rec.autos.simulators

That may be enough for a racing game, but racing games need way fewer
triangles than some other types of game.  Say you wanted to render a
realistic looking outdoor environment.  You would need more than 10X this
number.  Have you seen the game 'Project IGI' (aka I'm Going In)?  In IGI
you can see literally for miles and miles in the outdoor terrains.  The cost
of this is that the landscape are barren, no grass, no bushes, and very few
trees.  There's probably 50 trees per level, and they are done with 2
triangles each.  To do a realistic looking tree is probably 200 triangles at
least.  So if you want a forest of a thousand trees (which would be a pretty
small forest btw), then you've already gone beyond what a GF2 can handle.

Then say you wanted to cover the ground with grass, even with only 1
triangle per blade of grass, that would take millions of triangles.  Then
say you wanted your land to look like real land, and not like it was made of
giant triangles, so you want your landscape 4 or 8 times as detailed as
IGI's.

No current graphics card would get anywhere near handling this.  On an
X-box, this would probably run at about 2 fps :)  Faster graphics cards
might not be needed for racing games but they are needed.

(btw a card without hardware vertex processing can't get anywhere near 10
MTris/sec)

There's a long way to go. Shadows that are projected on the polygons
themselves, realtime surrounding reflection mapping...

done.
There is even a method of always rendering your surroundings as a
skybox texture, then as the player moves through the environment, you
re-render those textures. Think about it for a while, it's not that
trivial to visualize. :)

Aren't we already at 1 Gigapixels/second for some time, and 27M poly's
doesn't seem like *that* much nowadays. It's just that the system
buses are getting a bit crowded. Let's hope they'll crossbar the PC's
architecture soon (or *something* to get the subsystems to talk to
each other faster).

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Car simulation: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

AND THE PS2 FLICKERS!!!!! OH MY EYES!!!!!

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

 I never thought I would consider it
but after seeing those pictures and reading the specs
looks like I should be shopping for one
instead of a DVD player

What's your advise guys?

I bought the PS2 a month ago, and I own a Dreamcast as well. GT3 is the game I
am most anticipating. I expect it will be awesome overall, yet flawed in some
respects, as is true with all games and sims. It is certain not to please a few
PC loyalist, no matter how good the game maybe. If you cannot stand TV
resolutions, or just don't like consoles, then you will dislike this game and
nitpick about its shortcomings no matter what.
 Most of the games I have rented or bought for the PS2 are not any better than
the average dreamcast games , and a few are actually inferior in both gameplay
and graphics, to my surprise given that the PS2 is supposedly more than 10x as
fast as a Dreamcast in theory. However, Madden 2001 is the one game I have seen
that shows off the superiority and potential of the PS2.
The motion capture variation is far beyond the PC version of the game, and runs
ultra smooth, and is very realistic, easily the best I have ever seen on PC or
console, ever. The PC version is higher rez of course, but beyond that, it
pales by comparison. As was the case with the original playstation, I expect
that we will see the most   amazing games on the PS2 at the end of its
lifespan. Afterall, no one could have predicted that the lowly 32MHZ
300Kpolygon per sec PS1 would be able to produce something as excellent as Gran
Tourismo, based upon the early games that appeared on that system 5 years ago.
I think competition with PC and XBOX hardware will push developers to create
some games 2 or 3 years from now that currently many people would say the PS2
hardware is incapable of displaying.

Same here.  I bought the PSX strictly for Grab Turismo (and later, GT2).  
Rationally it doesn't stand up to buy a $150 system for one title, but in the
end, I'm more than satisfied with the choice.  Ditto for the DC.  That one was
primarily for F355 Ferrari Challenge, but also picked up SegaGT and Metropolis
Street Racer.  I'm afraid that even at $80 for that system, I'm finding it
harder to get my $'s worth.  F355 is a terrific driving game.  I have a lot
less nice to say about the others.

What I'm getting at is that it comes down to the application you want it for.
To me, iIt makes no sense to buy something for $300 (let alone waiting in line
in the freezing cold and/or paying 2x list) if there is *nothing* you will do
with it once you have it!  I'm amused by all the reports (on-line and in
overheard conversations at stores) from owners who are complaining that they
either have been disappointed or have not even found anything they want to
play on it.  If there is a "killer app" for it THAT IS AVAILABLE, then go for
it.  GT3 *may* be it for the PS2 for me.  But (a) it isn't out and (b) aside
from improved graphics (no small aside) it doesn't look to be any better than
the first GT.  I'll wait. And given the XBOX, waiting seems to be a good idea
(though I'll wait on that one too!).

Don't go by specs, promises or hype.  Go by what you see, what you want it
for, and from reviewers you trust.