rec.autos.simulators

by **Adam** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I just finished building my own computer, with both a Thriller 3D-AGP-8mb
and a 12mb Voodoo2. The reason I went with the Thriller as my 2d card was
because I had heard a couple of people say that the graphics on the
Rendition card were much more crisp and colorful. Let me say this, they are
wrong.
The graphics are definately better on the Voodoo2, not my alot, but enough
to notice the difference.
*You can see better down the track with the Voodoo2
*FPS seem a little faster with the Voodoo2
*Maybe its just me, but in the Rendition version the grass textures seem to
*flicker* a little bit.....kind of annoying.
*The objects in the Rendition version seems to have "Pixelly" edges,
Voodoo2 version seems to have smoother, less-jaggier edges.

I really, really can't see how anyone could say the image-quality in the
Rendition version is better, or that there are crisper graphics with the
Rendition. The two versions aren't too far apart, but the edge definately
goes to the Voodoo2. Too bad too, I could have got a TNT-16mb card for the
same price as this 8mb Thriller.

(btw, system is a Celeron 300a, 128 mb ram, Abit BH6)

by **David Mocn** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I totaly disagree. I have a PII 300 + Thiller 3D (and Voodoo1) and a friend
has a PII 400 + Voodoo2. We both have to play in 800x600 to get best framerate
(around 30-36fps). I have antialising swithed on (Thriller) but we both have
everything on. Visually Thriller looks a lot better because of the antialising
(how can the edges look less pixely on Voodoo if the are not anti-aliased
while the Thriller's edges are antialiased). Because of anti-alising I can see
much further down the road (Thriller) because the edges are blended to form a
line inset of segmentated pixels (Vooodoo - no anti-alising). Color wise they
both look good. Personally, I prefer Thiller picture 'cos it has more contrast
while Voodoo looks washed out. Last of all, with all the cars on the road I
still get about 22fps (with everything on) while my fiend (Voodoo) can only
get about 19 on the same track. If I switch anti-aliasing off I gain extra
fps.
I have no idea how you came up with the conclusion that Voodoo2 performs
better than the Thilled3D? ... are you sure you don't have the cards mixed up?
.. all the posts in tis newsgoup are contrary to what you're saying. I'd say
you got something mixed up or there is something odd with your system... no
way the edges can look smoother on the voodoo2, and I doubt you will get a
better framerate with it either (that is unless you're running in 1024x768 or
have a P2 400+ PC).... though one thing we have P2 chips and you have a
Celeron (thought it is "A").. but I don't see how that could make a difference
here.
By the way, I got a 50% framerate increase in my system when I installed the
Thiller, that is over Voodoo 1. Vodoo 2 did make things better but by no more
than 20%.... though, no antialising.

Best regards,
David Mocnay

by **n..** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

>because I had heard a couple of people say that the graphics on the
>Rendition card were much more crisp and colorful. Let me say this, they are
>wrong.

Go get your eyes tested. You definitely need glasses or a decent
monitor!

I think you have your images confused. The Voodoo is the one with the
jaggies!

by **Ron Ayto** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Hi Adam, you should know by now that you can't put down the rendition
card on this news group.
FWIW i agree with your views totally, i also prefer the image quality
and the crispness of the Voodoo II over the rendition, and "YES" i do
have both cards in my computer!!
The rendition does give a, "grainy" view compared to the Voodoo II.
By the way, this is only MY opinion, i am not trying to say what looks
good on other peoples computers, but i do know what looks best on mine!
This argument has been going on for a while, but what people don't
realise is that their view is not necessarily everyones view.
All i know, is that on my computer and on my monitor the Voodoo II is
the better of the two, image wise. I have found that the Rendition
card gives a slightly better frame rate though. That's because i am
only using a P166...
Cheers,
Ron

by **Jani Polamer** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

>I just finished building my own computer, with both a Thriller 3D-AGP-8mb
>and a 12mb Voodoo2. The reason I went with the Thriller as my 2d card was
>because I had heard a couple of people say that the graphics on the
>Rendition card were much more crisp and colorful. Let me say this, they
are
>wrong.
>The graphics are definately better on the Voodoo2, not my alot, but enough
>to notice the difference.
>*You can see better down the track with the Voodoo2
>*FPS seem a little faster with the Voodoo2
>*Maybe its just me, but in the Rendition version the grass textures seem to
>*flicker* a little bit.....kind of annoying.
>*The objects in the Rendition version seems to have "Pixelly" edges,
>Voodoo2 version seems to have smoother, less-jaggier edges.

>I really, really can't see how anyone could say the image-quality in the
>Rendition version is better, or that there are crisper graphics with the
>Rendition. The two versions aren't too far apart, but the edge definately
>goes to the Voodoo2. Too bad too, I could have got a TNT-16mb card for the
>same price as this 8mb Thriller.

>(btw, system is a Celeron 300a, 128 mb ram, Abit BH6)

I have same hardware that you have, exept BX6 mobo and 64 mb,
and my observations are identical to yours. I returned my
Thriller 3D-AGP-8mb.

Jani Polameri

by **Adam** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Thanks. Good to see others that agree with me. I have tried both versions
a number of times to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me, and I still
have the same opinion. FWIW, I have the gamma on the Voodoo2 card locked at
.9 on all 3 bars....in order to eliminate the +ACI-washed out+ACI- effect.
Hard to
believe that others are trying to compare the 4mb Voodoo-ONE card to the 8mb
Thriller, when I was talking about a 12 mb Voodoo-TWO.

>I have same hardware that you have, exept BX6 mobo and 64 mb,
>and my observations are identical to yours. I returned my
>Thriller 3D-AGP-8mb.

>Jani Polameri

by **dafn** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I'd like to throw something else into the mix. By using a
8meg Triller as a base card when I use the Voodoo2 version I get about
a 10-15 % fps increase from when I used the 4 meg Stealth2.

by **Sal V** » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Hey Guys,

Not to get off the subject, but I would like to know if those of you with
the Thriller cards are running ICR2 (CART) & Nascar2? Will I be able to run
these 2 games with the Thriller in MS-Dos mode? Right now I have an
Intense-3D and a Creative Voodoo-II (12 megs) but I'm looking to fill my AGP
slot with a new card for 2D. I have to say I feel that all of the Papy sims
look better with the Rendition.

Thanks,

Sal V.

> I'd like to throw something else into the mix. By using a
>8meg Triller as a base card when I use the Voodoo2 version I get about
>a 10-15 % fps increase from when I used the 4 meg Stealth2.

by **Knuds** » Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:00:00

> I totaly disagree. I have a PII 300 + Thiller 3D (and Voodoo1) and a friend
> has a PII 400 + Voodoo2. We both have to play in 800x600 to get best framerate
> (around 30-36fps). I have antialising swithed on (Thriller) but we both have
> everything on. Visually Thriller looks a lot better because of the antialising
> (how can the edges look less pixely on Voodoo if the are not anti-aliased
> while the Thriller's edges are antialiased). Because of anti-alising I can see
> much further down the road (Thriller) because the edges are blended to form a
> line inset of segmentated pixels (Vooodoo - no anti-alising). Color wise they
> both look good. Personally, I prefer Thiller picture 'cos it has more contrast
> while Voodoo looks washed out. Last of all, with all the cars on the road I
> still get about 22fps (with everything on) while my fiend (Voodoo) can only
> get about 19 on the same track. If I switch anti-aliasing off I gain extra
> fps.
> I have no idea how you came up with the conclusion that Voodoo2 performs
> better than the Thilled3D? ... are you sure you don't have the cards mixed up?
> .. all the posts in tis newsgoup are contrary to what you're saying. I'd say
> you got something mixed up or there is something odd with your system... no
> way the edges can look smoother on the voodoo2, and I doubt you will get a
> better framerate with it either (that is unless you're running in 1024x768 or
> have a P2 400+ PC).... though one thing we have P2 chips and you have a
> Celeron (thought it is "A").. but I don't see how that could make a difference
> here.
> By the way, I got a 50% framerate increase in my system when I installed the
> Thiller, that is over Voodoo 1. Vodoo 2 did make things better but by no more
> than 20%.... though, no antialising.

Let me get this right ...
You have a Voodoo with anti-aliasing?

:)

Knudse.

If in doubt ... overtake.

.

by **SteveBla** » Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Enough. Here's a blurb pasted directly from Diamond's website, on the Monster
3DII's features:
----------------------------------------
Advanced 3D Features
Multiple textures per pixel allow for realistic and colorful images
Single pass trilinear filtering for smoother, more defined visuals
Bump mapping through texture compositing for "simulated" phong shading
**Edge anti-aliasing for increased elimination of "jaggies"**
-----------------------------------------
So if you believe they DON'T do it, sue someone for false advertising. When
you install GPL for a Voodoo II, it's true that you don't get the choice
available in the menu. However, if you look in the player.ini file, in the
effects stanza where the graphics setings are saved, the anti-aliasing switch
is set to 1, or "on". Perhaps you just don't have the option of DISabling it
with the Voodoo.

Steve B.

by **Troy A. Fortma** » Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I just replaced my Intense 3D with a $7.95 after $30.00 rebate Stealth II
with the 2100 Rendition Chip. The Thriller uses the marginally faster
2200 chip and more RAM for higher resolutions.

I did all the suggested tricks to get ICR2 to run under straight DOS.
Unfortunately, good ole ICR2/CART just doesn't work well with the 2X00
chip. At your normal focal point, the horizon is very blurred and jagged.
It is very distracting and kills the great Rendition view.

NASCAR 2 runs fine in DOS on top of Windows 95. I tried it under straight
DOS but it doesn't load. There is a patch that tricks the executable into
thinking it is running on a 1000 chip. However, I haven't messed with
that.

It is a mixed blessing situation. The 2X00 chip has improved 2D and 3D
performance over the 1000 chip. It is a question of whether you are
willing to sacrifice ICR2 for better GPL and N2 performance.

As a diehard ICR2 fan, I am not convinced I am ready to lose enhanced
Mid-Ohio, Indy, and Elkhart Lake for better framerate at Martinsville. It
is a crime that N2 was never patched for Anti-Aliasing. IMHO, the
enhanced Rendition ICR2 graphics are still top-notch. Yes, the physics
are dated but the view! Maybe, I need to get GPL and look forward to CART
1999 or CART 2000. :-)

rec.autos.simulators

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2

GPL: Rendition vs. Voodoo2