rec.autos.simulators

I would guess that thats  _exactly_  what they're doin right now  ;-)

Cheers.....Ken

Remove "NOSPAM" from address before replying

Instead, it makes much more sense to put that resource on finishing up GPL
or N3 (SODA is being written by an outside resource, not Papyrus
engineers), rather than rehashing an existing product that won't
significantly increase your bottom line.

BTW, where's my N2 network-play FAQ? ;)

Dave Sparks
IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi
Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

There is no way to do something like reverse engineer a final program
to garner something close to the source code, or at least
understandable by a good programmer?

Thanks!

--                        

Yes.

Ignoring the terms of the license that make reverse-engineering a
prohibited action, it's an essentially unsolvable technical problem.
Sure, it's trivial to de-compile to assembly language, but you've lost
all (sensible) variable and function names, and the assembly language
output by modern optimizing compilers is often sufficiently obscure to
prevent all but the simplest of hacking. (So, a knowledgeable individual
might be able to circumvent the 22-gallon restricition, or make their
car invincible, etc, but won't be able to add anti-aliasing or other
sufficiently complex modification within the lifespan of the game.
(Eventually, all things are theoretically possible, but...))

---Jim

There are two problems. First off, most optimized code doesn't
reverse-engineer well back to a high level language. It's fairly easy to
reverse-engineer back to assembly language, which is like programming
directly on the hardware, as opposed to a high level language like C++.

Second, all the wonderful source comments left behind by the good
programmer were stripped out by the compiler. Any program of the complexity
of something like N2 is going to take a long time to understand without
some information about what the code is supposed to be doing.

So the answer is, yes, someone could reverse-engineer it, but by the time
they got done with it, NASCAR 4 would be out. ;)

Dave Sparks
IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi
Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

There are two problems. First off, most optimized code doesn't
reverse-engineer well back to a high level language. It's fairly easy to
reverse-engineer back to assembly language, which is like programming
directly on the hardware, as opposed to a high level language like C++.

Second, all the wonderful source comments left behind by the good
programmer were stripped out by the compiler. Any program of the complexity
of something like N2 is going to take a long time to understand without
some information about what the code is supposed to be doing.

So the answer is, yes, someone could reverse-engineer it, but by the time
they got done with it, NASCAR 4 would be out. ;)

Dave Sparks
IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi
Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

3dfx is similar...Early popularity, heavy use of a propriety API
(compared to instruction set) and hardware design that is unlikely
to change much in the next 2-3 years (faster yes - change no).
This limits competition from other cards that may be as fast or
faster, but cannot run Glide games.

Nothing - as long as the competition is OPEN.  3dfx pushes Glide
pretty hard.  Hardware vendors should produce hardware which
conforms to APIs.  Developing propriety APIs limits competition.
3dfx is not the only company guilty of this - Rendition, NEC...you
name it...but it's not good for the consumer in the long run.

Or I might have an R10000 or 68xxx with 50 times the performance
of the Pentium.  Intel are limiting IT with their damn compatibility
issues.  They are certainly not helping technology.  Look at the
PowerPC - I wouldn't touch one because of the level of software
support, but it performs far better than Pentium.  A consumer
can't buy the best hardware because of the standards which Intel
has forced on the industry.

3dfx is best for 4 weeks.  But it will continue to get dedicated
support and other faster cards will miss out.  That sucks.

Please don't misread what I'm saying.  I've been very impressed
by the voodoo games I've played and think the card is cool.  I'd
buy one if it there wasn't so much movement in the 3d card
industry in the next couple of months. My
point is that we don't want a hardware manufacturer dictating software
standards.  This is what is happening.

<very massive grin at 240 miles per hour>

Jet
Jet (remove *HATES_SPAM* from my address to email me)

JET:

R:

I don't think there is any argument with your philosophy, I'm sure most users
would love a good common api. The problem has been that the native languages
simply allow better results, easier. So what that means to me is we need
better common api's. That is most likely happening. My guess is the common api
will win out, it's just been a bit bumpy out of the gates but that will change
in due time. I don';t see 3dfx becoming that much of a standard where is
cripples all other competition.

Q.B.M.

I didn't mean old-fashioned GAME company. I meant that old
fashioned companies, previously involved in industry, making
toasters, TV-sets, frying pans etc, now want to control the
*** industry. They bring with them the pin-stripe suit
mentality into a business that was free from that kind of
BS for along time. But you can't write games like you
design a frying pan. Atleast I hope not.

My point exactly. The 'new kind' of *** company does
3dfx just because it's neat and fun. The old fashioned
company that just recently bought themselves into the
*** industry will never touch 3dfx until Billy G tells
them it's kosher.

I agree with you that what I called the 'new kind' also is
the 'original kind' of *** comapany. I'm old enough to
remember early-80s games. Lots of innovation and new ideas.

So to summarize: GET RID OF THE SUITS! :)

--
Markus

But, if you insist.... :)

Intel have become an "unacceptable standard 20 years later (and
arguably not at all). During the early part of their romance with the
PC market Intel made perfect sense - a standard people could follow.
THAT was the time for competitors, and where were AMD and Cyrix during
the 1970s amd early 80's? Intel _made_ the market along with Microsoft
and others, and AMD, Cyrix et al are the ones arriving late to the
best party in town and wanting to grab some of the food. Why is Intel
suddenly the bad guy? They made the investments, they took the risks
and they made the market that some are saying they are not entitled
to. They took big risks by dropping other products to become purely
CMOS, concentrating on MOS logic. They are dropping _billions_ of
dollars to invest in new fabs, constantly updating existing fabs,
developing industry philosophies like the "copy exactly" policy and
have some extremely good conditions for their employees - they're
really not a bad company at all. Now they are still leading the way
and setting the standards amid constantly changing flux of the
semiconductor market.

No, I'm not an Intel employee or fan, I work with them and AMD and
Cyrix. I am better positioned than most to see what these companies
are doing, why they are doing it and the effort it takes them to get
there - Intel take a lot of flak that is unjustified.

Glide is only one aspect of 3dFX, with support also for D3d and some
aspects of OpenGL. _IF_ other cards gain sufficient market penetration
people will code in Direct3D to access the whole market. If the other
cards are not popular then Glide will maintain it's position. That's
the game, and so far NEC and Rendition are going the way of AMD and
Cyrix because like them they are _currently_ technologically inferior
and, more importantly, failed in marketing correctly. That's the game,
and they lost.

Why? Jason, you're saying this like it should be fair. Business is not
a conpetition where "the best man wins" and give people a sporting
chance, it is WAR. Your company and your employees rely on you
_killing_ the opposition off (at least in so far as you don't kill of
the market in the process). If you can convince software companies to
write to your proprietary standard by having high market share then
all the better. Don't knock 3dFX for that, knock the software
companies for following or their competitors for failing - most people
attack success though.

No, but it's good for the _company_. Don't knock them for it, they're
only doing what they need to and what WE are supporting. We put them
in the position to do it after all.

Intel hasn't FORCED anything on anyone. They offered, we bought, they
offered more, we bought more. They made tie-ups with Microsoft and
chose winners, PowerPC took the wrong roads and died. So did Betamax,
so did many other arguably "better" products. What use is a good
product that you can't use.

3dFX has been best for one year now, well over four weeks, and in that
time there is STILL nothing to beat it. Where are these "faster
systems"? Vapourware? Hype? You can't run Quake on hype. When a faster
and better card arrives people WILL buy it. It just isn't there yet.
Same with AMD - when they make an MPU that outperforms the equivalent
Intel part in ALL areas then people will buy it - why shouldn't they?
Simply put AMD have _so_far_ failed in doing that and are reduced to
price fighting.

Cheers!
John

Well , I guess you won't own it ...will you! If you can find it in your
budget to buy a dedicated 3d accelerator for your  games, you got the money
for a rendition card! Have both....you'll be happy that you did!

Joe

---Jim

(Lots of good stuff snipped...)

While I agree that Intel took the chances and gained the rewards,
I think one of the reasons they are hated is this...
By the time the garbageman takes the box for the new top of the line
Pentium PC you just bought, a faster Pentium has been released.
60/75/100/120/133/150/166/200/Pro/P2...
Now throw in FX/HX/VX/TX/DMA/USB/DIMM/AGP...  How about WTF?!  ;>
Its frigging overwhelming.

I know that technology moves fast, but even as a *** gamer, I'm
starting to really think it over before I consider an upgrade.
You're just throwing money away.
I just read that the processor that is now know as Merced may ship as
soon as the second quarter of 98. Bye-bye Pentium 2.

The fact that Cyrix and AMD will at least try to extend the life of
existing Socket 7 boards (that still have a lot of potential) is
comforting.  A classic case of rooting for the underdog.

Sorry for the rant... I feel much better now.  :)

--