rec.autos.simulators

by **Eric Busc** » Tue, 05 Feb 2002 05:53:35

Once texture compression is supported in the OpenGL renderer you should
be able to get away with a 32MB card, though a 64MB card would still be
preferred if you want to run with a full field at high resolutions such
as 1600x1200 or in 32-bit color.

- Eric

by **John Simmon** » Tue, 05 Feb 2002 06:51:28

Which 3d renderer is more efficient/faster/better at text compression -
D3D or OpenGL?

BTW, I'm glad my wife didn't see this as I read it. I've almost got her
convinced that I need to upgrade my video card - again!.

> Once texture compression is supported in the OpenGL renderer you should
> be able to get away with a 32MB card, though a 64MB card would still be
> preferred if you want to run with a full field at high resolutions such
> as 1600x1200 or in 32-bit color.

> - Eric

> > A 128mb card? Holy freakin christ!

> > And aren't we lucky that ATI and nVidia are just now hitting the
> shelves
> > with 128mb cards!

--
=========================================================
Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity"
http://www.paddedwall.org/john

DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends
http://www.paddedwall.org/demons

DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development)
http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2

Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting)
http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast

If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown
above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame.
=========================================================

by **Eric Busc** » Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:28:03

Performance isn't the issue, the amount of texture memory required is
all that's really affected.

- Eric

rec.autos.simulators

Nascar 2002: Performance

Nascar 2002: Performance

Nascar 2002: Performance

Nascar 2002: Performance