rec.autos.simulators

by **Doug** » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Could someone post a side by side comparison of 3Dfx screenshot and a D3D
screenshot??
I have a voodoo 2 that I can run Nascar 3 at 800x600.. I also have a TNT
that I can run at 1024x768.
But which one is better????

Thanks,
Doug

by **g_major_NASCAR_onl** » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

3dfx is way better, The image is noticeably better in 3dfx, hmmm maybe
that's because d3d SUCKS!!

by **Don Burnett** » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

--
Don Burnette
Dburn on Ten
http://members.home.net/d.burnette/Sportsman%204.htm

by **Don Burnett** » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

I suspect it depends on the video card.
With my V3000, both d3d and glide are very close, about the only difference
I can tell is not having anti-aliasing on with d3d.

--
Don Burnette
Dburn on Ten
http://members.home.net/d.burnette/Sportsman%204.htm

by **Sal V** » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Voodoo-II cards running in SLI mode and the TNT2Ultra. N3 runs about the
same speed on both but has much better colors on the TNT2U. D3D doesn't suck
if you a have card and drivers that can do it well.

Haven't seen it on a Voodoo-3 but I would guess it looks just as good!

Sal V.

> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:08:20 -0400,

> >3dfx is way better, The image is noticeably better in 3dfx, hmmm maybe
> >that's because d3d SUCKS!!

> At least on my Voodoo3, I agree. The Glide version looks better
> than D3D. I can run as high as 1024x768 in either Glide or D3D,
> When I run at 800x600 Glide, it looks as nice as 1024x768
> in D3D.

> I'm loving it... :)

> --
> * rrevved at mindspring dot com
> * unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m.
> * http://www.cabal.net

by **Rich Heimlic** » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

For me, this was the difference between enjoyment on not playing. NR1999 ran
full out on my main play system (I have a new system I'm still tweaking with no
games on it). This system is a PII400 with a Matrox G200 and a Voodoo II.

With N3, in D3D mode, my frame rate with everything maxed at 1024x768 would get
as low as 10fps and hang around 15-17fps for the most part.

The same scenario with the Voodoo II yields 30fps all around except in the most
busy areas where it never gets below 23fps. Plus it looks just a tad crisper to
me (the anti-aliasing I assume).

What really has blown me away are the new sounds. In traffic, I really feel like
I'm right in there. Sometimes it's almost deafening and the echo around the
***pit is downright scary.

I must also admit that with all previous Nascar products, I just about NEVER
finished a full-length race without causing at least one accident, almost always
due to the computer taking ridiculous action and lines. On my first race at
Atlanta tonight, set to 100% distance, I didn't have a single incident. Things
got hairy and there was quite a bit of touching, but the AI drivers acted as if
they knew I was there and adjusted accordingly. Awesome.

by **Chris Schlette** » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Yeah, this doesn't surprise me because the G200 is a pretty poor "3D
accelerator" card. Its a great 2D, but its 3D components were really
lacking. On the other hand, the G400 should really look good with most D3D
titles especially as you increase the resolution.

by **Tony Kelle** » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

I may be a bit late on this, but I have a celeron 300a running at 374MHz,
and bought a TNT2 32 meg card. Framerates in N3 were not impressive at all.
I took it out, took it back and traded it in on a Voodoo3 3000. HUGE
difference. I can run in 1024x768 with everything on, even online no
problem.]

TK

by **David L. Co** » Sun, 19 Sep 1999 04:00:00

I'm a sucker (and a hipocrite). I bought an MX300 and a Voodoo3 today
just for N3. You're right about the V3. It ROCKS. The MX300 A3D sounds
real nice too :)

D.Cook

> That V3000 is a sweet card. Does d3d very well also.

> --
> Don Burnette
> Dburn on Ten
> http://members.home.net/d.burnette/Sportsman%204.htm

> > I may be a bit late on this, but I have a celeron 300a running at 374MHz,
> > and bought a TNT2 32 meg card. Framerates in N3 were not impressive at
> all.
> > I took it out, took it back and traded it in on a Voodoo3 3000. HUGE
> > difference. I can run in 1024x768 with everything on, even online no
> > problem.]

> > TK

by **Oli** » Mon, 20 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Any jitters with the V3?, what kinda V3 you have?

--
Oliver Nikolic
DP-MAX Computers
http://www.dp-max.co.yu/
BeoRocket Racing Team (retired)
http://www.beorocket.co.yu/

> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:08:20 -0400,

> >3dfx is way better, The image is noticeably better in 3dfx, hmmm maybe
> >that's because d3d SUCKS!!

> At least on my Voodoo3, I agree. The Glide version looks better
> than D3D. I can run as high as 1024x768 in either Glide or D3D,
> When I run at 800x600 Glide, it looks as nice as 1024x768
> in D3D.

> I'm loving it... :)

> --
> * rrevved at mindspring dot com
> * unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m.
> * http://www.cabal.net

rec.autos.simulators

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???

Nascar 3 D3D or 3DFX???