PS 2 vs PC

Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, perhaps?) Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for the PC? I know Sony want to protect the PS brand through exclusive titles - but I'd have thought there would be enough interest in, say, EA developing a driving game with a similar approach. (Not withstanding any legal patents etc.) I mean - I know SCGT and NFS-Porsche come close in concept, but wouldn't a development of NFS Porsche, but extended to more in marques and more in depth tuning be a more compelling development than Motor City on line? Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game - but am I the only one who wished you could have bought something other than a Porsche in NFS-Porsche? The irritating thing is that I don't think it would be especially difficult to do. Still - GPL didn't port to the Playstation, so maybe the PC wins out. Steve

In article <a29bmn$8qe$[email hidden]>, "Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. > >As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a >P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. > >Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that >could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if >the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC >technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, >perhaps?)

not really compareable. but here's some figures. its a 300Mz processor, 150Mz graphics chip that can do 66mill polygons, a DVD rom, and they costs $300. a lot of new videocards or CPUs alone cost more then that ;) >Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for >the PC? I know Sony want to protect the PS brand through >exclusive titles - but I'd have thought there would be enough >interest in, say, EA developing a driving game with a similar approach. >(Not withstanding any legal patents etc.) sega brought out a GT style game a while ago. but these sorts of games don't do well on the PC. think PC owners expect a bit more from their games and if they wanted to play GT3, they'd have got a PS2 :)

"Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> writes: > Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. > > As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a > P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. not so amazing in RL. it looks pretty, sure, but it _really_ suffers from lack of anisotropic filtering. it probably has the worst texture shimmering I've ever seen. still great fun. :) > Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that > could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if > the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC > technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, > perhaps?) much lower than that. remember, PS2s run a crappy resolution with no FSAA at only 25 or 30 FPS. I should mention, thought, that 640x480 certainly looks a lot better on a telly than on a computer monitor. > Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for > the PC? I think part of the reason is the huge licensing effort for all these cars. OTOH, SCGT is a bit along the same lines, and that one didn't sell very well, did it? btw; isn't Sega GT ported to PC? and there are conflicting roumors on GT3.5 for the PC. > Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game nah. none that would stand up in court, anyway. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "a poster is a human being or the software equivalent"

"Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c48377f$0$28592$[email hidden]... > In article <a29bmn$8qe$[email hidden]>, "Steve - CD"<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. > > > >As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a > >P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. > > > >Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that > >could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if > >the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC > >technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, > >perhaps?) > > not really compareable. but here's some figures. its a 300Mz processor, > 150Mz graphics chip that can do 66mill polygons, a DVD rom, and they costs > $300. a lot of new videocards or CPUs alone cost more then that ;) > > >Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for > >the PC? I know Sony want to protect the PS brand through > >exclusive titles - but I'd have thought there would be enough > >interest in, say, EA developing a driving game with a similar approach. > >(Not withstanding any legal patents etc.) > > sega brought out a GT style game a while ago. but these sorts of games

don't > do well on the PC. > > think PC owners expect a bit more from their games and if they wanted toplay > GT3, they'd have got a PS2 :) So its all eye -candy in GT3 is it? (Never used a PS console in my life) Steve

> much lower than that. remember, PS2s run a crappy resolution > with no FSAA at only 25 or 30 FPS. I should mention, thought, that > 640x480 certainly looks a lot better on a telly than on a computer > monitor. A TV does flatter moving images somewhat.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for > > the PC? > > I think part of the reason is the huge licensing effort for all these > cars. OTOH, SCGT is a bit along the same lines, and that one didn't > sell very well, did it? > > btw; isn't Sega GT ported to PC?

Yup, but it's reportedly worse than the DC version which I can admit to owning. It's a great RPG, but physics are not like this world. > and there are conflicting roumors on GT3.5 for the PC. he he he. > > Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game > > nah. none that would stand up in court, anyway. :) :-) Andy -- PC-Based Multimedia System http://www.andylaurence.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pcbmms NB: Spamtrap - my name @yahoo.co.uk

Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>"Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> writes: > >> Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. >> >> As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a >> P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. > >not so amazing in RL. it looks pretty, sure, but it _really_ suffers >from lack of anisotropic filtering. > >it probably has the worst texture shimmering I've ever seen. >

Shimmering goes away if you use an S-vid cable.

Quoted text (30 lines)

>still great fun. :) > > >> Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that >> could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if >> the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC >> technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, >> perhaps?) > >much lower than that. remember, PS2s run a crappy resolution >with no FSAA at only 25 or 30 FPS. I should mention, thought, that >640x480 certainly looks a lot better on a telly than on a computer >monitor. > > >> Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for >> the PC? > >I think part of the reason is the huge licensing effort for all these >cars. OTOH, SCGT is a bit along the same lines, and that one didn't >sell very well, did it? > >btw; isn't Sega GT ported to PC? > >and there are conflicting roumors on GT3.5 for the PC. > > >> Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game > >nah. none that would stand up in court, anyway. :)

-------------------- Sinjin www.SinjinSolves.com Your Guide to Success

[email hidden] (Sinjin) writes: > Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >it probably has the worst texture shimmering I've ever seen. > > Shimmering goes away if you use an S-vid cable. completely? serious? I don't think that makes much technological sense... :) are we talking about the same thing? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "a poster is a human being or the software equivalent"

"Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a29dod$jb5$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > So its all eye -candy in GT3 is it? > > (Never used a PS console in my life) > > Steve >

GT3 is allot more than just eye-candy the physics are 2nd only to GPL/N4 imo. People criticise the physics because the cars can't flip or be damaged but that is due to problems with the manufactures. The driving physics are very nice especially the rally mode.

The detail in GT3 is amazing, but don't forget it can only display maximum of 6 cars on the track at any given time... :-) On the PC I would imagine a GeForce 3 and 2Ghz proc for hardware and lets say 1024 size textures for the cars, perhaps even larger.. GT3 has the visuals almost perfect, come with some GPL physics and you have a sim that rulez all ;-) WSC where are you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :- p On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:39:04 -0000, "Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (34 lines)

>Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. > >As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a >P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. > >Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that >could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if >the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC >technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, >perhaps?) > >Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for >the PC? I know Sony want to protect the PS brand through >exclusive titles - but I'd have thought there would be enough >interest in, say, EA developing a driving game with a similar approach. >(Not withstanding any legal patents etc.) > >I mean - I know SCGT and NFS-Porsche come close in concept, >but wouldn't a development of NFS Porsche, but extended to more >in marques and more in depth tuning be a more compelling development >than Motor City on line? > >Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game - but am I the only one >who wished you could have bought something other than a Porsche >in NFS-Porsche? > >The irritating thing is that I don't think it would be especially difficult >to do. > >Still - GPL didn't port to the Playstation, so maybe the PC wins out. > >Steve > >

"GBB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a29lq2$47r$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a29dod$jb5$[email hidden]... > > > > > > So its all eye -candy in GT3 is it? > > > > (Never used a PS console in my life) > > > > Steve > > > > GT3 is allot more than just eye-candy the physics are 2nd only to GPL/N4 > imo. People criticise the physics because the cars can't flip or be

damaged > but that is due to problems with the manufactures. The driving physics are > very nice especially the rally mode. > There's no universal opinion on this is there? I guess I won't know till I either buy a PS2 or find a decent emulator. Thanks anyway Steve

(Rich#8) writes: > On the PC I would imagine a GeForce 3 and 2Ghz proc for hardware and > lets say 1024 size textures for the cars, perhaps even larger.. why would the car textures have to be bigger on a PC than a PS2? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 myk, trygg og god.

Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>[email hidden] (Sinjin) writes: >> Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > >> >it probably has the worst texture shimmering I've ever seen. >> >> Shimmering goes away if you use an S-vid cable. > >completely? serious? I don't think that makes much technological >sense... :) > >are we talking about the same thing?

the ONLY shimmer I see is the heat vapor from the track. I see no interlace shimmer or texture shimmers using s-vid. I get horrible shimmers using regular composite. -------------------- Sinjin www.SinjinSolves.com Your Guide to Success

IMO, it could be done with an average spec'd PC with a good video card. I think the XBox will prove that. It's all about optimization. With PC games, you have to make the game for the lowest common denominator, otherwise you'll limit your sales because of slow(er) computers. Biggest advantage consoles have is that they're all the same. Developers know what it needs to run the best and get the most out of it so they can optimize their code accordingly. Consoles (minus the XBox) also use RISC processors, which are inherintly more efficient and faster (MHz for MHz). Other than that, i don't think their is any reason why a PC cannot romp all over a console in the graphic department. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com - Hi, I'm a sig virus. - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world. Steve - CD <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a29bmn$8qe$[email hidden]... > Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. > > As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a > P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. > > Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that > could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if > the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC > technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, > perhaps?) > > Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for > the PC? I know Sony want to protect the PS brand through > exclusive titles - but I'd have thought there would be enough > interest in, say, EA developing a driving game with a similar approach. > (Not withstanding any legal patents etc.) > > I mean - I know SCGT and NFS-Porsche come close in concept, > but wouldn't a development of NFS Porsche, but extended to more > in marques and more in depth tuning be a more compelling development > than Motor City on line? > > Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game - but am I the only one > who wished you could have bought something other than a Porsche > in NFS-Porsche? > > The irritating thing is that I don't think it would be especially difficult > to do. > > Still - GPL didn't port to the Playstation, so maybe the PC wins out. > > Steve > > >

[email hidden] (Sinjin) writes:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: > >[email hidden] (Sinjin) writes: > >> Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > > >> >it probably has the worst texture shimmering I've ever seen. > >> > >> Shimmering goes away if you use an S-vid cable. > > > >completely? serious? I don't think that makes much technological > >sense... :) > > > >are we talking about the same thing? > > the ONLY shimmer I see is the heat vapor from the track. I see no > interlace shimmer or texture shimmers using s-vid. I get horrible > shimmers using regular composite.

that's just weird. I'll try the s-video trick. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

I assumed that the textures in GT3 were around 1024 or so,, am I wrong,, are they 512 ? On 18 Jan 2002 18:57:05 +0100, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>(Rich#8) writes: > >> On the PC I would imagine a GeForce 3 and 2Ghz proc for hardware and >> lets say 1024 size textures for the cars, perhaps even larger.. > >why would the car textures have to be bigger on a PC than a PS2? > > >-- >Gunnar > #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 > myk, trygg og god.

ahhhhhhhhhh very true, very true.. On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:17:47 GMT, "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (57 lines)

>IMO, it could be done with an average spec'd PC with a good video card. I >think the XBox will prove that. It's all about optimization. With PC games, >you have to make the game for the lowest common denominator, otherwise >you'll limit your sales because of slow(er) computers. Biggest advantage >consoles have is that they're all the same. Developers know what it needs to >run the best and get the most out of it so they can optimize their code >accordingly. Consoles (minus the XBox) also use RISC processors, which are >inherintly more efficient and faster (MHz for MHz). Other than that, i don't >think their is any reason why a PC cannot romp all over a console in the >graphic department. >-- >- Will DeRivera >- http://www.numic.net >- http://www.luxt.com >- Hi, I'm a sig virus. >- Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world. > >Steve - CD <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:a29bmn$8qe$[email hidden]... >> Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. >> >> As someone used to GP3, GPL and NFS Porsche( allbeit on a >> P2 -350 Voodoo 3 machine) I must say GT3 _looks_ amazing. >> >> Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that >> could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if >> the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC >> technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, >> perhaps?) >> >> Also - why is it no-one has ever developed a GT3 style game for >> the PC? I know Sony want to protect the PS brand through >> exclusive titles - but I'd have thought there would be enough >> interest in, say, EA developing a driving game with a similar approach. >> (Not withstanding any legal patents etc.) >> >> I mean - I know SCGT and NFS-Porsche come close in concept, >> but wouldn't a development of NFS Porsche, but extended to more >> in marques and more in depth tuning be a more compelling development >> than Motor City on line? >> >> Perhaps Sony has a patent on that style of game - but am I the only one >> who wished you could have bought something other than a Porsche >> in NFS-Porsche? >> >> The irritating thing is that I don't think it would be especially >difficult >> to do. >> >> Still - GPL didn't port to the Playstation, so maybe the PC wins out. >> >> Steve >> >> >> > >

GBB <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a29lq2$47r$[email hidden]... > GT3 is allot more than just eye-candy the physics are 2nd only to GPL/N4 > imo. People criticise the physics because the cars can't flip or be damaged > but that is due to problems with the manufactures. The driving physics are > very nice especially the rally mode. Haven't played GT3, but I /was/ impressed with the physics in GT1/2 - at the least, when I first started making setup adjustments in GT1 they worked *exactly* as I'd expected. GT2 similarly, and the ability to play with diffs meant I could at last have 4WD cars which handled the way I wanted! ;-) I also suspect that the 'realistic' tyres in GT2 are just that - IMHO they're pretty similar to GPL's grip levels too... (I'm basing this on talking to the guys at my uni who helped to develop Vanishing Point - they said that you need about twice the 'real' friction value to stop cars feeling like they're on ice.) Jonny

> I also suspect that the 'realistic' tyres in GT2 are just that - > IMHO they're pretty similar to GPL's grip levels too... > (I'm basing this on talking to the guys at my uni who helped to > develop Vanishing Point - they said that you need about twice the > 'real' friction value to stop cars feeling like they're on ice.) Well, I'd rather play Vanishing Point than GT3 any day...

BTW Does anyone know if it's possible to connect a PS2 to a VGA monitor like you can with the Dreamcast?

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> writes: > BTW Does anyone know if it's possible to connect a PS2 to a VGA monitor like > you can with the Dreamcast? yep http://www.google.com/search?q=ps2+vga+adapter&hl=no&lr= -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm�leren v�r."

>"Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> wrote > Just been looking at some screenshots of Gt3 on the web. Graphics don't make or kill a game, it's the gameplay ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Jarno Kaarinen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >accordingly. Consoles (minus the XBox) also use RISC processors, which are > >inherintly more efficient and faster (MHz for MHz). Other than that, i don't > > Not true really. It is basically the opposite as CISC architecture is > about "making more work on each clock cycle". RISC processors are > usually simpler => they are easier to overclock to higher MHz to get > more speed. See e.g. the earlier Alpha processors.

No, Will's basically right as I understand it. A CISC processor has longer instructions, and therefore takes two clock cycles to do each one. RISC only needs one clock cycle, hence doubling the apparent MHz, although some tasks do require more instructions so perhaps it's more like x1.5. Somebody correct me if I'm totally wrong, of course! Jonny

"Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vBc28.82645$[email hidden]... > > Jarno Kaarinen <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >accordingly. Consoles (minus the XBox) also use RISC processors, whichare > > >inherintly more efficient and faster (MHz for MHz). Other than that, idon't

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > > Not true really. It is basically the opposite as CISC architecture is > > about "making more work on each clock cycle". RISC processors are > > usually simpler => they are easier to overclock to higher MHz to get > > more speed. See e.g. the earlier Alpha processors. > > No, Will's basically right as I understand it. > > A CISC processor has longer instructions, and therefore takes two > clock cycles to do each one. RISC only needs one clock cycle, hence > doubling the apparent MHz, although some tasks do require more > instructions so perhaps it's more like x1.5. > > Somebody correct me if I'm totally wrong, of course!

No totally :-) The division between CISC and RISC has been broken down over the years and many RISC processors have added smart-instructions which do 2 or 4 multiplies in one clock cycle. As you'd expect a "pure" processor design doesn't win when stacked up against a processor which has evolved to meet the real needs. See how many MMX type instructions have been added to processors over the years as we've used computers to do more games and graphics. Also not ALL instructions in a CISC take multiple cycles ! My previous employer (HP) had some amazing research internally on the use of long instruction word length processor designs. Was always good for a debate whether a VLIW processor was CISC or RISC. As we squeeze a lot of complexity onto a die then you see parts of a processor design which operate like a CISC ( ALUs for example ) and other parts like CISC ( VLIW decode and execute ) Good for starting religious wars :-) Pete

*If* the PS2 can really achieve 66 MTris/sec then it's roughly twice as fast as the very best PC. "Steve - CD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a29bmn$8qe$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Just wondering - what would be the equivalent spec of a PC that > could achieve the same performance of a PS2? (You, know, if > the PS2 was, beneath that moody case, actually built on PC > technology - what would it be likely to be? A Pent-4 1.1GHz, > perhaps?) > > Steve > >