rec.autos.simulators

by **John Walla** » Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Yep, and I'm exercising my right to disagree with you :)

_Without_ 3D acceleration I get 25fps in***pit mode, and 30fps in
"bumper" mode - not exactly slow is it? I can't get anything like
those numbers in GP2, nor in CPR even _with_ 3D acceleration.

A 3dFX patch will be nice, and bring SODA to the reach of P133 etc (I
used a P188), but mainly I'm hoping it will allows Software Allies to
tart up the graphics a bit. The racing is excellent, car control is
fun (if slightly exaggerated), but graphics look pretty basic. It's a
shame, since a lot of the effects are nice. Just needs better use of
textures, blending etc to create a more believable world.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Yes, but as I mentioned above, it wasn't part of the original spec.
Nor was it "announced". It was mentioned here, but on Papy's web site?
In software press? No, just a promise here, and one that is being
delivered upon.

It's nice in terms of frame-rate, but does nothing for the graphics.
It doesn't look so good, and that's the case with 3D and non-3D
versions. IMO that will lose more customers than no 3dFX support.

So another way of writing the above would be to say that "being
satisifed with the performance is an essential part of any game"? That
is exactly the point I'm making, good performance is the important
thing, regardless of whether it comes from a 3D accelerator or not.

Cheers!
John

by Jo » Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>Yes, but as I mentioned above, it wasn't part of the original spec.
>Nor was it "announced". It was mentioned here, but on Papy's web site?
>In software press? No, just a promise here, and one that is being
>delivered upon.

What possible difference does it majke WHERE it's announced? It was
anounced here, before the game shipped, by a representative of the
company. The medium of the announcement makes no difference
whatsoever.

Joe

by **Nanker Pheldg** » Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> Oh yeah 3dfx is dead. OpenGL and all those AGP cards are going to kill 3dfx.
> You (and plenty of gamers) are in your egg-shell, thinking "I am a god I
> have a 3dfx card I want everygame to be 3dfx or I don't play them." <g>
> This is not a flaming, I just want to make you realise the
> fact that 3DFX isn't the only way to make games.

> Francois Menard,
> http://www.awpss.com/

Tell me then, why are GLIDE programmers in such demand (salaries in 6
figures) these days?

Also, why are so many companies now producing 3Dfx cards? The number is
growing rapidly, and Voodoo2 was even enought to entice Creative Labs
into the market.

by **Doug Bur** » Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> >It's not about "depriving" myself -- the demo was slow w/out 3D
> >acceleration and many have said as much ... I think what I will do is
> >"deprive" myself of the frustration ... until the 3dfx patch comes.

> Yep, and I'm exercising my right to disagree with you :)

> _Without_ 3D acceleration I get 25fps in***pit mode, and 30fps in
> "bumper" mode - not exactly slow is it? I can't get anything like
> those numbers in GP2, nor in CPR even _with_ 3D acceleration.

Yes, but your 25-30 fps is without anything turned on -- I doubt the
programmers took the time to "add" the eyecandy for us to have it turned
off. So ... turn it on like it is supposed to be, and see if you still
get 25-30 fps... your claim of 25-30 fps is like saying that your car
gets 100 mpg but failing to tell us that you drifted down a mountain for
50 miles in neutral ... to get the 100 mpg ...

In other words, if the good stuff ain't on, what's the point ...

Doug

by **Jerry** » Tue, 25 Nov 1997 04:00:00

I have tried the SODA demo on a AMD K5 -166 32 MB STB videocard (ET6000). I
can only run about 10 to maybe 15 fps at 320 x 240 with just some textures on.
The physics are really good, but the frame rate is a ltittle slow on my
computer for me to buy it. I can play GP2 at 640 x 480 at 18 fps with
everything on except sky and mirror textures and 3420 x 200 with everything on
except sky at 25 fps. Either Win95 is killing this game, or they coded the
game for the rendition and we are using the processor to render to much
shading, textures, etc. If I had a 3Dfx card I wouldn't buy it either when I
could buy 3D games that supported my card.

Papyrus should have known better.

Jerry

by **Mark Daviso** » Tue, 25 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> Yes, but your 25-30 fps is without anything turned on -- I doubt the
> programmers took the time to "add" the eyecandy for us to have it turned
> off. So ... turn it on like it is supposed to be, and see if you still
> get 25-30 fps... your claim of 25-30 fps is like saying that your car
> gets 100 mpg but failing to tell us that you drifted down a mountain for
> 50 miles in neutral ... to get the 100 mpg ...

> In other words, if the good stuff ain't on, what's the point ...

So, by this logic, GP2 is not worth owning yet. And I still can't have
track and grass textures in N1 on my P200 so that's a lame game. Lucky
I've got Rendition for N2 or else that wouldn't be worth playing either,
etc. etc.

I had great fun with Virtua Racing - textures maketh not the game, dude.

Go play Pod or something,

Mark
Reading, UK

by **Mark Daviso** » Tue, 25 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> some stuff about SODA and bad graphics.

Aren't you the Joe who slates NFS2SE for being eye candy and no more?
I happen to think it's a blast, especially in rushhour, but back to the
plot...

You can get perfectly acceptable framerates (and I'm fussy) in SODA by
either turning off most of the textures in hi-res, or running them with
them all on in lo-res. This game is not about funky graphics, it's
about off road racing and it has a physics model do die for. How pretty
do those trucks and that mud have to be? Get past the body, find the
personality. Drive it (with a wheel if poss.) and love it :)

Enjoy

Mark
Reading, UK

by Jo » Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>Aren't you the Joe who slates NFS2SE for being eye candy and no more?

Yup. A solid frame-rate is a *requirement* in a driving game - that
doesn't mean it's *sufficient* to make a game by itself.

Joe

by **Mark Daviso** » Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> >Aren't you the Joe who slates NFS2SE for being eye candy and no more?

> Yup. A solid frame-rate is a *requirement* in a driving game - that
> doesn't mean it's *sufficient* to make a game by itself.

Never said it was, bud.

Mark
Reading, UK

by **Mountain Kodi** » Thu, 04 Dec 1997 04:00:00

>I could get 20 fps out of all of those titles (they also never
>mentioned that they *would* have 3DFX support).
>I'm lucky to get 10fps out of the SODA demo.
>This is a game that needs 3D support.
>I'm with Joe on the purchase issues. When they make a product I can
>use, I'll buy it.

Same here. I picked up SODA, but the frame rate was so low that I was
constantly turning too far, since the slide show couldn't keep up with
the action... Of course, I could turn off ALL details and the rate
would get more reasonable, but what's the point? I've come to the
point where if a game doesn't run at a decent frame rate on my P2 266
& 3dfx-based system, it's going back to the store. I got the system
so I wouldn't have to worry about minimum requirements (at least for a
while).

--mountain

by **John Walla** » Fri, 05 Dec 1997 04:00:00

>Same here. I picked up SODA, but the frame rate was so low that I was
>constantly turning too far, since the slide show couldn't keep up with
>the action... Of course, I could turn off ALL details and the rate
>would get more reasonable, but what's the point?

Because it's fun to drive? Remember the fun we used to have with the
original F1GP and Indy500, neither of which had any textures at all. I
know I'd much rather play SODA with no 3dFX and no textures than the
3dFX, texture plastered extravaganza that is NFS2SE. It is just _fun_.
Nice graphics and cool textures by themselves do not a good game make.

<GASP!> You've got a P2-266 and you can't get a good frame-rate!?!?!?
I'm running a P225MMX and I can get 30fps***pit view, and 25fps even
at 188Mhz. What do you class as a "decent frame rate"? That's a
serious question by the way, I'm pretty stunned here :)

Anyway, 3dFX patch will follow, so you'll be able to go back to the
store and buy it again at that time.

Cheers!
John

by **SimRaci** » Fri, 05 Dec 1997 04:00:00

Yikes!! You have a PII-266 and still have problems (or did I miss
something)? I have a normally-asperated P150 (o/c to 166), and
SODA works quite well (either in Rendition or non-Rendition
modes).

Marc - SRN

by **SNAKE** » Sat, 06 Dec 1997 04:00:00

Whew! SODA runs great on my P-200 without Rendition. Glad I don't have a
P2-266. Think I'll hold off on that upgrade.

Snake

by **R.D.** » Sat, 06 Dec 1997 04:00:00

>>I could get 20 fps out of all of those titles (they also never
>>mentioned that they *would* have 3DFX support).
>>I'm lucky to get 10fps out of the SODA demo.
>>This is a game that needs 3D support.
>>I'm with Joe on the purchase issues. When they make a product I can
>>use, I'll buy it.
>Same here. I picked up SODA, but the frame rate was so low that I was
>constantly turning too far, since the slide show couldn't keep up with
>the action... Of course, I could turn off ALL details and the rate
>would get more reasonable, but what's the point? I've come to the
>point where if a game doesn't run at a decent frame rate on my P2 266
>& 3dfx-based system, it's going back to the store. I got the system
>so I wouldn't have to worry about minimum requirements (at least for a
>while).

>--mountain

You got a PII 266 and can't get good frame rates in SODA? You're taking back
the wrong thing, KEEP SODA, RETURN YER PIECE OF ***COMPUTER !

Bob

rec.autos.simulators

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?

SODA 3DFX patch?