rec.autos.simulators

by Jo » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Uh huh. So its just "presenting arguments" when you tell someone they
>are "clueless" or "ignorant" if they don't endorse 3DFX,

Nope. You're revising what happened (again). A few weeks ago there
were some *rational* arguments regarding 3dfx and other graphics chips
going on here. Your response to that was avoid argument altogether by
laebeling various people "religious". Predictably, this insult has
caused things to degenerate into firefights.

Thank goodness, I'm tired of your purely emotional, ranting posts.

Joe

by **Marc J. Nelso** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> *Can you show me a game that looks worse through Glide? ..... didn't
> think so

Uh, how about X-Car?

Cheers!

Marc

--

(please remove '*' when replying)

Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com
The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com

* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

by **Randy Magrud** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>*Can you show me a game that looks worse through Glide? ..... didn't think
>so

Okay. G-Police. Looks easily best on a Riva board.

Believe what you like. I've been talking to Andy and reading what he
wrote on the newsgroups. He's made it very clear that they made
design decisions based upon assumptions about the most common hardware
they expected to run on, including the amount of texture memory
available on the card. I know that's gonna confuse you, but I
couldn't find smaller words.

It does, but if you're going to artificially cripple it by hacking in
8-bit textures, you're not going to see the board shine in its
visuals.

Give me a break. The Riva doesn't run like ***even in your most
vivid dreams.

Yeah. We all know that drivers are always best when they are first
released, and they just get slower as time goes on.

Real mature.

Okay, fine. I won't miss your insults and your childish attitude.
Bye.
Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Trevor C Thoma** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> Not so. The Voodoo 2 has already been announced to be a premium
> priced item, expected to begin selling at about the same price the
> original 3DFX boards did. That means about $250-300 smackers, and all
> for a board which is an add-on to a current 2D board. That price
> means it'll get a religious and small market for awhile, just as the
> 3DFX did. At whatever point the price of the thing dips below $200
> the general public will start taking an interest and its marketshare
> will increase rapidly. How quickly Voodoo2 captures the world is
> going to be directly related to entry-price.

Hi Randy, you make some good points but IMO you miss some also, just
because the VooDoo 2 is going to be higher priced when first introduced
it still doesnt make much sense to buy something lower priced but
evidently inferior in the opinion of most sim publishers, assuming that
one can only afford one video card. I think this may be why demos
generally feature 3Dfx only.

I have nothing personally against most video cards, I just want the one
which will most likely win out in the end, I dont mind paying extra to
get performance, the possibility of combining 2 cards for SLI is also
another strong point in V2s favor AFAIC.

Right now I'm also considering replacing my STB LS 128 with a Velocity
128, that way I get great 2D plus direct 3D perf, when run in tandem
with 2 V2 cards, I should have the best overall video perf. In my case
price is not an issue, performance is :).

Trev

by **Byron Forbe** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> Hi Randy,
> I dont mean to change the subject but, the very point you bring up here has
> always made me wonder about CPR. Seems like alot of folks with 3Dfx have
> had very bad experiences with it. Then you have F1rs which I run on a STB
> Velocity and it runs ok but I sure dont feel like its anything special. In
> fact the graphics have always been cartoonish to me. Which is why yesterday
> when you ( I think it was you) said you might just get a Monster to see if
> F1rs is that much better, got me hoping you would and tell guys like me if
> it was ;-)
> Ok Aloha, Mike
> P.S I still have total black in the tunnel at Monaco do you on your Riva?

F1RS looks a little cartoonish with my Viper mainly due to the black
outlines around trees and distant buildings. You can see from
screenshots how much better (realer) it looks without the ugly outlines.
As far as the tunnel goes Mike, how's about turning the ole monitor
brightness up a tad! Geese!
I have read here
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/jan98/f1rs.html
that the voodoo version does give a better visual impression of reality
since the colouring is not as exaggerated as in the D3D version. I think
these issues are the result of F1RS being done primarily and originally
for voodoo. The exact opposite being true for CPR and thus the voodoo
woes with it.

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Right now I'm also considering replacing my STB LS 128 with a Velocity
>128, that way I get great 2D plus direct 3D perf, when run in tandem
>with 2 V2 cards, I should have the best overall video perf. In my case
>price is not an issue, performance is :).

I think this is what Randy is missing. CGW had an article recently where
something like 15% of total gamers were ***. These same 15%
*** gamers also accounted for something like 56% of total sales.
We do make a difference. Coincidently this 15% firgure is close to the
figure Randy gave for 3dfx market share. I wonder why that is :-)

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

My humble apologies mr flightsim guru :-)

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>Because I've got a pretty hefty history with flight sims, dating back
>to the original Flight Sim on the original IBM PC, continuing through
>Gunship (on the Atari ST no less), Falcon (ST/PC), Falcon 3.0 (and its
>add-ons), F-15 Strike Eagle, F-14 Fleet Defender, the Dynamix sims,
>Janes combats sims, etc right up through FS98 and its unbelievably
>difficult helicopter model (!!) and a bunch of others that are mostly
>packed in my closet. I've spent more hours than I have admitted to my
>spouse both playing against the computer and dogfighting online (yeah
>I was one of those guys doing head-to-head Falcon 3.0 on Compuserve,
>of all places). I could write a lot more about what I've done and the
>hours I've logged or the books I've read or whatever, but the point
>is, don't assume that someone knows nothing just because they haven't
>gotten into it with you. If you want to argue about flight sims, then
>lets go off the rec.autos.simulators newsgroup and argue flight sims.
>I'm perfectly game...(although I'm not sure what it is you want to
>argue about -- simply that you claim, without any knowledge of my
>background, that you have "probably forgotten more about flightsims
>than you [I] know.") I didn't ask for a pissing contest, but it
>looks like you're trying to start one.

by **John Walla** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>There's no denying nVidia did it right by getting major OEM's to sell
>their board.

Undoubtedly, although they did have the inherent advantage that they
weren't asking PC companies to include an additional (and
"unneccesary") board like 3dFX, merely to put a different 2D board in.
That's a much easier decision to make, from logistical, marketing and
cost viewpoints.

It exists - that alone is enough to put people off the RIVA cards. The
extent of that misinformation could well have a huge impact (such as
the classic and oft trotted out Betamax VHS shindig). There's nothing
at all wrong with a RIVA board, and I too would have bought one if it
wouldn't mean I have to get rid of my Rendition board (SODA, N2 and
ICR2 gone - waaaa).

Perhaps, but that's not the point I was making. What I'm saying is
that sales cannot be used as a basis to persuade people of the
_quality_ of a product. They serve as a guideline, but they tell far
more about the marketing skill of the company than about the product.
By that reckoning Windows 95 would be the best OS in the world
_by_far_, and a fair percentage of even those who use Win95 would
argue against that.

As it should be. D3D is a great concept but thus far flawed in
implementation. Only by supporting it will it get better.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Really? Does it support RRedline and Speedy3D? NO? Ooops, there
>goes SODA, NASCAR 2, and IndyCar II for starters.

Yup, although you could just as easily have skipped the "for
starters", since I am unaware of any other games worth having that are
supported only by 3dFX. That makes the buying decision a lot easier.

Cheers!
John

PS - Is it just me, or has this whole thread got well out of control?
I was away in Germany on business for a couple of days and couldn't
believe the number of headers downloading when I got back - ouch!

by **Randy Magrud** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>I think this is what Randy is missing. CGW had an article recently where
>something like 15% of total gamers were ***. These same 15%
>*** gamers also accounted for something like 56% of total sales.
>We do make a difference. Coincidently this 15% firgure is close to the
>figure Randy gave for 3dfx market share. I wonder why that is :-)

I think you have your facts wrong. I didn't claim that 3dfx
marketshare was 15%. I don't know WHERE you got that. 3DFX has over
50% of the market last time I checked.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Randy Magrud** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>It exists - that alone is enough to put people off the RIVA cards. The
>extent of that misinformation could well have a huge impact (such as
>the classic and oft trotted out Betamax VHS shindig).

No doubt. The misinformation is being fought pretty hard. There are
sites now where you can go and compare head-to-head full-size screen
grabs of the latest games to see for yourself, but there are still a
lot of VoodooZealots (I wish I'd come up with this name, but someone
else did) who are only too happy to continue singing this old song,
and you have to wonder whether they know they are full of it or just
figure no one will challenge them on it (I.e. if you repeat a lie
often enough and for long enough, people believe it).

Well, I have a Stealth II sitting upstairs in my computer. It *was*
going to be the new board until I got the new Dell XPS 300 with the
Riva board pre-installed. On a P300 I can run NASCAR 2 with
everything on at 30 fps, even for NROS, and aside from pixellation of
up-close objects, the thing flows, moves and looks like the Rendition
version. I swear, you'd have to come up and look up close to notice
that its not 3d accelerated.

This is true to a point, but those OEM's sell several boards with
their systems, including Matrox Millenia boards, and if the Velocity
had a reputation for sucking, I would expect most people would tell
Dell to send them the Millenia and then they'd buy something else for
3D later. In any event, the sales are a measure of support. When you
grab 21% of the 3D board marketshare in a single quarter, it makes
developers sit up and take notice when they look at their potential
customer-base.

Probably true. I may get a Monster 3D anyway while I wait for the
Riva drivers to get better and faster. Right now they are having
teething pains.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Randy Magrud** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>>Really? Does it support RRedline and Speedy3D? NO? Ooops, there
>>goes SODA, NASCAR 2, and IndyCar II for starters.

>Yup, although you could just as easily have skipped the "for
>starters", since I am unaware of any other games worth having that are
>supported only by 3dFX. That makes the buying decision a lot easier.

There are more, but I'd have to dig a bit.

Yup. Outta hand. Completely :)

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Yup, although you could just as easily have skipped the "for
>starters", since I am unaware of any other games worth having that are
>supported only by 3dFX. That makes the buying decision a lot easier.

Games in general or just auto simulations? Any Direct3D game will
run in the 3dfx just fine. In the flightsimulator genere, there really is
no other option other than 3dfx. Today. In the future who knows?
But if you are buying a 3D card today and your intrest is flightsimulators
also, there is only one choice.

Way out. But the end result is the we will all learn from this discussion.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>>I think this is what Randy is missing. CGW had an article recently where
>>something like 15% of total gamers were ***. These same 15%
>>*** gamers also accounted for something like 56% of total sales.
>>We do make a difference. Coincidently this 15% firgure is close to the
>>figure Randy gave for 3dfx market share. I wonder why that is :-)

>I think you have your facts wrong. I didn't claim that 3dfx
>marketshare was 15%. I don't know WHERE you got that. 3DFX has over
>50% of the market last time I checked.

Correct I was wrong. It was your corkscrew description of the situation
which
had me confused. I am not that smart, and sometimes these things happen.
As luck would have it I found your post which I will include for clarity.

-----Original Message-----

Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Date: Sunday, January 18, 1998 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Another good CPR review

>Greg is a pretty diehard 3DFX evangelist. You either own one or
>you're a blooming idiot, apparently. (I wonder if Greg knows that in
>one quarter alone nVidia Riva boards jumped to 21% marketshare-still
>less than the little over the slight majority of 3DFX boards out

Now this is where it gets dicey. Little over slight majority is 56%?
There are many 3D boards out and 3dfx has 56% of the market
share? IMHO it is a huge share and your vague way of wording it
minumized as much as possible. I had to read it again to realize
what the heck you were saying :-)

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>there, but in a single quarter for the million mark to be reached is a
>pretty high level of market penetration. And yes, in D3D mode, the
>Riva 128 beats the 3DFX, and the Stealth II does as well in many
>instances. The main argument for 3DFX is that you can run Glide *and*
>D3D games and get great performance. No argument there. But its
>certainly not the only board out there, nor is it always the fastest.
>But of course all of this will be lost on Greg 3DFX Cisco, because
>he's ill-equipped to tolerate others who differ with him on their
>choice of hardware and software.

>Randy
>Randy Magruder
>Contributing Reviewer
>Digital Sportspage
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Randy Magrud** » Fri, 23 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Now this is where it gets dicey. Little over slight majority is 56%?
>There are many 3D boards out and 3dfx has 56% of the market
>share? IMHO it is a huge share and your vague way of wording it
>minumized as much as possible. I had to read it again to realize
>what the heck you were saying :-)

Sorry . The reason I used the wording I did is that I didn't know
exactly what percent of the market 3DFX had. I recalled reading it
was 50-something. Rather than state an inaccurate amount, I said
"over slight majority". A simple majority is anything over 50%, so by
saying "over slight majority" I hoped to convey accurately that the
3DFX share was over 50% but less than 60, 70 or 80%. I would not
call 56% (assuming your # is right) a "huge" share, but I would call
it the largest share. A "huge share" is Windows 95 to Macintosh :).

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com