rec.autos.simulators

It was interesting to note that in software mode, GP3 throws around more
polys, bigger backdrops, lusher looking details and more lighting effects
than GP2, and all with a 10-20% processor occupancy savings.  Nice bit of
code optimisation... but in the end useless.  It's too bad someone didn't
step in and help Crammond with some critical evaluation of his coding design
at an earlier stage.  It's a brilliant software-only 3D engine, in a market
that is two years beyond needing a software engine.

A shame, really.  I spent the weekend going back and forth between software
and hardware modes to decide what to stick with.  My PIII-500 notebook, with
its admittedly average Savage chipset (which nevertheless can throw GPL
around at 1024x768 at 36 fps), struggles to get 21fps at 800x600 in hardware
mode.  At 640x480, software mode is actually faster than hardware.  Grrrr.
I really want to like it.  The overall "look" of GP3 is great, I think.  But
little nagging graphical errors are constantly popping up.  First corner
"slow mo" is much more noticeable than first corner frame dropping in GPL.
And yet it drives so nicely... you can really lean on the car and make it
work, which is something that, for me, is completely lacking from the smooth
running but ultimately uninteresting MGPRS2.  I've had no chance to try
F1-2000, as there is no demo, but I imagine my 8Mb Savage chip would ***
on it as well.

Hopefully Hasbro's cash-infusion into the Chipping Sodbury (or whatever)
offices means that there are some decent 3D programmers on the team, and we
can say goodbye forever to DOS-era relics like bitmap wheels and unfiltered
textures.

Stephen

<snip>

Actually, the wheels are not bitmap. They may appear to be since the
team decided to use an interesting technique which in fact works rather
well, especially from the***pit.

The usual way to present a wheel is to put a texture on it and rotate
the whole thing. This is how most sims do it, and the blockiness of the
tyre due to low poly count is immediately apparent. In GP3, however, the
wheel polygon model does not rotate, only the texture on it is being
rotated. In my opinion, this works really well.

The wheel is definitely not a bitmap, though, as can be seen from the
correct perspective when the wheel is close.

-Gregor

I understand the idea of texture mapped poly wheels (although I'm not sure
rotating the poly depending on the viewing angle, figuring out which rotated
texture is appropriate and slapping it on is any less intensive than
rotating the polygon that it is already texture mapped, but my understanding
of the graphics side of things is limited).  I was thinking of the wheels on
the other cars, when viewed from an external cam or from your own car.  So
the multiple "jam" files related to the wheels are just the textures at
discrete rotations?  Now that I think about it, I can see this... you would
only need a limited number of textures to account for viewing the wheel from
any angle.  Multiply those base textures by two or three to accomplish the
illusion of the wheel also rotating about its hub.

Still, every so often the wheels on the GP3 and GP2 cars go silly for a bit,
then pop back into alignment, so that made me think it was something
strange.

Stephen

I totally agree. The 3D-hardware implementation is lacking. The
DOS-baggage is getting old. It's really surprising they didn't
accomplish more in a four-year development cycle.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment