: 1

    More mirrors are here:
    yes, here
    I'm getting 85 kbps off of Utah at the moment.

  63. crack-smoking moderators by LMariachi · · Score: 1

    Yeah, real insightful.

  64. Used these bittorrent links instead by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

    I did, and found the Bittorrent links here with the Linux and Windows version. Downloaded it in 5 minutes.

    --
    my sig
  65. Assembly code and QA by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Real-time programs, especially games, tend to have a lot of hand-optimized assembly code. Lots of programmers trust their own optimizations better than those of a compiler -- though I suspect most are wrong to do so. Anyway, porting assembly language between two Pentium-based platforms is easy. Whereas porting to PPC essentially means starting from scratch.

    There's also the testing issue. I'm suprised they were willing to spend the bucks to do QA on two different platforms. Forget about three. Especially when the third one requires special hardware on which to do the testing.

  66. Realism: Dance Dance Revolutionary by randyflood · · Score: 1


    If we really wanted realism, we'd use the Dance Dance Revolution footpad and reall landmines.

    Now that would be realistic!

    --
    Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM