rec.autos.simulators

by **The Drive** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 05:49:03

Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe
Lemans.........

I have Lemans on my DC and it`s great....any better...

by **Jim Seamu** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 06:32:35

I'd say not, GT3 is enjoyable and nice to look at but at the end of the day
it's the same game as GT and GT2. If you've ever played either of these
extensively then you won't find very much new stuff in GT3.

A friend of mine bought a PS2 and GT3 last weekend and we spent all of
Saturday and Sunday playing it, but the 350 was probably better spent on a
couple of PC games and 300 change...

by **Galley_SimRace** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 02:39:12

> Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe
> Lemans.........

> I have Lemans on my DC and it`s great....any better...

IMHO, Yes, it's worth it. Have you read the preview of LeMans for the
PS2? It has many improvements. http://ps2.ign.com/previews/16029.html
Also, be on the lookout for Lotus Challenge
http://ps2.ign.com/previews/15101.html

--
Stuff You Gotta Have
software for BeOS and PalmOS
http://www.stuffyougottahave.com/

by **Olly Greenfiel** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 18:18:34

I don't think that any 1 or 2 games is really worth spending $350 for ( GPL
included ) , but there are many more games on the PS2 that make it well
worth the money, not to mention all the great games that will be coming out
in the future. I think that the well is going to run a bit dry for PC games
over the next few years, with the advent of the power of XBOX and PS2 and
Gamecube. I intend to continue upgrading my PC over the years in order to
play those few special games that will no doubt run better on the latest PC
hardware, but I think the law of diminishing returns is beginning to apply
to hardware horsepower and video***. The Dreamcast does 3 million polys
per second versus 66 million for PS2 and 150 million for XBOX and 20 million
or so for the latest PC hardware, and yet there are becoming fewer and fewer
differences between what you see on these systems despite orders of
magnitude of differences in computing power. Consequently, I doubt that a 4
GHZ PC with a Geforce 5 will exhibit as much difference in games playable
versus an XBOX as say a 300 MHZ P2 with a VooDoo2 versus a Sega Genesis. My
point is that a PS2 and the XBOX will almost certainly have alot of
excellent games over the life of the systems, games which will never be
available on a PC in many cases,making them well worth the purchase, in
addition to owning a good PC.

by **Simon Brow** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:31:15

Take all these triangle counts with a *huge* grain of salt. The X-Box will
never get anywhere near 150 million tris/sec in a real game. The PS2 will
never get anywhere near 66 million tris/sec in a real game. Also the DC can
do more than 3 million tris/sec.

The T&L unit on the X-Box video hardware is pretty much the same as a GF3
which can do about 25 million tris/sec. I don't see where they're going to
get 6x times the performance from.

Anyway, I totally agree with your point that there are enough good games on
the PS2 to make it worth buying :)

by **Simon Brow** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 22:01:25

For comparison purposes, from www.nvidia.com ->

GF3 = 800 billion ops/sec
XBOX = 1000 billion ops/sec

That sounds like 25% faster to me, rather than 600%. I've nothing against
Microsoft personally, but I suspect the 150 million tris/sec figure to be
marketting BS.

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 22:18:21

I am wondering about the GF3. If we look at Nivdia's history, we should
expect a GF3+ model. And frankly, from what I've seen so far, the GF3 comes
to a crawl when all the DX8 and programming features are enabled.
So is the GF3 like the TnT? The origianl TnT was able to run 32 bit
software, but was the card CAPABLE of running that level of color fast?
The TnT2 had TnL but was it Capable of taking advantage of that feature?
Really should we expect the GF3 to be just a moderately powerful video
system? When and if the next version of the GF3 comes out, it most likely
will match up with the Xbox specs. But will that mean the GF3 buyers are
already buying an outdated card? And finally, was the GF3 DELIBERATELY
underclocked to not show up the upcomming Xbox? I have the questions, who
has the answers?
dave henrie

> Take all these triangle counts with a *huge* grain of salt. The X-Box
will
> never get anywhere near 150 million tris/sec in a real game. The PS2 will
> never get anywhere near 66 million tris/sec in a real game. Also the DC
can
> do more than 3 million tris/sec.

> The T&L unit on the X-Box video hardware is pretty much the same as a GF3
> which can do about 25 million tris/sec. I don't see where they're going
to
> get 6x times the performance from.

> Anyway, I totally agree with your point that there are enough good games
on
> the PS2 to make it worth buying :)

> > I don't think that any 1 or 2 games is really worth spending $350 for (
> GPL
> > included ) , but there are many more games on the PS2 that make it well
> > worth the money, not to mention all the great games that will be coming
> out
> > in the future. I think that the well is going to run a bit dry for PC
> games
> > over the next few years, with the advent of the power of XBOX and PS2
and
> > Gamecube. I intend to continue upgrading my PC over the years in order
to
> > play those few special games that will no doubt run better on the latest
> PC
> > hardware, but I think the law of diminishing returns is beginning to
apply
> > to hardware horsepower and video***. The Dreamcast does 3 million
polys
> > per second versus 66 million for PS2 and 150 million for XBOX and 20
> million
> > or so for the latest PC hardware, and yet there are becoming fewer and
> fewer
> > differences between what you see on these systems despite orders of
> > magnitude of differences in computing power. Consequently, I doubt that
a
> 4
> > GHZ PC with a Geforce 5 will exhibit as much difference in games
playable
> > versus an XBOX as say a 300 MHZ P2 with a VooDoo2 versus a Sega
Genesis.
> My
> > point is that a PS2 and the XBOX will almost certainly have alot of
> > excellent games over the life of the systems, games which will never be
> > available on a PC in many cases,making them well worth the purchase, in
> > addition to owning a good PC.

by **Gunnar Horrigm** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:24:43

> I am wondering about the GF3. If we look at Nivdia's history, we should
> expect a GF3+ model. And frankly, from what I've seen so far, the GF3 comes
> to a crawl when all the DX8 and programming features are enabled.
> So is the GF3 like the TnT? The origianl TnT was able to run 32 bit
> software, but was the card CAPABLE of running that level of color fast?
> The TnT2 had TnL but was it Capable of taking advantage of that feature?
> Really should we expect the GF3 to be just a moderately powerful video
> system? When and if the next version of the GF3 comes out, it most likely
> will match up with the Xbox specs. But will that mean the GF3 buyers are
> already buying an outdated card? And finally, was the GF3 DELIBERATELY
> underclocked to not show up the upcomming Xbox? I have the questions, who
> has the answers?

I don't understand where your rant is going. how about:

is the GF3 the fastest (consumer) card?
are we going to see a faster card anytime soon?
aren't we always?

--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
gitaren er en sjingke

by **Simon Brow** » Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:31:58

It all depends on your perspective. If you were about to buy a video card
and had 300 (uk) to spend, then the GF3 is still the best card to get. The
GF3 and GF2 Ultra are the same price, and the GF3 has faster 32-bit
performance, environmental bump mapping, faster FSAA and pixel shading.
Maybe those four things don't add up to much in reality, but you'd still
rather have them than not have them if there was no price difference.

If you didn't have 300, or were looking for the best value for money, then
clearly the GF2 Pro at 160 gives you way more power / pound (or dollar).

As for pixel shaders specifically, the Doom 3 movie was running pretty well
on a GF3.

On Nvidia under-clocking the GF3, I'm not one for *** theories in
general, but it is a little suspicious that the card hardly over-clocks at
all. Maybe Nvidia don't want us to know how fast it can go?

by **Joe6** » Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:18:20

>Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe
>Lemans.........

Hard to say ... it is the most ***ive driving game (arcade or sim)
I've played in a long time. But it's a lot of money for one game.

I'd put it like this ... GT3 is part of the second-year PS2 games.
There are a few more coming this year that should be at a similar
level of quality (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 2) and a bunch more
that are generally better than the launch titles. So as a game console
the PS2 is definitely maturing and worth owning now. Plus you can rent
the games at your video store, which is nice.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **The Drive** » Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:22:29

OK some interesting points tobe read here, Thanks again all !

by **Dave Henri** » Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:52:27

:

sorry for being dense...try this..
are the features that are included with the GeeWhiz 3 overpowering the card?
i.e. will I have to buy the Gee Whiz 3.5mx6500 to play a game next year with
all the currently available DX8 programable features enabled? a-la all the
original tnt purchasers who found that while thier card could indeed display
32bit color...no game ran faster than a slide show using it.
dave henrie

by **Gunnar Horrigm** » Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:17:49

> :
> > is the GF3 the fastest (consumer) card?
> > are we going to see a faster card anytime soon?
> > aren't we always?

> sorry for being dense...try this..
> are the features that are included with the GeeWhiz 3 overpowering the card?
> i.e. will I have to buy the Gee Whiz 3.5mx6500 to play a game next year with
> all the currently available DX8 programable features enabled?

of course you will. hasn't it always been like that?

--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST

by **Simon Brow** » Wed, 08 Aug 2001 23:52:52

You've always got the option of turning those features off in the game, and
then the GF3 is still gonna run all your games faster than a GF2. Anyway,
Giants and the Doom 3 movie were both running fine with those advanced
features.

by **jalo** » Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:18:55

I would say definatly not. GT3 is a cool game, but it gets really old,
really quick.
Lemans on the PS2 is not going to be that much different from the version
your using.

rec.autos.simulators

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3

OT..GT3