I am not having any problem with DOSbox or the Arena file, I know how to work them fine - but when the game starts, I seem to lag for some unknown reason.

I can get to the title screen, make a new character, go through the story, etc - all of that is perfect and lag-free.

When I start the game though, my cursor (the red X) on the screen is extremely laggy. If I would drag it from one side of the screen to the other, it jumps around and blinks, sort of like if I were recording it with a bad screen recorder.

This makes playing the game practically impossible. It takes 10 seconds or more to put the cursor on a place where I want it (like the Ruby Key, the Door, or the pile of coins) and swinging my weapon is just out of the question. When I pause the game and the "sword" cursor comes up though, it doesn't lag at all and acts normally.

This also happens when I try to move my character. I've watched videos on the internet of people playing Arena, and it runs nice and smoothly, but for me it would be like this:

If I try to run from one end of my jail cell to the other, it takes about 20 seconds - and doesn't move smoothly at all, like having low FPS on a game.




What is this??? Is it my computer? I really want to play Arena, and I find it odd how only the actual gameplay is lagging, and not the title screen, select character, etc..

Any help is appreciated, thanks.

I assume you mean the game slows down, since lag refers to latency on a network connection. But to be more specific, you're dropping frames. This is a DOSBox issue, where it is not emulating enough cycles for you. Try turning the cycles up to 15000 or 20000 and seeing how it does. It may even be fine at 10000. Note that when the game runs smoothly, sometimes the movies don't. No clue what causes that, but in DOSBox some of the more demanding games seem to run good, while their movies are choppy, or vice-versa. Anyway, try 10k, 15k, or 20k cycles and see how it runs.

Addendum:

Ctrl+F12 to increase clock cycles.

I find that 10,000-12,000 is sufficient for Arena to run smoothly.

Go to your "dosbox.conf" file, find where it says "cycles" and change the setting to "max."

I have no idea why you people are still manually setting your CPU cycles.

Simple, MAX means that if DOSBox can run at 50k cycles, it will. That will cause Arena to run whacky! Arena runs damn good on my old Tandy 2100 (486SX 25MHz) but the NPCs and such are insanely fast on my P2/233. Arena only needs 10k to 15k to run properly, so we set it to that to keep it running like it did on the machines it was programmed for. Max would be fine fro Duke Nukem 3D in SVGA, or for Daggerfall, but not for Arena.

Wolf was right also. Control and F12 increase cycles and control and F11 decrease them on-the-fly. You can sue those in-game to get it running just the way you want it to run. If you use alt+enter to go windowed, you can see the number of cycles being emulated in the window title.

Thanks, that fixed the problem completely.

Setting CPU cycles to max simply allows DOSBox to use those cycles if it needs them; it doesn't "max out" your CPU cycles. Take your own advice and read the DOSBox manual.



I assume you are talking to me. The guy above you apparently wants to make everything complicated.

Touchy, touchy! This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the game engine mechanics. Arena doesn't seem to tie NPC/mob movement to the framerate, and the faster the framerate, the faster the entire game goes. Playing it on my P2/233 was WAY too fast, but it's just right on a 486DX (33MHz) system. This has nothing to do with DOSBox, and as such will not be covered in the documentation. You are correct in that max cycles will use as many as the program requests, but since the program will request an indefinite amount, up to the refresh rate, you can make the game too fast, and have the NPCs moving so fast they're like pro athletes sprinting.

Before you choose to attack me and claim that I am wrong, remember that I have posted videos already backing myself and I can easily do it again. I'm not sitting here attacking you and I don't appreciate you attacking everything I post. I'm not going to sit here and lie to somebody seeking help, and I'm not going to reply if I am not fairly sure of what I intend on saying. As a matter of fact, I still own my working 486 system and once I get my new place I can get you a video of Arena on the recommended system, and then allow you to compare that with DOSBox on max.

So do you happen to have a copy of the source code? If you don't, then your statement regarding the mechanics of the game engine is pure speculation, and a "lack of knowledge" does not even begin to cover what you said.



How much more obvious could this be? Of course the game will be too fast on a computer that was not even in existence when the game came out. Is this supposed to prove your point somehow?



It's not going to be covered in the documentation because no one brought it up before you did. You're bringing irrelevant information into the thread to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.



This doesn't even make any sense. "An indefinite amount up to the refresh rate"? So, does your monitor have a refresh rate of 10,000htz, or do your CPU cycles stop at 60?



I am not attacking you; I am disputing the validity of what you say. There is a difference, although I'm not sure if you can tell since you've already attacked me in your post ("a lack of knowledge" = "you are stupid"). I've already said what I thought about your videos. Comparing a 32-bit operating system (with a Pentium 4) with a 64-bit operating system (with a Turion X2) and saying that the Turion runs DOSBox poorly because it is an AMD processor is dumb. It would've been far more believable had you been running a 32-bit copy of Windows.

I also could care less about your computer memorabilia. I have a working Pentium 166 lying in my room, but that doesn't mean it will prove anything if I can run a fourteen year old game on it. I played Arena when it was first released; I know how it's supposed to play.

You keep skipping the entire point here. Using max cycles is bad because Arena will use as many as it can get, which in turn allows it to run too quickly. That is as simple as I can get it. The only other way is a live demonstration on a 486 and on a P4. Max cycles is GREAT for games that use the Doom Engine or games like Daggerfall, which use framerate-independent movement, but on games that do all timing by loops or some other method, faster CPUs (or more cycles in DOSBox) make the game run WAY too fast.

You are also skimming my posts and missing information. I mentioned three systems, and the third was also running 32bit XP Pro, yet it ran worse than the slower, 64bit processor. Oh and don't compare 32bit to 64bit apps, that's common-sense. Your post stating 64bit apps aren't always faster is dead-on, but DOSBox is 32bit, and on a 64bit processor you get a boatload of extra registers, which is why the original 64bit AMD processors benched so much higher than the 32bit P4 processor of that time, even though the AMD chips were as much as 1.5GHz slower. More registers is more power, so the whole theory of using DOSBox on a 64bit chip hurting performance falls through. In fact, check the web for sites containing benchmarks of specific games run on 32bit and 64bit chips, and you'll note that the 64bit chips run the 32bit games better than comparable or faster 32bit chips.

As for the third system, I stated that it was a P4/1.80GHz system, but found out today while I was at my friend's house that I was mistaken. It is a P4/1.90GHz system. Not much faster but relevant. If 64bit is bad, then why is it that when using the same DOSBox configuration, the 1.90GHz runs slower than the 1.60GHz? My personal theory is that (as I mentioned before) DOSBox cycles are tied to the cycles of your physical CPU, and that generation AMD processes more data per cycle than the generation of that P4 chip, thus improving performance. On top of that, it has all those extra registers since DOSBox is a 32bit application.

As for DFGL, I have had an account here in the past since the forums opened, but I have gone by Sephiroth. Are you sure you're not confusing me with somebody else?

It was the first thing that worked, so I never looked for anything else.

However, I am wondering why it's even necessary for Arena. DOSBox automatically sets the clock cycles for everything else I've tried running in it (admittedly not an exhaustive list), so why not now?

I too find setting it to max will make the game unplayable, much to fast. i have mine set at 21000 and i get almost perfect music and audio with everyone at the right speed.

You keep reiterating the same things over and over without actually addressing anything I said. Your point about Arena not knowing how many cycles to grab because it uses the CPU as a timer (or whatever the terminology is) makes sense, although I've *never* had it run too fast. I've always had it run at close to the correct speed, so I don't know what any of you are doing differently. If it works for you, by all means continue to do what you're doing. My method works for me, so I will do the same.

When you are running a 32-bit program in a 64-bit environment, you are running it in a 32-bit compatibility mode. This is not the same thing as running it in a native 32-bit environment. I've been telling you to not compare 32-bit applications to 64-bit, so either you are not reading my posts or you are trying to flip statements around. You are not necessarily wrong, but it is still not fair to compare two processors unless they are using the same type of operating system and similar specifications. Your Pentium 4 has more RAM than your Turion X2, for instance. While this might not be the cause of poorer performance, I know I sure as hell would not use a dual-core system without at least 2GB of RAM. On top of this, the RAM you are using in the Turion is single-channel, while the RAM in your Pentium 4 is dual-channel! You are putting all of the blame on the processor without thinking about other parts of the system.

To be quite honest, I consider your statements regarding the 1.6Ghz Pentium 4 redundant. It's using a processor inferior to the other two, and on top of that it is fitted with 512 of RDRAM. DDR400 would kick the crap out of that any day of the week. Also, why does DOSBox get extra registers if it is a 32-bit application? I thought you said that was only for 64-bit applications?

I have *not* disputed your claim of DOSBox basing CPU cycles on that of the user's CPU. You keep repeating it though as if beating a dead horse will win you a prize.

Let's not discuss moderator actions (including bans) in public, please. It's prejudicial to a member who's alleged to have been banned, and it treads on everybody's privacy.

As to the dispute over Arena timing and processor capabilities, let's restrict that to points that will actually help somebody trying to run Arena. But it's a moderator's privilege to get the last word in sometimes, and I feel obliged to point out that the Pentium 4 is a long-pipeline design that is plagued by the inability of real-world software to use the pipeline efficiently. That more than anything else is what causes Pentium 4's to execute fewer instructions over time than comparably-clocked Athlon, Pentium M, and Core processors.

Ah, it seems we have a few people here that know the hardware quite well. That P4 design is what allowed AMD to number their processors because even at slower speeds (some in excess of 1GHz slower) they could process more instructions than the faster P4, thus bringing the performance to a comparable level. I do believe that they went back to the pipeline used on the P3 processors, or based their newer pipes on it, however.

As Mage said, max can make Arena run way too fast. If your first system was that P166, then you played Arena on a system that was too fast to begin with, and as such you do not realize how fast that is to somebody who played it on a 486 system way back in the day. I'm not saying you can't play Arena at that high speed, but using "max" on a modern P4 or AMD is actually much faster than the game originally ran on the recommended system. When I play these games, I want them to run like they were designed, even though they can achieve insane framerates and what-not on higher settings, and that is why I recommend specific configurations, and not simply max power, although Daggerfall runs great on max on most systems.

Wolf, are you referring to "cycles=auto" when you say that DOSBox has setup everything else properly for you? DOSBox has an automatic cycle adjustment feature, but I believe it is and has been broken for ages. What I am guessing is that either your default was set to max and most of your games ran fine with that, or it was set to some default cycles and they just happened to work with your games.

Oh and that reminds me of another reason it isn't wise to use max cycles on every game. I have a bunch of old 8086 games, such as the original Railroad Tycoon (I have it on three 5.25" disks and two 3.5" disks), and while it runs on max, the game only needs about 5k cycles to run wide-open. Setting DOSBox to use only 5k cycles while playing RRT will cause your CPU to be used MUCH less, generate less heat, and wear less. If you have a water-cooled system, I guess you don't have to care about heat much, but the average user is probably running stock heatsink and fan configurations, so it becomes more of an issue. This system is the perfect example, because it idles at 124deg and when playing games reach 165deg at times, prior to installing the heatsink with 120mm fan and addition case-fans. Why use 100% of your CPU when you only need 10% from it?

I offer my apologies for the ban-speak. I wasn't aware that it was against the rules to discuss it, although it makes sense.

I never said my first system was a Pentium 166. I first played Arena on a Pentium that ran at 60 mhz. If you think that running Arena on a 486DX/33 is somehow more "authentic" than a Pentium 60 (which was cutting edge in 1994), then all you're doing is arguing for the sake of argument.

I fired up Arena on my AMD X2 4600+ today, and it ran at a very smooth, consistent speed. My settings are at "max." As I said earlier, if it doesn't work for you, don't use it. It's running great for me, though, and I don't have to set my cycles for any other game if I decide to play it.

Again, you fire out a bunch of irrelevant information in the hopes that no one will notice you avoiding the questions presented. You never responded to any of my criticisms, but I guess I didn't expect you to. I will be ignoring you from now on, though, so it doesn't matter.

You changed the subject of the dispute, again. It's not a matter of "smooth", it's a matter of NPCs and mobs running at light-speed instead of your average pace. You're the one posting irrelevant information and trying to place it on me, but find a single post where I said anything about smoothness. I am talking speed, big difference. Smooth framerates CAN be achieved without having the NPCs run around like they're in a marathon. That was and has been my point the entire time, not how "smooth" you can make an old game run. Most games of that day use a 60Hz refresh (60fps cap) and when you had enough CPU to achieve 60fps and then some, the extra went into extra NPC movement and what-not, unless the game featured a now common technique, framerate-independent movement, in which case every moving thing had a velocity or speed, and a max distance that could be traveled in a single frame, and these things are moved on that scale. Arena does not seem to feature this, because at 60fps on max cycles the NPCs are running around, while at 10k cycles at 60fps they move like they should.

You're the one who has strayed and not read my posts, and thus criticized me on inaccurate grounds, which is why I didn't respond. The entire time I have eben talking about movement and NPC movement, and you're going off about smoothness (framerate-dependent) and such. That is why I ignored it, because responding to off-topic posts further derail a topic.

Again, if you care to say anything or dispute it, do it in PM, but don't post new subjects and attempt to derail a topic. Below are quotes of my posts clearly displaying me referring to NPC movement, not smoothness.



If you wish to dispute anything I post int he future, please do so in PM because it seems that every time I post something that I can post evidence of, you seem to want to dispute it and discredit me. I don't mind disputing something in PM and will be professional about it, but it seems you have a problem keeping it off the public forum.

*EDIT*

I just ran Arena in DOSBox using max cycles, as you tend to suggest, and have posted a video of it to demonstrate the flaws in doing so. The character is a level one guy I made and got out of the prison with. Note that he can swing his weapon incredibly fast, even faster than a high-level DF character. Also note that the NPCs are no longer walking, but instead running around town. Finally, note that when using max cycles, the messages that phase in seem to take at LEAST ten seconds to do so. The game does have a nice smooth framerate at this speed, but it has the same framerate at a lower setting as well.

The second video is Arena running with everything setup the same, except the cycles are 25000 instead of max. Note that the NPCs now walk around, the weapon swings at a much more believable rate, and that the messages fade in and out properly. This is why I recommended setting DOSBox cycles. I was not attacking your idea or preference of running the game at max cycles, but I was trying to help a new player experience the game correctly, and avoid questions about why the messages take eons to fade in and such. Also note that enemies cans wing their weapons insanely fast on max cycles, and can sometimes hit four or five times in under a second, which can kill you before you can react.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8376259790278744641&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8269505926110109341&hl=en

Also note that those two videos I posted a few days ago are now up, Google finally displayed them. It may take a day or two for these to be displayed also, but I don't ahve the bandwidth to host them here at the house just to prove my point to a stranger and hopefully help some new users in the future.

Okay, Thanks for your help everyone.

Let's not start an argument here, please. A Mod can lock this thread now, I've found my solution. Thank you both for your suggestions and help, though I found Sephiroth's advice of turning the speed up manually to be more helpful. For me, running on "max" is just a bit too fast, and makes things like talking to people, pausing the game, and resting choppy and such. It also makes the music jump in some places, but that might be totally irrelevant.

I've found it to run smoothly for me at around 10,000-13,000. I suppose it depends on what hardware you're using to run Arena.

Regardless, my questions on Arena have been answered, so thank you all

If possible, check my "Arena Character Creation" thread I just posted. I need a bit of help in deciding my race and such.


May you walk on warm sands.

I'm glad that you've found the solution to your problem. I don't know why "max" works for me and not for others, but it doesn't matter if you've got it working.

TGS: I've tried to PM you, but it won't go through. Do you have PMs (or possibly me) blocked?

You're not blocked, and I haven't been upset with you over this stuff. I have received four PMs from a friend I am working on BSA formats for DFGL with, so I assume they're on. I'll double-check though.

Nope, not blocked, nobody is. I may get a little hot at times during my workday, but I haven't been close to being pissed or anything, and you're just arguing your own points and preferences, so there's no sense in blocking you. Ask "Ferital" how he is managing to PM me about the BSA info. We already figured out some of the unknown data in the BSA files, the data about spawn-points in areas for specific NPCs. Ferital actually edited his files and had the king and queen swap places in Castle Daggerfall using the info!

I just watched your videos. I see what you mean with your max cycles settings, but I've never had that problem and didn't know that it was one until now.

It's because you're using dynamic core and I've always left mine at auto. I used to use the dynamic core in older versions of DOSBox, but it was pretty unstable and I haven't though to try it since. My NPCs/weapon speed/etc is at the right speed with the core on auto, but the game runs like it's on a slower PC so I have to compensate by lowering the detail at times (usually when there's fog being rendered).

If I ever get back into playing Arena I'll have to try your approach.

Ah I didn't know you used the automatic core. I thought that was broken and defaults to the static (normal) core mode all the time? The normal core pushes many less cycles than the dynamic core does, but is more solid. I forget what the max was on the static core, but I want to say it was 20k or less, while my dynamic core can reach 80k cycles. Oh, and the dynamic core is MUCH better in 0.72, you should check it out. I have used it on every game I play, except the older ones designed for an 8086 or a 286 system, since I can use a static core and use 5k cycles or less.

If you try the auto core with 10k-15k cycles for Arena, you should be able to leave detail maxed out. I run the dynamic core on Daggerfall with max cycles, detail maxed, and it doesn't slow down a bit, not even indoors. Try it sometime if you have that indoor slow-down in the bigger taverns or if you have to lower the detail. It may help.

Try this, this also helps ALOT! Okay, Right-Click your background, go to PROPERTIES. Then go your color settings (tab at the top says SETTINGS) where it says 16 bit, 32 bit. Below that click ADVANCED, after that, click on the Tab TROUBLESHOOT... After that, slide the bar from FULL to NONE, click APPLY.

After that, try Arena out, and see if it increased your performance...

Sorry for all of the CAPS...

Also, if you havent, in the DosBox config for Arena, go to Core, and right beside it, type Dynamic

That helped me MAJOR on performance (Im running it on XP)

Considering the fact that I am running a 7800GS with 256MB of RAM onboard, it was no surprise that turning HW acceleration off destroyed performance. You should only turn that off when you're using a built-in video card, such as an Intel GMX3000. If you have a real video card (ATI/nVidia) then you need it wide-open on full.