View Full Version : G200 PD 5.21 = Half-Life problems

8th September 1999, 09:30
I have finaly got my compy to stop crashing after updating mobo drivers thanks to the info from the Matrox tech guy. I now have noticed a problem with my beloved Half-Life, for some reason, I cannot see any decals and I can also not see my score. I took a pic and put it on my webspace
www.h2so4.clara.co.uk/pic.jpg (http://www.h2so4.clara.co.uk/pic.jpg) its 60kb ish. I don't want to use OGL cause it sucks compared to D3D which is much faster. Previous to PD 5.21 I could see decals and also the score. Version 4.33 is great except I can't see underwater.

Has anyone fixed a similar problem or should I use 5.13?

Thanks in advance
O Palmer

System spec if needed is:
CPU: AMD K6-2 350
GFXC: Matrox Millenium G200 8MB
RAM: 192MB
HD: 4GB + 10GB segate's
SC: SBLive Full(Liveware 2.1)
DX: DirectX 6.1
CD: Creative Infra 36x & Philips CDR thing

8th September 1999, 15:26
Please read the other halflife threads on this board. We have gone over this at least 3 times in the last week.

D3D is not faster than OGL in HL, when the game is configured properly.

The game is coded in OGL (it is a quake2 engine based game). The D3D in the game is not true D3D, it is an OGL wrapper. When using D3D, you also do not see many effects visible in OGL.

Find the other threads on HL, and they will contain the info you need to set the game up properly for OGL.

[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 09-08-1999).]

8th September 1999, 15:51
I did, and I couldn't find anything that either was the same problem or worked thus I made a new topic. Just wondering but did you read what I typed?

O Palmer

8th September 1999, 17:32
Yes, I did.
Did you read what I typed?
HL is not a true D3D game.
It's D3D support sucks compared to it's native OGL with the latest Matrox drivers.
You will never get the full graphics of the game with D3D (although I don't know whats up with your decals - they should at least be there).
Configure the game properly for OGL, and your problems will be gone.

In another thread, I posted some commands to put in your autoexec.cfg. Since that thread was in the Matrox Hardware forum a couple of days ago, I'll repost those settings here...

gl_ztrick "1"
gl_dither "1"
gl_polyoffset "2"
gl_lightholes "1"
gl_keeptjunctions "1"
r_decals "1"
r_drawviewmodel "1"
r_shadows "0"
cl_himodels "1"
gl_texturemode "GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR"
brightness "2.5"
gamma "3.0"
gl_playermip "0"
gl_picmip "0"
gl_round_down "0"
gl_texsort "1"
gl_overbright "1"
gl_palette_tex "1"
r_decals "500"

Put these lines in your HL autoexec.cfg (also in the autoexec.cfg of any mods), switch to OGL, and be happy. The one that makes the biggest difference in the performance is the gl_texsort command.

The full thread is here. These settings changed a bunch of people's opinion on using OGL for HL...have a read...

9th September 1999, 02:46
I get the same problems using the g200 with 5.21 (scoreboard problem notably.)

I can also confirm that opengl is most definitely slower than D3d in half-life using the g200 (at least with my AMD k6-2 300.) Kruzin: I have doublechecked to confirm that my autoexec and config contains the pertinent console commands that you have posted. The fact is, opengl is at least 5 fps slower than D3d - this is certainly significant on a lower end system such as mine and H2SO4's. Right now, opengl is simply not a playable option. D3d using PD 5.13 is at least noticeably more playable. Interestingly, opengl and 5.13 runs at about the same framerate for me as D3d, but motion is a bit jittery compared to D3d.

Pertinent specs:

AMD K6-2 300
Matrox Millenium g200 8 meg.
Win '98
DirectX 6.1
vid. bios 2.6
back to PD 5.13...

[This message has been edited by Woden (edited 09-09-1999).]

9th September 1999, 08:27
Mr Kruzin is mistaken so forget the bullshit configuration file.I could post the recipe for apple pie and it would help someone I'm sure . A card runs or not on its own devices.

I run a HL mp server ( A Toronto Pro )with the G400 MAX and SLI, @ 600Mhz, 10 x 7 @32bpp, 110 V refresh rate. The Matrox Opengl , on its own drivers and otherwise OOTB ,is slow .I would never use it.By itself it increases latency a slight bit .I have posted this info before , here and at the Dev Rel site.

The MAX supports HL in D3D . This is no wrapper. Call Valve if you like.You could tell, actually , if you had played the mp game at all with both drivers .
The D3D is almost as quick as the SLI Opengl but does not look as good.( That's a different story.) Speedwise , it is very playable . But not quite as fast as the 3Dfx minigl driver( see below ) and very , very dull. And text is almost fuzzy . Sheesh !!!

I suspect that the issue is multitexturing in Opengl. While multitexturing in D3D is well executed--see the "3D Mark 99" test--- I fervently pray the software team will fix Ogl.It should , if done correctly , outperform D3D here.

I mean it blows to have a G400 and SLI .But the SLI is necessary , absolutely , for HL
multiplayer .

FPS Using Timerefresh Command

Obsidiansx24 , 3Dfx minigl, 81.
Matrox MAX, D3D, 75.
Matrox MAX, Opengl 55.

[This message has been edited by troop (edited 09-09-1999).]

9th September 1999, 08:53
troop, you are mistaken.
The D3D in HalfLife is a wrapper.
The game is built on the Q2 engine, which has no native D3D support.
Go ahead and call/write Sierra. Please.
And while you're at it, ask them who coded most of the D3D for the game, and what it's code was based on.
I wait anxiously for their reply.
I don't have to call/write them. I already know.

And if you knew a damn thing about HL, or the config info I posted, you would know that the command gl_texsort disables multitexturing in the game.

So yes, it is a multitexture issue. Yes, there is a workaround. Yes, OGL will run faster provided both the machine and game are configured correctly, on both the G200 and G400 (I have both cards, I run the game in OGL on both cards). Admittedly, this is not a simple task, and out of the box, with no game or G200/G400 tweaking, D3D will run faster. But with a little time and effort, the game can be enjoyed the way it was written. In OGL.

I don't care if you run a server, you obviously know nothing about the game engine. Anyone who would actually quote a "timerefresh" has no clue. That's the absolute worse way to benchmark the game - and anyone running a decent server runs it dedicated, and does not play on that machine while it is hosting a game. Those who do are only doing it for the huge ping advantage, and are ususally playing alone, with one person after another entering the game, then leaving as soon as they figure out what is going on.

And go read the thread I linked to in my earlier post. You will see I am not the only person who knows the truth about this matter http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 09-09-1999).]

9th September 1999, 09:07
Sure thing there pal--disable multitexturing in HL . Duh ! You talk about playing alone---hahaha--what about no textures ??

The point is \ OOTB , / Matrox OGL blows. Sure , take textures away and the frames increase--but what you got now ??? That a fairly dumb idea.

I think you are a little jealous of LPBs. Tough.


9th September 1999, 09:16
1- Disabling multi texture does not remove all texture from the game, or even anything 99% of the people would notice. A couple of water textures look a little different. That's it. Try it before blowing all that smoke. You will see that with the settings I posted, the game looks fantastic. Until you try it, you're just spewing crap.

2- There is a huge difference between a LPB and a NPB. I'll take on any LPB. An NPB is just a wuss who is afraid to play on an even feild.

9th September 1999, 10:04

No such thing as a NPB though on the Quake-athon LAN , 2ms latency was avarage.

You don't mind LPBs ? Good--come play at ATP but be warned, many @home players , all
BTW , [ES] rulz.Check us out---# 13 on national ranks.

Now one more thing sport , TIMEREFRESH is an excellent frame counter. If you know what your doing. Eh ?

The fps I posted confirm all the posts here and everywhere else on relative driver speeds by players without counters.What ?

Configuration files are the sign of a slow driver.
" Disable multitexturing " --hahah--that's real good sport, keep it up.

See you at ?


[This message has been edited by troop (edited 09-09-1999).]

9th September 1999, 10:28
Half-life is actually based Quake
Quake = 45%
Quake2= 20%
VHW = 35%

Anyways I just went to the 5.13 drivers. Everything is as it was. The scoreboard is no longer ****ed up, the decals are fine. I haven't changed any settings.

BTW the D3D is NOT a wrapper, which is one of the reasons you will NEVER see a linux version you can play.
The only noticable difference between HL in OGL or D3D are the conc grenades which have a really distracting 'effect' that in it's self persuaded me to get D3D workin again. Oh and the text in ogl is really blurry, I couldn't read anything anyone said, luckily it works great in D3D now.

O Palmer

9th September 1999, 16:07
Have you even tried what I suggested yet? Somehow I doubt it. What's wrong? Afraid to see that I'm right?

Well here's a little more to go on, since you won't try it yourself, and you obviously didn't bother reading that other thread.

These are two similar shots taken from the game. One in D3D with no tweaks at all, the other in OGL with the few tweaks I listed.

I have not denied there is problems with the ICD. I have agreed that it takes tweaking to get to the fps I show. But any real gamer has no quams about making a couple simle little tweaks (both to the game, and the hardware), without whining about it.



Shock! OGL is faster. Golly imagine that. While in the game, I also noticed severe control lag in D3D (not nearly as resposive as OGL), and the movement was choppy. OGL was like butter. And it looks better, too. The text is not blurrier in OGL...it's obviously clearer. You cannot see any degraded detail because of the lack of multi texturing, in fact, the detail is better with my settings.

So just get a clue. If you aren't willing to try suggestions, don't knock them.

And it is a wrapper. There is absolutly zero doubt in my mind (and if you have been around here more than a week, you know that I will not make such a difinitive statement if I am not positive of what I'm saying) - I'm still waiting for one of you to get word back from Sierra that says otherwise (which ain't gonna happen)...

9th September 1999, 16:25
And there we have it... Kruzin is 100% correct you know... OK - he has his moments.. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif but here he is completely correct!


9th September 1999, 16:47
Um , now boyz , I been around this several times. I tried the command fix here, just now--and yes , OpenGL fps increased as a result , but it is still slower than SLI and D3D .


Obsidiansx24 3Dfx miniGL 83 fps
MAX D3D 75 fps
MAX OpenGL 55 fps
MAX OpenGL w/auto.cfg 67 fps.

It speeds it up ,sure, but does not compensate for a slow driver.


9th September 1999, 16:54
Nobody ever said it was going to be faster than an SLI setup. That's not even comparing apples to apples. And you see my screenshots above - I do not get the same results as you. D3D is always slower in this game for me.

Oh, and golly - look what I found inside HL's HW.dll file....sure sounds mighty wrapperish to me http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Wrapper: unsupported color array
Wrapper: glDisable on this cap not supported
Wrapper: array not supported
Wrapper: glEnable on this cap not supported
Wrapper: array not supported
Wrapper: Lock on primary failed
Wrapper: GL_TEXTURE_ENV_COLOR not implemented
Wrapper: unsupported vertex array
Wrapper: Mipmapping disabled
Wrapper: Unable to find 5551 texture.
Wrapper: Not using 4444 texture.
Wrapper: Unable to find 555 or 565 texture.
Wrapper: Not using luminance texture
Wrapper: Subsampling textures to 256 x 256
Wrapper: Forcing all textures to be square
Wrapper: Multitexturing enabled
Wrapper: Multitexturing not available with this driver
Wrapper: Mipmapping disabled
Wrapper: LoadSubSurface Failure.
Wrapper: texture format not supported
Wrapper: CreateSurface for texture failed
Wrapper: QueryInterface for Texture2 failed.
Wrapper: CreateSurface for texture failed

9th September 1999, 17:13

The HL D3D driver is an OpenGL wrapper - just trust me I know this is a fact.

As for performance - I have three different bootable partitions - each one gives different FPS on this machine (same OS - often different driver releases but at the moment the same) and I get wildly different benchmarks from them all in different conditions. I know that Kruzin is damned good at optimizing Quake engine based games and has helped many many many readers in the past - ok - your results aren't as good as his yet...shame... but that doesn't make him wrong does it?


1) Accept it's a wrapper even though you stated he was wrong on that earlier (it's very very similar code to the code you'll find in the Heretic II wrapper. That wrapper, and, who knows.. maybe this http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif had a little help from the Matrox developers)

2) Ask Kruzin for help to increase your FPS rather than turning this into a bloody argument - ok - he started with a *sigh* - but as that suggests... He's been here before! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


9th September 1999, 17:35
Kruzin is right, the D3D support is a D3D/OpenGL wrapper. That is one of the reason that when in OpenGL mode you will see things that you don't in D3D. When I was finally able to get HL playing in OpenGL better than D3D using the configuration information that Kruzin has posted I knew I would not go back to D3D mode. IMO looks and plays better. So it is possible to have OpenGL running faster than D3D if things are set up right. BTW I have an AMD K6/2-400.


9th September 1999, 18:31
I am with Kruzin and Joel.
In my system (celeron 450, G400@150/200) Half-Life:
- OpenGl looks better than D3D
- The text is blurry in D3D, itīs sharp in OpenGl. I think itīs bilinear filtered in D3D, thatīs why itīs blurry.
- OpenGL is FASTER than D3D in my system (thanks to Kruzin, he gave the gl_texsort hint)
- D3D is implemented in Half-Life via a wrapper. Even if it was not common-knowedgle by know, if it uses the quake2 engine, the whole engine would have to be re-written to do D3D. Not very wise.

9th September 1999, 19:16
I'll take Kruzin's side on this issue as well. My G400 Max kicks ASS in opengl, I wouldn't even think about using D3D in Half-Life. I have also heard from other reliable sources that HL uses a D3D Wrapper.

I even use Kruzin's graphics config for Q2. I've modified a few of his settings so they work great for my G400 or my Obsidian2 X-24.


10th September 1999, 01:29
Hi Guys,

it looks like everything is said already http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Kruzin's 100% correct ...

HL's D3D is based on an OGL to D3D wrapper, hence there's theoretically no chance to get better performance in D3D.

Maybe the lack of certain functions in D3D might speed it a bit more than OGL, but exactly that is the reason why evreybody should have a look into his/her config files.

When you set up both API's identically, you'll see that:

1 - OGL is way superior in image quality
2 - OGL is faster
3 - you don't want to use D3D any more http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Asus P2B-DS @ 103MHz FSB
2x P3-450 @ 464MHz
Millenium G400 32MB DH

10th September 1999, 11:55
Hello everyone.

I agree with the you all that D3D is a wrapper with Half-Life too. But Maggi, at the moment, there is no basis for stating that theoretically the unwrappered game would run faster in OpenGL than the wrapper runs in D3D. This is entirely dependent on the quality/performance of a given piece of hardware's D3D and OpenGL drivers. And, as well all know, right now both the G200 and G400 series have much better optimized D3D drivers than they have OpenGL drivers. So, depending on HOW much faster the card is able to perform a certain operation using the D3D API than it can do the same op in OpenGL, and depending on the amount of overhead used by a wrapper to go between the game engine the the "wrapped" API, the game could run faster in either of the two. Everything depends on how well optimized the drivers for the two APIs are.

With the current state of Matrox' OpenGL ICD, it wouldn't surprise me too much to see that some are able to get the D3D HL to run faster, taking into consideration differences in hardware and preferred settings in the game.

I will give you this- if (and hopefully, when) Matrox finally gets their ICD as well optimized as their D3D, the native OpenGL should always run faster than the D3D wrapped version of Half-Life.

Also, Kruzin, keep in mind that not all of us got a speed increase from the latest OpenGL drivers, or even necessarily stayed the same. I've benched my card using Q2 and Q3 with both the old 5.13 and the new 5.21 drivers, and I actually lost performance. And, yes, I did read, and tried to implement, the reg key to disable the V-Sync for 5.21. That made absolutely no difference in the FPS score in either game for the new drivers.

System Basics, in case you're still wondering (or haven't picked them from another post):
G400Max (default clock)
256MB PC100 Ram
SbLive!Value (latest drivers)
Abit BE6 motherboard

Using this system, without changing anything but the drivers (and using the reg hacks to make sure V-Sync is disabled), I get ~15.1 FPS with everything on or high in Q3demo1, new drivers. I got ~23.7 with the 5.13 drivers. Makes me wonder if those "fixes" for P3's that these drivers implemented involve disabling any SSE optimizations that might have been in the previous drivers.

Later, and have fun fraggin'.


[This message has been edited by Ace (edited 09-10-1999).]

10th September 1999, 21:12
Hi guys,

Look at http://www.matrox.com/mga/drivers/patch_demos/patches.htm

You will see that we do use a D3D wrapper.