rec.autos.simulators

3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed.
consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and
visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example.
according to http://www.racesimcentral.net/(which
is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides
FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast
to easily compete with the PS2.
developers truly take advantage of it and understand HOW to harness that
potential, the PS2 will be a lame duck while the "brute force" mentality of
PCs (but not the Xbox since it's hardware is locked) will advance beyond
what the PS2 can do.
whenever I want. I am in COMPLETE control of my *** experience; consolers
are not.

<huge snip>

Whilst all that you say about PC, Xbox and PS2 hardware may well be true
your arguments do not address the real reason why the vast majority of
people on this newsgroup prefer PC's over the PS2.

To put it simply, the PC platform is the only one that offers high quality
racing simulations together with high quality controllers. If there was a
console version of GPL or NR2002, and if there was support for online racing
and if the console could support wheels of the quality of the TSW or BRD
ones then I'm sure more of us would consider it as a serious simming
platform. As it stands the PS2 does not offer any of these. It therefore has
to play second fiddle to the PC.

It is important to remember that the software is far more important than the
hardware it runs on.

Phil
---
Racesim Central Administrator
http://www.racesimcentral.com

Nick, just want to say that everything you've said is spot on the money.  I
know some people won't listen to the FACTS when they're read to them, but
at the end of the day, some no-name usenet poster's opinion means nothing
to anyone.  For the record, I play games on my PC, I don't own a PS2 or an
XBox, nor am I going to.  I know that there are some damn good games
available for them, but I'm content with my racing sims and simple RPG
games (Dungeon Siege) on the PC, so I'll live with it now.  I didn't buy it  
for games originally, but that's what the upgrade money went on.  I do a
fair bit of programming and graphics work, and never got the chance at a
net yaroze ;o)  So while I'm a PC gamer, I never disrespect consoles,
except the XBox, because if it wasn't for it, I'd be able to play HALO on
my PC :o)

I still read Edge magazine every other month or so, to keep up with
developments in consoles, I'm still waiting for the next quantum leap games
machine though.

cheers
John

I don't know about that- with "only" 256mb of RAM under win98se, my 1.4
tbird system chugs with disc access driving through the second island.  Is
the PS2 version similarly jerky and slow? It's not the graphics (only GF2 I
admit, but well up to the job of 800x600x16) it's the memory.  The PC
version still features the same quirks that GTA original did on my PSX-
cars and pedestrians wink out of existence almost as soon as you turn you
back, only  about 6 different vehicle types ever in existence at any one
time. I'm enjoying GTA3 on my PC, but I also enjoyed GTA and GTA london on
my PSX.  I can't see the PS2 version of GTA3 being inferior to the PC
version running on 800 worth of PC.

cheers
John

No maybe of hadful of time I've seen a slight drop in frame rate but other wise
perfectly smooth

Indeed, that is all true. I have been a PC gamer for many, many years, and
still play racing sims and FPSs mostly on the PC. But nobody is looking
likely to make a real racing sim on a console, because the market there is
even more restricted than it is on the PC. By the way, the consoles do
support online *** - I have been playing Tony Hawk 3 online using my
current 56k connection for a while now.

according to http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=448 (which
is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides
FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast
to easily compete with the PS2.

The 128bit bus is inside the actual processing units, for example - there is
a 128bit bus connecting the main processing unit and one vector unit (unlike
the xbox/PC which has different bus speeds all over the place - the biggest
I think is 32bit but I might be wrong). 533 FSB connects the RAM to the
processor through the North bridge (that is a frontside bus). BUT the bus
was concerning the graphics chip/card, which in a PS2 is a dedicated
2,560bit bus, whereas in a PC is is a tiny AGP bus (or an even smaller PCI
bus - which is shared between a number of slots).

By the way, you sound like a control freak, so why not take the next step
and make your own *** machine? Somebody who wants 'COMPLETE control' of
their *** experience must get right pissed off with hard disk caching,
blue screens of death, random framerates and even sitting at a desk or table
during your mammoth '*** experiences'. You might either A) Come up with
something that blows PCs and consoles away, or B) realise just how ugly the
PC design really is. I bet at least your system would have a RISC processor
(if you know what that is, of course).

I know I probably shouldn't get involved in these kind of arguments,
because they tend to get as heated and emotional as a religious
argument.  I have nothing against you, I'm glad you are happy with your
PS2, and I agree it is good hardware.  But I don't think you are very
well informed about what the Xbox really is or what it is capable of, so
I felt compelled to comment.

Absolute nonsense.  I have a PS2 and GTA3, it is far from "perfectly
smooth".  Generally under 30fps most of the time.  The PC version is
definitely superior.

Of course - it's Eep.  Unfortunately, your arguments are not exactly
spotless either, and demonstrate you have a lack of understanding of both
the PS2 and PC's architecture.

Since when is bus speed (and internal only at that) the sole measure of
graphics power?  Yes, the PS2 has a very wide graphics bus to a _very_ small
segment of internal ram, which is one of the reasons many games for it
display washed out, blurry textures.  You may hold the systems graphics
prowess in high regard, but the fact is in most games available for the
console, I'm not seeing this wizardry translate itself onto the screen.

It's also interesting you would lament the PC's "brute force" approach, when
the PS2's graphics unit is the very definition of "brute force".  Frankly,
the PS2's graphics synthesizer is an incredibly _dumb_ chip.  No mipmapping.
No anti-aliasing.  No multitexturing (!).  Cripes, it takes two passes just
to apply bilinear filtering!  It's like an incredibly fast Voodoo1 in many
aspects, the very definition of "brute force".  Techniques that other
consoles and PC graphics cards can do in one pass require several on the PS2
as the underlying feature set of the graphics chip is so feeble, assuming
the techniques can be accomplished with multipass rendering at all (Dot3
bumpmapping anyone)?

So of course the internal bus bandwidth is fantastic, it *has* to be as the
PS2 has to resort to such "brute-force" tactics.  Nothing is free here, the
PS2 takes a different approach that will help in some cases, but be a
detriment in others.  No doubt you chose to focus on the very wide internal
bus, but that speed absolutely plummets when it has to go outside the chip
for streaming textures, which it has to do considering how small that
internal memory bank is.  Graphics prowess is dependent on many factors,
including the capabilities of the graphics chip themselves, the bandwidth
that connects the components, and even the CPU to keep the frame rate high
when you have to process AI from many enemies (and AI that is expected to be
more and more complex by a more demanding *** public).   While it's hard
to directly compare titles on both platforms, the PC versions of two
PS2-originated games (GTA3 and Starfighter), the PC versions are undoubtedly
smoother and with superior graphics, although they're limited by the PS2's
source art.

It serves no purpose to just mimic Eep's zealotry with some of your own.

<big snip>

This is the first post I've seen in this thread (I'm in
rec.autos.simulators), so maybe I've missed summat. But it seems to
me this is yet another "my system's better than your system, nah nah
nah-nah naaahh!" arguments that get no-one anywhere. I have a PC
because it's the best all-round machine - by which I mean that games
aren't all it can do - and because there is no equivalent to Grand
Prix Legends on any console. (Incidentally, are there any really good
force feedback wheels - say up to MSFF standard - available for
consoles? It's a big plus if so.)

It all boils down to this: if all you want to do is play the type of
games at which consoles excel - arcadey ones, basically - then it's
silly buying a PC costing five times as much. But if you want ot be
able to do other things, including non-gamey ones, then you'll need a
computer anyway, and if a big range of games is something you need
it'll be a PC. Simple, really.

--
England 1 Argentina 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D