rec.autos.simulators

GPL AND TNT...

COOP

GPL AND TNT...

by COOP » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Direct3D.

There've been games out for almost a year with D3D support, so the
'two year dev. cycle' is no real excuse.

All I've got to go on is what's in the manual, and the team definately
comes across as "hardware snobs".  My way or the highway.  Not great
business sense.

OTOH, I grabbed a Voodoo1 (monster) for little more than the cost
of the game, so I can run it.  I'm just lucky I had a free PCI
slot.

-moggy

--
gary cooper (not the dead one)    

Kesmai Studios Air Warrior Product Support
          http://www.racesimcentral.net/~cooper

Jo

GPL AND TNT...

by Jo » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


>And in the case of the Rendition clan.... why should people want to downgrade
>their excellent TNT's or G200 to a rendition card, for one game? or buy a 3Dfx
>card? they won't. Simple as that.

Then again, people COULD have used proper hardware-purchasing logic in
the first place and chosen a card compatible with the software they
want to run:

Joe's GOLDEN rule of hardware purchasing: Obvious as this point may
seem, it's necessary to point out that the purpose of computer
hardware is to run software. NEVER buy any computer hardware unless it
enables you to run SPECIFIC software that you want to run. Period.

Joe

Jo

GPL AND TNT...

by Jo » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


>> Papyrus supposed to write a game for a chip that simply didn't exist for the
>> vast majority of GPL's development.
>Direct3D.
>There've been games out for almost a year with D3D support, so the
>'two year dev. cycle' is no real excuse.

Yes it is, you are ignoring important factors:

1) D3D is a bear to program, and would have cost Papyrus more
development money.

2) It would have provided no benefit, since until very recently there
were no D3D-only cards that could provide anything close to 3Dfx
power.

Joe

Tom Diet

GPL AND TNT...

by Tom Diet » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


>... or an OpenGL patch. The point in brining up Q2 is that it is about
>as graphics intensive as anything gets. And having read a lot of the
>vast amount the Id guys write (in ther finger commentaries) about the
>future of graphics libraries, it is clear *these guys did their
>homework* before deciding on OpenGL. They pissed a lot of people off,
>because a lot of board drivers didn't support OpenGL yet. But besides
>just wanting to***MS off, it was clear that OpenGL was going to
>arrive (since it was already over a decade old, and not dying)-
>nowadays, 3D boards basically universally come OpenGL ready.

I don't want to start a heated debate, but I don't really admire id Software
as much as I did before.  Quake2 was very good, but Unreal just kicks it's
ass.  I understand that Unreal has been worked on for a long time, but so
has Quake/Quake2.   The engine in Unreal is far superior.  It was released 6
months after Quake2, but I hardly think that given 6 months, id could have
done the same.

Promptly after id Software saw Unreal, they announced that Trinity (their
new project) would be Quake3 and focus on multiplayer rather than amazing
graphics.  While this could be great for them, I wonder why the 180?

Anyways, I guess this is off topic, I just wanted to voice my $0.02 about id
and OpenGL.

Tom

COOP

GPL AND TNT...

by COOP » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


>1) D3D is a bear to program, and would have cost Papyrus more
>development money.

Well, our programmer didn't have much trouble.

D3D only, maybe, but how many supported it?  Anyway, certainly
more than there are Rendition cards out there.

-gary

--
gary cooper (not the dead one)    

Kesmai Studios Air Warrior Product Support
          http://www.cris.com/~cooper

YUBS

GPL AND TNT...

by YUBS » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

hmmmm I see... and why exactly does that make it wrong? Oh yeah, because
you said so... How silly of me...

Sorry, I don't mean to be so hostile, and I know things can get slightly
out of hand when you can't really understand the persons intentions over
a newsgroup, but I just would like to understand your point of view...

    -YUBS



> >> This post is very deceiving - is that just plain wrong?

> >I don't see what was so deceiving about the post, care to elaborate?

> I did....

> Cheers!
> John

John Walla

GPL AND TNT...

by John Walla » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


>hmmmm I see... and why exactly does that make it wrong? Oh yeah, because
>you said so... How silly of me...

That's as good a reason as any, and a marvellous philosophy on life
:-)

I know, but I did explain my POV just below the part you quoted. If
you let me know what I should elaborate on I'll do so.

Cheers!
John

Clark Arch

GPL AND TNT...

by Clark Arch » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Hey Rick!  I have a M3D2, I still want to check it out on my TNT.
Might be faster, you never know!  Money for upgrades is not really the
issue here.  If I decide I want to go buy a P2 Xeon 1024K and on
Obsidian X-24 whatever tomorrow I can, it is largely an issue of
principles.

Clark A.

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:57:20 -0400, "Rick Baumhauer"


>Frankly, I'm stunned that this has continued as long as it has.  What is
>stopping all of you whiners from buying a Voodoo2 board (they're getting
>cheaper by the day)?  I realize that the TNT is a hot chip, and you'd love
>to run GPL with it, but it's not happening for the foreseeable future - GET
>OVER IT!

Clark Arch

GPL AND TNT...

by Clark Arch » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I was not trying to put down Q2, it has survived the GPL install and
still resides on my machine, unlike several other "sims" and "games".

Clark A.




>>Quake2 definitely seems to be doing more graphics than GPL, but GPL is
>>actually simulating race car physics 288Hz.  What else does Quake2
>>really have to do besides draw graphics?

>OK, if we must pursue the Q2 line... I think Q2 does a lot more. Q2 is
>a VR simulator in it's own right- it has it's own gravity, friction,
>medium densities, acoustic properties, and certainly very
>sophisticated (and very processor expensive) AI. Their AI is probably

Trip

GPL AND TNT...

by Trip » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


> yes, they are cheap- a lot cheaper than the board I have. I considered
> it yesterday- for about an hour in CompUSA. In the end, I didn't buy-
> because to use it I'd have to remove my already superior board. unless
> one of you hackers out there knows how to get Win95 to handle two
> boards...

The Voodoo2 is designed to work alongside your existing video card. No
hacking needed, that's how it is supposed to work, and it does.

Trips

papa..

GPL AND TNT...

by papa.. » Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Sounds like a hell of a machine....too bad my K6-2 64mb Voodoo2 is
faster...so sad. <VBG>

Buy a Voodoo2 and then you will have all the bases covered. 135.00
dollars to run GPL like I do....at 1024x768 25+ field of 18+

PAPA DOC

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Pink Flamingo Pilot...

http://www.racesimcentral.net/~plegrand/PINKFLAMINGO.htm

papa..

GPL AND TNT...

by papa.. » Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:00:00

There it is....buy the hardware for the software. Simple stuff. Yea
that TNT is sure fast....great specs.....awesome card....doesnt run
GPL...ooops.

Voodoo 2's are selling for the cost of 3 games...

PAPA DOC

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Pink Flamingo Pilot...

http://home.earthlink.net/~plegrand/PINKFLAMINGO.htm

Maps

GPL AND TNT...

by Maps » Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:00:00




>>I have a PII266, 128mb, 9gig hd, and an 8mb V2. This is not a top of the line
>>system by any means but it is still above average. Not to mention that the GPL
>>box gives my system as the RECOMMENDED system which SHOULD be the system to
>>play this game on in which to get the most out of it. This is the only time I
>>will point the finger at papy and say "BAD PAPY, BAD PAPY, NOW GO TO YOUR
>>CORNER AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE!' The box is VERY deceiving/misleading
>>and that is just plain WRONG.

>This post is very deceiving - is that just plain wrong?

The box is decieving. It says minimum requirements are (from the box
in my hand) Win95, 166MHz Pentium, 32meg Ram, "Windows95/98 compatible
video card with 2 MB memory", and a 2x CD-ROM drive.

It should have been forthright about the video card- without a Papyrus
compatible video card, this program is totally useless on the system
described above. I don't see how anybody can argue otherwise; it is
very simple: nobody can race at 4.5 FPS, or 8 if you live-it-up in the
blockiest 320x200 I've ever seen since Indy500 The Simulation.

Come on, Papy- let's have OpenGl or D3D support so this sort of thread
doesn't have to roll on for a year... it ain't helping sell product.

I've got your system (well, 300MHz),  but I don't have that particular
graphics card (Mine is a 128-bit STB). And I get 9 FPS with 5 AI cars.
And, of course, none of the schmancy graphics processing my very
powerful card was made to do- so it is 9FPS without any smoothing or
lighting effects, etc.

I am glad so many are pleased with the performance of GPL on their
systems... but I am not sure why many appear to be arguing that Papy's
minimum requirements are in any way realistic, or even that Papy did
well not to put out a D3D or OpenGL version. First off, OpenGL or D3D
support wouldn't hurt your performance; it would have nothing to do
with it. Secondly, Papy is basically leaning on people to buy
proprietary hardware- that isn't good. I mean, with all the people who
hate Microsoft because they take away people's decision on what to
buy... well, what is this? Buy a Renditon card? 3 years ago, when
graphics cards were still extreme game-enthusiast toys, maybe that was
OK to stick with some proprietary standard, hoping it "would win." But
today, computers come standard with 3D cards, and well designed
software needs to write for standard graphics libraries/APIs. It is an
astonishing oversight on Papy's part.

Maps

GPL AND TNT...

by Maps » Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:00:00

>On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:57:20 -0400, "Rick Baumhauer"

>>Frankly, I'm stunned that this has continued as long as it has.  What is
>>stopping all of you whiners from buying a Voodoo2 board (they're getting
>>cheaper by the day)?

yes, they are cheap- a lot cheaper than the board I have. I considered
it yesterday- for about an hour in CompUSA. In the end, I didn't buy-
because to use it I'd have to remove my already superior board. unless
one of you hackers out there knows how to get Win95 to handle two
boards...

I don't know about TNT, but Papy will eventually have to write an
OpenGL or a D3D patch at some point (unless this program is not
destined to last over a year). And threads like this hopefully help
motivate them to do it sooner than later.

Maps

GPL AND TNT...

by Maps » Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:00:00



>>1) D3D is a bear to program, and would have cost Papyrus more
>>development money.

>Well, our programmer didn't have much trouble.

Why is D3D "a bear" to program? it is a hell of a lot easier than
writing non-accelerated graphics routines- and we know Papy can do
that. We without Rendition or 3Dfx chips are living with them.

the future for 3D graphics simply is not the 3Dfx API.

D3D is just fine now, although personally I prefer OpenGL.


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.