Boy, you're gonna feel pretty stupid when this doesn't happen.
Why do people need to do this - 3Dfx is here now - how many people own
a 3Dfx card? How many people own a V2200? I'll tell you V2200 owners =
zero, none, big fat zilch how many other ways can I put it. Software
publishers will on the whole write for the status quo - not some
pipedream.
Dave
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:21:33 -0700, Tony Gaylord
Also check out some benchmarks that Jeff Attwood has posted on:-
c.s.i.p.h.v
Dave
I have access to a rendition machine and a machine running 3dfx. The
difference between the two boards isn't dramatic. I could care less about
tests and statistics. I know when I play on the two different machines
there is a difference, but not near as dramatic as some would lead you to
believe. Some games 3dfx port is better than the Rendition, but again not
dramatic. The Verite is not a "bad" card.
I really don't think the type of board you have is going to make a any
difference 12 to 18 months from now. All of the players involved are going
to be coming out with their latest and greatest 3D boards. There is no way
that software developers are going to keep up with these changes. They
can't even keep up now, and we are just on the tip of the "3D revolution".
The real question is will your card support D3D, and if it does how fast is
it in D3D. While D3D isn't even the best "standard" out there. Wether we
like it or not Win 95 is where we're going to be doing are *** in the
next few years. While some 3dfx owners may feel we have the industry
standard. I caution you, this is all in it's infancy, most computer owners
don't have a 3d chip in their box yet. If the Verite or some other 3d chip
turn out to be a far superior, you can bet that the new buyer will jump on
this. This game is far from over.
Kutt
How can you say it won't offer improved performance? Again I have both
cards, I really could care less who comes out on top. You nor I, have used
the new V2200 boards. Hercules claims...
"As an example, the combination of an Intel Pentium 133 MHz PC and a
Hercules Thriller 3D graphics accelerator delivers a higher 3D Winmark
score than any Pentium II in combination with any existing Matrox board.
Better still, the Hercules Thriller 3D in a Pentium II achieves a 3D
Winmark three to four times faster than any existing Matrox product(1)."
admittedly this is probably "perfect configuration" claims and I'm sure
your mileage may vary. The thing to remember is that the games we are
seeing now were in development last year. Then Direct X and OpenGL were
just getting started so most games were proprietary (Verite or 3dfx). As a
software developer today why in the world would you write software that's
proprietary. One you have to run it in DOS usually, and two you eliminate
part of the market no matter which way you go (Verite or 3dfx). As a
software developer it would look much more attractive to write for DX5 or
OpenGL. You get to slap 3D accelerated on the box, all the 3d card owners
can run it. The point being, no matter what card you choose to buy in the
next year don't let 3dfx sway you. Make sure your card supports OpenGL and
DX5, this is where the 3d wars are really being waged. The next Rendition
card claims it supports the following...
"In order to offer the most powerful, versatile, and complete solution, the
Hercules Thriller 3D supports all major operating systems and 3D APIs
including Windows 3.11, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95, Windows NT
4.0, OS/2 Warp, AutoCAD, OpenGL, and DirectX 5, Speedy3D, and RRedline."
Powerful drivers for ``Memphis'' and Windows NT 5.0 are under development.
You are exactly right. The API's your hardware supports is what is going to
sell your card in the future.
Kutt
It's easy - I don't listen to hype.
BTW I didn't say it won't, I said it _may_ not. Thats quite different.
My point exactly - Hercules claims.......
Lets face it they aren't gonna sell many cards saying 'Buy our new
card its slower than 3Dfx' - are they?
<snip Hercules quote>
Lets hope so - then maybe we can get to point where we can choose what
card we want - and not have to worry about whether the software we
want to run _will_ actually run on the card.
Dave
Matrox are hardly the benchmark hardware supplier when it comes to 3d.
Why didn't they compare it to a Rendition 1000 or a 3dFX we ask
ourselves.....?
By writing for an API you also write for the lowest common
denominator, loath to code in extra features such as fogging or
anti-aliasing that not all cards have in hardware.
Glide...? :)
No, software _products_ are what sells hardware - nobody plays with an
API.
Cheers!
John
Sorry? Why is that?
Because I've had many happy months of playing GLQuakeWorld, looking
down into the water and picking off Verite owners who can't look out
of the water? :)
Seriously, there is ALWAYS something "better" round the corner, and in
a week or so the Verite 2200 will be old news and people will be
hyping the next rumour from 3dFX, NEC, SGS Thomson or whoever. It's
the oldest story that the best technically isn't always the best to
own. The only thing that matters is support, and without that you
might as well have an Archimedes.
Cheers!
John
You might not play with API's, but if N2 had been written for D3D 3dfx
card owners would be able to play N2 right now. D3D or Open GL isn't as
efficient as writing proprietary software for the card, but the fact is
proprietary software has got, us the consumer, in the mess we're in right
now.
3dfx is the "hot" buzz word this quarter, but some of the games I enjoy
the most don't support 3dfx N2, ICR2, etc. 3dfx is NOT the end all
architecture for 3d cards (Great card with today's tech). It seems
extremely foolish, to me, for software companies to write just for this
architecture. The first, of the next generations of 3d cards are going to
be hitting the shelves this month. The number of different chips out there
is going to increase exponentially. Some API that runs through windows 95
is going to have to come through as an industry standard. DOS is dead, most
of the proprietary stuff I know of runs through DOS. Companies simply
aren't going to write for all of these different chips, yes there will be a
few titles in the upcoming months, but those numbers will decrease. Even
now when 3dfx is so ***, and it only accounts for around half the
cards out there. Majority yes, but you write proprietary and you cut out
half of your market, even if you pick the most popular card.
3dfx will never become the industry standard, because 3d acceleration has
so much farther to go. API's can only become more efficient, and an API
has the advantage of being more flexible, easier, and cheaper to distribute
than hardware solutions. This game is far from over, hell, we haven't even
gone through all the player introductions yet.
All the best,
Kutt
Some good stuff snipped....
Well be that as it may...the guys from id say that from what they have
seen...and I would guess that is alot...3dfx is the standard. The
second generation is out and none of them off so much of a performance
improvement if at all to steal the throne.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
THE ONE AND ONLY FAQ...GET IT READ IT...
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/redshift/su27faq.html
General Great Web Sites...and not a complete list by any means...
http://www.su27-flanker.com/
http://www.mygale.org/10/cbonnet/
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~kennw/62home.htm
http://www.vicksburg.com/~chaney/flanker/
http://www.gttweb.com/SU27/index.html
http://wwwperso.hol.fr/~davidp/
Su-27 World Wide Ladder run by the BOSS...Adam Adamski....
http://challenge.star.co.uk/flanker/?
Absolutly Brilliant Campaign shell by Hideo...
http://www.info.waseda.ac.jp/muraoka/members/fukumori/fshell.html
also make sure you pick up the Random Mission Generator on one of the other web pages.
That wasn't the point I was making. The point I made was that D3D
wouldn't sell any machine, the fact that NASCAR2 ran on D3D would. It
is the _software_ which sells, not the API.
It was essentially semantics in the same manner as your original post,
the underlying meaning remains the same.
Of course, but we the consumer need to have our say. Heck if you
followed corporate logic we'd all have PowerPR systems with overall
lesser performance. An API supporting multiple cards cannot make full
use of the best of them, or at least the software using the card will
be written for the lowest common denominator. Why else does a title
like Psygnosis F1 (for D3D) have a special 3dFX version? Why then did
Rendition want to write their own version of F1 for the Verite
chipset? Because a D3D app would look bad on Verite compared to a 3dFX
version, and because a special RRedline version compares far better.
By voting with our wallets and supporting 3dFX it forces other cards
to be designed to 3dFX quality level, improving quality and increasing
the "standard level" which APIs will support.
Cheers!
John
John, you made some good points. I still don't agree with you, but we'll
find who's right in the next 12 to 18 months (maybe even a little of both a
hybrid API hardware standard who knows). If the 3dfx stays on top during
the release of all these different chips, over the next year then you may
very well be right. If we get a situation where every couple of months
there's an amazing chip new chip coming out, I think an API will emerge. It
was a good debate never the less.
Kutt
Wait until our Indy racing sim comes out -- ABC Sports Indy Racing.
Looks great on a 3Dfx card.
Bernie Yee
> I just cant understand this company. I use to own a
> Intense3d100 just because I love Indycar racing so much and IndycarII
> was a lot of fun. Now that I have sold my Intense (verite) and have
> purchased a Monster3D (3dfx) board I cant belive I bought the Intense
> board in the first place. Now, Sierra has to see just how suppior the
> 3dfx chipset is over the Rendition and by Sierra limiting themselves to
> just theire Rendition owners (talking about SODA demo) is just plain
> ***ing stupid. In that latest survey that PC Gamer put on (I think it
> was) they claimed that 50% of the votes were 3dfx owners and
> Rendition................7%!!! Now why wouldn't Sierra want a piece of
> that bigger pie? I know that there are people that are affiliated with
> Sierra that graze this newsgroup so I think we all expect some sort of
> logical answer to this subject.
