Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com
The results of these "image quality" tests are so uneven as to be
highly dubious at best. You simply cannot ignore the issue of driver
maturity when judging this, particularly when early problems that
resulted in lower image quality were ironed out in driver updates and
software updates.
Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com
OK I understand your rationale about drivers. And I do agree
(hey a first!). However, the problem is then the driver writers.
Obviously for whatever reason 3dfx has this driver thing solved.
Re: voodoo2? You are correct. Their initial drivers may well
suck. That is why I am going to wait for firm reports of backwards
computability with existing 3dfx programs before I make the leap.
A notorious example of superior hardware being defeated by
poor drivers is the GUS. Everyone will agree that hardware wise
it was a much superior soundcard (for it's time). But lack of solid
DOS drivers (and W95 I believe) doomed the card to be a
laughing stock. Just a thought :-)
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
>>And I repeat. If he had he facts straight, how does that magically make
>>the Riva image quality better?
>>--
>Credibility of the witness your honor :). Many of the problems
>reported as "hardware" problems and "unfixable" were absolutely the
>opposite (the Jedi knight transparencies stand out as one that was
>easily blown away just by a patch of the game coming out). I don't
>have a beef with those people that say that Board XXYYZZ with recent
>drivers have image quality problems on such-and-such a game. But when
>you're just going to say "its the hardware's fault and the hardware
>sucks", without any technical background to claim that, then it
>irritates me. And I'm not inconsistent here. If the first Voodoo2
>optimized drivers are awful and have crappy image problems, i'm not
>going to come on here and say that it must be crappy Voodoo2 hardware.
>I'll blame the most likely culprit first: The software/drivers.
>Randy
>Randy Magruder
>Contributing Reviewer
>Digital Sportspage
>http://www.digitalsports.com
> Rendition picture quality speaks for itself! Even with it's first generation
> V1000-series chips!
> Loren
> Team SAVATS
> PROUD Screamin' 3D owner
BTW, I've got an Intense 3D and a M3D, and I likem both! ;^)
l8er
ronny
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
> >Hmmm...I have the January issue of CGW here and they reviewed quite a
> >few 3D cards.
> Ahh, CGW. Home of the 5 star rating for CPR (listening to newsgroup
> giggle).
> I'll add in there that the new Hercules Rendition boards are getting 1st reports
> of matching or beating Riva's in D3d. That isn't carved in stone yet, but if the
> V2200 Renditions can match the Rivas, then a V2200/VOODOO combo could be very fast
> and very compatible..(glide,D3D,RENDITION etc)
> dave henrie
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
Uh I hate to point this out cause really this is of no importance to
me...but even you have stated that visual quality is affected. You blame
underdeveloped drivers...others blame the hardware. Either way a person
is currently screwed....well ok if they have a Voodoo they are doing
fine....hehe.
Pierre
> >snip
> >> As much as I'd like a Voodoo2 it will be some time before I get one because the
> >> initial price in Australia will be to rich for me. I'm hoping that the V2200
> >> will be better in D3D for racing sims that use a***pit than the Voodoo
> >> currently is. I base this on the performance hit that CPR had when turning
> >> on/off the***pit.
> >If this would be a big problem with the Voodoo why doesn't it show in
> >F1RS?
> I think it does, if you compare framerates against pod, F1RS loses quite a few.
> Also when viewed from behind the car it is a bit quicker.
I only spent maybe 5 seconds in the behind the car view, so I can't
tell... ;^)
l8er
ronny
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 09:29:27 -0600, "Greg Cisko"
>>So while a voodoo can display a***pit view in F1RS at a good framerate, I
>just
>>think that the voodoo takes a performance hit for having one.
>It is normal for flightsimulators to take a framerate hit with the***pit
>on. I don't think this is a 3dfx problem as this "feature" has been around
>for years. It was first noticed in US Navy Fighters where there was a
>toggle for the***pit. Surprisingly framerate went up when there was
>no***pit and more to draw/render. It never made sense to me but
>that is how it is :-) Also there is a view to shut off the***pit in F1RS.
>I think you get it by cycling F3 or F4....
Yeh you can get the Psygnosis over the front view with F4 and it seems a fair
bit faster, but I really prefer the***pit view.
Regards,
David
ROFL!!! =) Rendition FOREVER!!!
Loren
Team SAVATS
