rec.autos.simulators

> Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoy
GP3
> and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words
> there : ). Now on to my argument...

> After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using
> 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for
special
> effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a
> software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for
> bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the game
is
> limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engine
to
> generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its
> results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count
depending
> on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The
> main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in
higher
> resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480
or
> 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy.

> It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total
> Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and
> other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was
> written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on
> the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded
a
> lot of the polygon processing from the CPU)

> Discuss amongst yourselves,

> Michael M

> But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3
than f1.
> So 3d or not, why care?

> regards

> > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do
enjoy
> GP3
> > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of
words
> > there : ). Now on to my argument...

> > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is
not using
> > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for
> special
> > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is
entirely a
> > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators,
is for
> > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why
the game
> is
> > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software
engine
> to
> > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to
output its
> > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count
> depending
> > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is
used? The
> > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in
> higher
> > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at
640x480
> or
> > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy.

> > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and
Total
> > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced
lighting and
> > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3
was
> > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D
cards on
> > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98
offloaded
> a
> > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU)

> > Discuss amongst yourselves,

> > Michael M

> Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of
> date.  Are there really people out there who still argue that fantastic
> graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer
> entertainment release)?  I'd be pissed if I had a Playstation and the
> graphics looked that bad on a TV screen.  Eye candy does not make a sim
> or game, but it does complete your immersion within it.

> Oh yeah, being able to drive a simulated car with a wheel helps too! ::)

> > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3
> than f1.
> > So 3d or not, why care?

> > regards

> > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do
> enjoy
> > GP3
> > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of
> words
> > > there : ). Now on to my argument...

> > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is
> not using
> > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for
> > special
> > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is
> entirely a
> > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators,
> is for
> > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why
> the game
> > is
> > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software
> engine
> > to
> > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to
> output its
> > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count
> > depending
> > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is
> used? The
> > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in
> > higher
> > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at
> 640x480
> > or
> > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy.

> > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and
> Total
> > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced
> lighting and
> > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3
> was
> > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D
> cards on
> > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98
> offloaded
> > a
> > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU)

> > > Discuss amongst yourselves,

> > > Michael M

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

> 4 years out of date? Why don't you go and put GP 2 back on your
system and
> do a side by side comparison... I've just tried it, and there is a
HUGE
> difference.

> Of course that may just mean that the GP 2 engine was out of date,
but I
> don't recall too many people saying that at the time...

> G

> > Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of
> > date.  Are there really people out there who still argue that
fantastic
> > graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer
> > entertainment release)?  I'd be pissed if I had a Playstation and
the
> > graphics looked that bad on a TV screen.  Eye candy does not make a
sim
> > or game, but it does complete your immersion within it.

> > Oh yeah, being able to drive a simulated car with a wheel helps
too! ::)

> > > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3
> > than f1.
> > > So 3d or not, why care?

> > > regards

> > > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I
do
> > enjoy
> > > GP3
> > > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful
choice of
> > words
> > > > there : ). Now on to my argument...

> > > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is
> > not using
> > > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards
for
> > > special
> > > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is
> > entirely a
> > > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D
accelerators,
> > is for
> > > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why
> > the game
> > > is
> > > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the
software
> > engine
> > > to
> > > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to
> > output its
> > > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon
count
> > > depending
> > > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is
> > used? The
> > > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for
running in
> > > higher
> > > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it
at
> > 640x480
> > > or
> > > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy.

> > > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and
> > Total
> > > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced
> > lighting and
> > > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if
GP3
> > was
> > > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D
> > cards on
> > > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98
> > offloaded
> > > a
> > > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU)

> > > > Discuss amongst yourselves,

> > > > Michael M

> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.

> > GP3 runs at 1024 X 768 with all graphics on at 42fps and
> > totally blows F1 2000's graphics away.

> Ian, how do you get the graphics running above 25fps?

> - Michael

> : Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of
> : date.  Are there really people out there who still argue that
fantastic
> : graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer
> : entertainment release)?

>   Indeed - and plenty of them.  I don't give a stuff what it looks
like
> if it drives well and there's enough markers to pick a braking point.
> Other than that graphics are well down there with "free key ring" on
my
> list of requirements in a race sim.

> --
> Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
>     Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
>       Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
>      UPDATED WWW: http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoy
GP3
> and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words
> there : ). Now on to my argument...

> After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using
> 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for
special
> effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a
> software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for
> bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the game
is
> limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engine
to
> generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its
> results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count
depending
> on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The
> main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in
higher
> resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480
or
> 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy.

> It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total
> Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and
> other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was
> written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on
> the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded
a
> lot of the polygon processing from the CPU)

> Discuss amongst yourselves,

> Michael M

> GP3 is using your 3d card to draw all the triangles, just like any other
> game.  Maybe you don't know much about 3d accelerator cards, but before
> nVidia introduced the first GPU (Geometry-Processing-Unit) on the GeForce
> 256, all 3d cards ever did was draw 2d screen triangles, which is exactly
> what the 3d card is used for in GP3.
> A card like a Voodoo 3 for instance, can do nothing but draw 2d triangles
> straight onto the screen.  The game engine has always been responsible for
> transforming the triangles into screen-space, so when you say that GP3 is
> only using D3D to display the results, well, that's how all games work.
> As a programmer using D3D you have the option of writing your own
> transformation code, or letting D3D do it itself, but both methods are
done
> entirely using your CPU, unless your card has a hardware transformation
chip
> on it, which of course, GP3 doesn't support anyway.
> The graphical problems you see in GP3, like bad clipping, polygon
> positioning errors, lack of perspective-correction on some textures, and
> texture warping are all entirely fixable.  They are hang-overs from the
> software engine, which is obviously optimized for maximum speed, but these
> things haven't been corrected in the D3D code.  Clearly GP3 should have
been
> disigned more with 3d cards in mind.
> Simon.

> > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoy
> GP3
> > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of
words
> > there : ). Now on to my argument...

> > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not
using
> > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for
> special
> > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely
a
> > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is
for
> > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the
game
> is
> > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software
engine
> to
> > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output
its
> > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count
> depending
> > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The
> > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in
> higher
> > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at
640x480
> or
> > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy.

> > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total
> > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and
> > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was
> > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards
on
> > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98
offloaded
> a
> > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU)

> > Discuss amongst yourselves,

> > Michael M