Linux - GamesThis forum is for all discussion relating to gaming in Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I installed steam using cedega, then I downloaded CounterStrike: Source using steam. CS starts up, but is really slow and takes a long time to respond, needless to say its unplayable. The game is officially supported by cedega, so I dont understand why it isnt working. I start it from the steam menu. Since I installed it from steam Im not sure where it went, Ill search for it later. Im on Fedora Core 3. How do I set it up so its playable?
I guess so, but I was thinking there might be some people here who might know about it. When I launch the game out of steam, it loads, but is veeeeeeerrrrrrry slow and unplayable. I go to where the exe is and try to launch it from there, it says gameinfo.txt doesnt exist. Anyone here get cs:s or hl2 working with cedega?
I have gotten CS:S to work under cedega as well... but it's also unplayable for me.
I get about 10-20 FPS at 800x600, all details on low. And I have a 6800 GT.
I can play the game in Windows and get 80-100FPS on 1600x1200, all details high, 6xAA/8XAF.
There is something really wrong with this picture.
Open GL games run excellent. I get more FPS on UT2k4 in Linux than I do in Windows. Running Call of Duty through Cedega gives me the same performance as running it in Windows.
I got it to work like you did cry0x, but I get like 6fps, Ill let you know if I can find out anything. It is officially supported by cedega, so it should be at least playable.
Man, before I showed my computer a way out of this world, I was pulling off up to and over 80 fps, in CS:S and HL2. With drops down to 25. Stable around 50fps. My rig was an AMD Athlon XP 2500+, 512megs of 3200 ram (running at 2700 cuz of proc) GeForce 2 GTS 32MB! (I had an FX 5500 256 mb, and I was getting a little more FPS, maybe like 5fps, but it shows that Cedega is processor dependent and not so much so the GPU. Believe, before my account expired at TG, I had a debate about this on the forums.) I was running, and still am, Slackware 10. I think I also tried MDK 10.1, but I don't quite remember. One thing I did was turn off pixal shaders to get my great fps, but with the new release of Cedega, I don't know, since I don't have it.
Originally posted by RHLinuxGUY Man, before I showed my computer a way out of this world, I was pulling off up to and over 80 fps, in CS:S and HL2. With drops down to 25. Stable around 50fps. My rig was an AMD Athlon XP 2500+, 512megs of 3200 ram (running at 2700 cuz of proc) GeForce 2 GTS 32MB! (I had an FX 5500 256 mb, and I was getting a little more FPS, maybe like 5fps, but it shows that Cedega is processor dependent and not so much so the GPU. Believe, before my account expired at TG, I had a debate about this on the forums.) I was running, and still am, Slackware 10. I think I also tried MDK 10.1, but I don't quite remember. One thing I did was turn off pixal shaders to get my great fps, but with the new release of Cedega, I don't know, since I don't have it.
PS: I used 4.2.1
of course cedega is more CPU dependent... it has to run all these extra instructions through the CPU to even get it to work, much less play well.
Also, Cedega doesn't support DX9. If it did, FPS would be much better, and so would the graphics.
I got it to work at around 16fps by giving it more video ram to work with, cedega had it set to 32 mb. If it is more cpu dependant, would running it on a lighter desktop increase your fps, because it uses less cpu power? What is a good light alternative to KDE and Gnome?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.