Ugly 16 bit mode vs. Pretty 32 bit mode

I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you give for why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad coloration due to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. Thanks all for your input. Mud

I wouldn't know the difference...for instance...N4 can be played in 16 bit or 32bit mode..what those mean for your definition is over my head. Also most games that allow 32bit are overloading many users systems and they don't run 32bit because of the loss of framerate... About the only game I can think of that demands 32bit displays is the Novalogic wargame, Delta Force 2. (although that does have a 2d 16bit fallback) dave henrie "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in > 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit > mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture > bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you givefor > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad colorationdue

Quoted text (9 lines)

> to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any > other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > > Thanks all for your input. > > Mud > > >

color banding in clouds or fog are usually the biggest problem. homeworld, quake3arena are 2 which immediately come to mind where i noticed, probably cfs2 but haven't looked, jf18 definitely needed 32bit color as the clouds are very banded. haven't had enough time lately ;) -- Bard http://www.1vvfsc.org - vancouver flight sim club http://www.eq-clan.com - EQ counterstrike clan http://www.1vvfsc.org/sb - Steel Beasts RW base Andrew Dayton <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in > 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit > mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture > bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you give for > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad coloration due > to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any > other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > > Thanks all for your input. > > Mud > > >

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:23:46 GMT, "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in >16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit >mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture >bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > >For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you give for >why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad coloration due >to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any >other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > >Thanks all for your input. > >Mud >

16 bit is fine, I don't find much of a difference. Definately not enough to warrant the fps drop. -------------- Devo

100% agree w/ Mr Whip It. Charlie Devo <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 16 bit is fine, I don't find much of a difference. Definately not > enough to warrant the fps drop. > > > > -------------- > Devo >

I also agree. The 16bit vs 32bit argument was simply a way for 3D card makers to sell more "features" and an excuse to make fun of the Voodoo3 in the usenet 3d card flame fest. I even have a card now that does 32bit just fine but I prefer the faster 16bit setting as I still can't tell the difference. IMHO, the folks that say they can see a difference either have an expensive 20+ inch monitor or they are simply saying it to win an argument. "Charlie B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8JzY6.73$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 100% agree w/ Mr Whip It. > > Charlie > > Devo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > 16 bit is fine, I don't find much of a difference. Definately not > > enough to warrant the fps drop. > > > > > > > > -------------- > > Devo > > > >

I would like to elaborate on that... 16 bit vs 32 bit color most often has nothing to do with what your are pointing out. This is a dithering problem that can or can't be fixed in the driver settings (depending on what card you own). For example, My Radeon has the option to change the dithering type using "Radeon Tweaker" or I can leave it ugly and benefit from the speed. 32 vs 16bit has nothing to do with it although sometimes going to 32bit will fix dithering problems. But again, this is card specific and can even be driver specific or setting specific AFAIK. HM looks gorgeous in 16bit on the Radeon and I can't tell the difference either way. Now in Quake III the smoke has some banding or cheescloth effect but this can be changed via options settings. I don't play Q3 anyway as I prefer UT though LOL. "Bard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZayY6.50229$[email hidden]... > color banding in clouds or fog are usually the biggest problem. > > homeworld, quake3arena are 2 which immediately come to mind where inoticed, > probably cfs2 but haven't looked, jf18 definitely needed 32bit color asthe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> clouds are very banded. > > haven't had enough time lately ;) > > -- > Bard > http://www.1vvfsc.org - vancouver flight sim club > http://www.eq-clan.com - EQ counterstrike clan > http://www.1vvfsc.org/sb - Steel Beasts RW base

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I wouldn't know the difference... It is a connoisseur thing. The Japanese do some marvelous photography (not saying they are the best, just one casual experience of mine). The colors in their photographs are outstanding, clear and bright. But what difference that stuff makes in a video game eludes me. for instance...N4 can be played in 16 bit

Quoted text (28 lines)

>or 32bit mode..what those mean for your definition is over my head. Also >most games that allow 32bit are overloading many users systems and they >don't run 32bit because of the loss of framerate... > About the only game I can think of that demands 32bit displays is the >Novalogic wargame, Delta Force 2. (although that does have a 2d 16bit >fallback) >dave henrie >"Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... >> I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in >> 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit >> mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture >> bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. >> >> For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you give >for >> why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad coloration >due >> to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any >> other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. >> >> Thanks all for your input. >> >> Mud >> >> >> >

It's usually the most noticeable with newer games, esp shooters.. Undying, Quake 3... On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:23:46 GMT, "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in >16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit >mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture >bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > >For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you give for >why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad coloration due >to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any >other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > >Thanks all for your input. > >Mud > > >

Thanks everybody for all the answers. > 16 bit vs 32 bit color most often has nothing to do with what your are > pointing out. This is a dithering problem that can or can't be fixed inthe > driver settings (depending on what card you own). Not true. 32 bit color is not dithered. No reason to dither 32 bit color unless the internal calculations of each color component (ARGB) are more than 8 bits each. It's interesting to hear that most people see no difference and are happy with 16 bit. I agree that this is a feature that few appreciate and is more a marketing bullet than anything else right now. In the future, however, DX8 and certainly DX9 and beyond cards will require 32 bit color for the many blending passes they will use and probably higher internal precision per color component (12 or greater). Dithering may come into play for 32 bit color at this point. Mud

"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jfAY6.70842$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I also agree. The 16bit vs 32bit argument was simply a way for 3D card > makers to sell more "features" and an excuse to make fun of the Voodoo3 in > the usenet 3d card flame fest. > > I even have a card now that does 32bit just fine but I prefer the faster > 16bit setting as I still can't tell the difference. IMHO, the folks that > say they can see a difference either have an expensive 20+ inch monitor or > they are simply saying it to win an argument.

LOL. There are noticable differences between 16 and 32bit, the main one being colour space. 16bit is made up from 5bit Red, 6bit Green, and 5bit Blue. If you look at a black and white gradient in 16bit then you'll notice the extra bit in the green makes quite a difference. You'll get 64 bands and every 2nd one will only be different because of the extra green bit, like this: 00,00,00 00,04,00 08,08,08 08,12,08 16,16,16 16,20,16 etc... Dithering can hide it to a certain degree (as well as the overall banding due to lack of bandwidth) and resolution is important, if the gradient is only taking a small part of the screen then there's not enough pixel space for 32bit to make much, if any, difference anyway. Games that tend to use coloured lights and complimentary colours tend to look best in 16bit because they are using more of the bandwidth in the available colourspace. A yellow to blue gradient gives more steps than a yellow to black one. Andy

Andrew Dayton <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you givefor > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Dither can be very ugly, I hate 16bit. I hate little dots. I also hate 16bit sound. Pasha

Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jfAY6.70842$[email hidden]... > IMHO, the folks that > say they can see a difference either have an expensive 20+ inch monitor or > they are simply saying it to win an argument. Your opinion is 12bit, with heavy compression. :) Jus because your monitor is: 1. Small 2. Ugly 3. Old ...doesn't make the nature of 16bit vs 32bit change 1 iota. Pasha

HOMEWORLD "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in > 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit > mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture > bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you givefor > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad colorationdue

Quoted text (9 lines)

> to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any > other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > > Thanks all for your input. > > Mud > > >

> It's usually the most noticeable with newer games, esp shooters.. > Undying, Quake 3... Star Trek: Dominion Wars suffers from horrendous 16bit dithering.. -- -=- James Boswell [email hidden] ICQ #: 1653327

"Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in > 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit > mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture > bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you givefor > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad colorationdue > to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any > other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > > Thanks all for your input. > > Mud I get green smoke in NFS:PU if I run it in 16-bit mode on my TNTY2 Pro. Running in 32-bit mode gives smoke of a more believable colour..... Ian

"Ian Riches" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9gva4k$b8ctg$[email hidden]... > I get green smoke in NFS:PU if I run it in 16-bit mode on my TNTY2 Pro. > Running in 32-bit mode gives smoke of a more believable colour..... I know this sound bad but green smoke in NFS:PU is "Normal". That's what I read somewhere anyway so if you smoke is not green, there may or may not be a problem with your D3D rendering LOL.

"Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5bBY6.239$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Thanks everybody for all the answers. > > > 16 bit vs 32 bit color most often has nothing to do with what your are > > pointing out. This is a dithering problem that can or can't be fixed in > the > > driver settings (depending on what card you own). > > Not true. 32 bit color is not dithered. No reason to dither 32 bit color > unless the internal calculations of each color component (ARGB) are more > than 8 bits each. > > It's interesting to hear that most people see no difference and are happy > with 16 bit. I agree that this is a feature that few appreciate and is

more > a marketing bullet than anything else right now. In the future, however, > DX8 and certainly DX9 and beyond cards will require 32 bit color for the > many blending passes they will use and probably higher internal precision > per color component (12 or greater). Dithering may come into play for 32 > bit color at this point. What I was trying to say is that a lot of problems that appear to be fixed by going from 16bit to 32 bit can actually be fixed via drivers or setting options. That for me would be the prefered route so as to keep my 16bit speed. Somebody else pointed out that 32bit fixed their ugly dithering when IMHO there may have been other ways to fix it besides giving your PC a 32bit slowdown.

On the Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:42:07 GMT in article <z2HY6.73707$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5bBY6.239$[email hidden]... > > Thanks everybody for all the answers. > > > > > 16 bit vs 32 bit color most often has nothing to do with what your are > > > pointing out. This is a dithering problem that can or can't be fixed in > > the > > > driver settings (depending on what card you own). > > > > Not true. 32 bit color is not dithered. No reason to dither 32 bit color > > unless the internal calculations of each color component (ARGB) are more > > than 8 bits each. > > > > It's interesting to hear that most people see no difference and are happy > > with 16 bit. I agree that this is a feature that few appreciate and is > more > > a marketing bullet than anything else right now. In the future, however, > > DX8 and certainly DX9 and beyond cards will require 32 bit color for the > > many blending passes they will use and probably higher internal precision > > per color component (12 or greater). Dithering may come into play for 32 > > bit color at this point. > > What I was trying to say is that a lot of problems that appear to be fixed > by going from 16bit to 32 bit can actually be fixed via drivers or setting > options. That for me would be the prefered route so as to keep my 16bit > speed. > > Somebody else pointed out that 32bit fixed their ugly dithering when IMHO > there may have been other ways to fix it besides giving your PC a 32bit > slowdown.

The reason 32 bit colour is important now is because of the extra colour precision it allows in calculations. When you are combining textures, the less colour precision you have, the more likely it is that errors in calculations will be compounded. This is easily noticeable in 16bit games by colour banding. Precision at 32-bit is much better, and so less banding takes place. (Incidentally John Carmack is asking for 64-bit precision, to combat colour banding in the 32-bit colour space). If you have internal 32-bit colour precision, then 16-bit colour can look almost as good as 32-bit. For examples of this, please se the Kyro2, which always works internally at 32-bit, and then dithers down to 16-bit if thats required. Other issues such as that extra green bit leading to a green bias in images have already been touched on elsewhere, so I wont bother, suffice to say I play in 32-bit all the time, because I find the image quality preferable. -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

The main problem I have with 16-bit modes is that the driver often forces a 16-bit depth buffer as well, and as you know 16-bit z-buffers are prone to inaccuracy. W-buffering reduces the problem, but it's still not as good as a 24-bit or 32-bit depth buffer. As for how 16-bit looks, in some games, GPL for instance, it doesn't cause any problems, but in others, Quake 3 and Homeworld for instance, you get definite colour banding. Having said that Quake 3 is the only game I run in 32-bit colour/textures, because it's the only game I have that's still very smooth in 32-bit. "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in > 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit > mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture > bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you givefor > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad colorationdue

Quoted text (9 lines)

> to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any > other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > > Thanks all for your input. > > Mud > > >

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: : The main problem I have with 16-bit modes is that the driver often forces a : 16-bit depth buffer as well, and as you know 16-bit z-buffers are prone to : inaccuracy. W-buffering reduces the problem, but it's still not as good as : a 24-bit or 32-bit depth buffer. Yep. 16 bit z buffer stops WB 3 working properly, for example. 16 bit colour and 24 bit Z would be fine. I am sure there is some sort of GF2 tweak utility that might allow it, but it all gets hazy.... Aaron Turner

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Powell <[email hidden]> writes: Stephen> If you have internal 32-bit colour precision, then 16-bit Stephen> colour can look almost as good as 32-bit. For examples of Stephen> this, please se the Kyro2, which always works internally at Stephen> 32-bit, and then dithers down to 16-bit if thats required. The Kyro2 is a different beast. I saw benchmarks where there wasn't much difference between running in 16-bit and 32-bit mode. Anybody have recommendations for using a Radeon in Tribes2? I'll go back to the speed of 16-bit if it looks nearly as good as 32-bit. (Yeah, I could test it myself, but I may be missing something.) -- Michael Bain

On the 22 Jun 2001 09:48:20 -0700 in article <[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Powell <[email hidden]> writes: > > Stephen> If you have internal 32-bit colour precision, then 16-bit > Stephen> colour can look almost as good as 32-bit. For examples of > Stephen> this, please se the Kyro2, which always works internally at > Stephen> 32-bit, and then dithers down to 16-bit if thats required. > > The Kyro2 is a different beast. I saw benchmarks where there wasn't > much difference between running in 16-bit and 32-bit mode.

Thats what I mean. Colour precision wise, to get 32-bit precision most cards need to be in 32-bit colour mode. The Kyro2 is *always* uses 32- bit precision, hence no speed gain when going to 16-bit, and quite a small ammount of image degredation (compared to other cards). -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

Undying looks good in 16bit but looks gorgeous in 32bit. The lighting effects appear way more "natural", and with my geforce 2 mx there was not too much of a performance hit in 32 bit. I haven't played any other game that looks so much better in 32bit vs 16 bit. Haven't noticed any difference in UT which is strange because it uses the same engine as Undying... "Andrew Dayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6xY6.1788$[email hidden]... > I'm looking for a list of games that people think are plain ugly if run in > 16 bit mode and as a result run in 32 bit mode. Now, let me define 16 bit > mode and 32 bit mode. I'm interested in color bits per pixel and texture > bits per pixel, not depth bits per pixel. > > For games that you find ugly in 16 bit mode; what reason would you givefor > why it is ugly? Dithering artifacts? Texture Banding? Bad colorationdue

Quoted text (9 lines)

> to multiple translucent polygons being blended on top of each other? Any > other reasons? Again, not interested in depth testing artifacts. > > Thanks all for your input. > > Mud > > >

"Torlie Omegelterstern" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VwHY6.187899$[email hidden]... > > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jfAY6.70842$[email hidden]... > > > IMHO, the folks that > > say they can see a difference either have an expensive 20+ inch monitoror

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > they are simply saying it to win an argument. > > > Your opinion is 12bit, with heavy compression. > > :) > > Jus because your monitor is: 1. Small 2. Ugly 3. Old ...doesn't make the > nature of 16bit vs 32bit change 1 iota.

What goes from my monitor to my eye is the only thing that matters. What is on other peoples desktop doesn't concern me. BTW, I just purchased a 17" Xflat KDS today so don't be making fun of my Honda just because you own a Porsche!

well, i've noticed those problems from switching ONLY 16 bit and 32 bit colors, no other fiddling. -- Bard http://www.1vvfsc.org - vancouver flight sim club http://www.eq-clan.com - EQ counterstrike clan http://www.1vvfsc.org/sb - Steel Beasts RW base Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1mAY6.70902$[email hidden]... > I would like to elaborate on that... > > 16 bit vs 32 bit color most often has nothing to do with what your are > pointing out. This is a dithering problem that can or can't be fixed in the > driver settings (depending on what card you own). For example, My Radeon > has the option to change the dithering type using "Radeon Tweaker" or I can > leave it ugly and benefit from the speed. 32 vs 16bit has nothing to do > with it although sometimes going to 32bit will fix dithering problems. But > again, this is card specific and can even be driver specific or setting > specific AFAIK. > > HM looks gorgeous in 16bit on the Radeon and I can't tell the difference > either way. Now in Quake III the smoke has some banding or cheescloth > effect but this can be changed via options settings. I don't play Q3 anyway > as I prefer UT though LOL. > > "Bard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ZayY6.50229$[email hidden]... > > color banding in clouds or fog are usually the biggest problem. > > > > homeworld, quake3arena are 2 which immediately come to mind where i > noticed, > > probably cfs2 but haven't looked, jf18 definitely needed 32bit color as > the > > clouds are very banded. > > > > haven't had enough time lately ;) > > > > -- > > Bard > > http://www.1vvfsc.org - vancouver flight sim club > > http://www.eq-clan.com - EQ counterstrike clan > > http://www.1vvfsc.org/sb - Steel Beasts RW base > > >

: The main problem I have with 16-bit modes is that the driver often forces a : 16-bit depth buffer as well, and as you know 16-bit z-buffers are prone to : inaccuracy. W-buffering reduces the problem, but it's still not as good as : a 24-bit or 32-bit depth buffer. Actually, what _is_ the W-buffer? What I'd like would be an ability to use 24 bit Z buffer on my GF 2 MX with 16 bit colour. On the WB 3 beta at 1024x768 with refresh set to 85 Hz (maximum my old SGI monitor will do) I get 37 fps average with 16 bit colour, 16 bit Z, and 27 fps for 32 bit colour, 24 bit Z, with just a single f6f at 10,000 feet (some cloud haze). It can be higher with less action, lower with more, and ideally I'd like to keep it more towards the 37fps level. But if I go down to a 16 bit Z buffer then there are all sorts of artifacts on coastlines in WB3. I can't seem to force the GF 2 into 16 bit colour, 24 bit Z, or find another way around the coastline jaggies. Any hints? My system is: win 2k, celeron 600 o/c 900, 256 Mb RAM, soundblaster live value, elsa gf 2 mx (32mb sdr RAM), GTU set to fast options (but with 24 bit Z allowed). Thanks Aaron Turner

Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VQNY6.76088$[email hidden]... > What goes from my monitor to my eye is the only thing that matters. Whatis > on other peoples desktop doesn't concern me. BTW, I just purchased a 17" > Xflat KDS today so don't be making fun of my Honda just because you own a > Porsche! I am watching the internet channel on a Yugo, I just imagine it can look better. Pasha

"Torlie Omegelterstern" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JPZY6.190089$[email hidden]... > > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VQNY6.76088$[email hidden]... > > > What goes from my monitor to my eye is the only thing that matters.What > is > > on other peoples desktop doesn't concern me. BTW, I just purchased a17" > > Xflat KDS today so don't be making fun of my Honda just because you owna > > Porsche! > > > I am watching the internet channel on a Yugo, I just imagine it can look > better. My condolences Pasha. I just noticed some strange lines on my screen this moring. It looks like a giant fingerprint and only shows up on a dark screen. I may have to trade this one in but damn I love this flat screen. Decisions decisions.

> Actually, what _is_ the W-buffer? Z is a normalized depth value between 0.0 and 1.0. It is non-linear and has problems the closer you get to 1.0 when you have lots of depth range. W is a non-normalized depth value that is the objects actual distance from your viewpoint. It is linear and does not have some of the problems that Z has. > I can't seem to force the GF 2 > into 16 bit colour, 24 bit Z, or find another way around the coastline > jaggies. Any hints? I don't believe any of Nvidia's cars support mixed rendering modes (16 bit color/32 bit depth or 32 bit color/16 bit depth). Mud

> > I get green smoke in NFS:PU if I run it in 16-bit mode on my TNTY2 Pro. > > Running in 32-bit mode gives smoke of a more believable colour..... > > I know this sound bad but green smoke in NFS:PU is "Normal". That's whatI > read somewhere anyway so if you smoke is not green, there may or may notbe > a problem with your D3D rendering LOL. Trust me, the green smoke is NOT correct. I don't want to get into all of the details, but it has to do with the fact that in 16 bit color, green has 1 more bit of color (6) than red or blue (5). Again, thanks for everybody's input. Mud

On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:29:36 GMT in article <kgcZ6.1858$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it) > > I can't seem to force the GF 2 > > into 16 bit colour, 24 bit Z, or find another way around the coastline > > jaggies. Any hints? > > I don't believe any of Nvidia's cars support mixed rendering modes (16 bit > color/32 bit depth or 32 bit color/16 bit depth). You can definately force the Geforce cards to use a 16-bit Z-buffer in 32-bit colour. You cant apparently do it the opposite way around. -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

Quoted text (8 lines)

> What I was trying to say is that a lot of problems that appear to be fixed > by going from 16bit to 32 bit can actually be fixed via drivers or setting > options. That for me would be the prefered route so as to keep my 16bit > speed. > > Somebody else pointed out that 32bit fixed their ugly dithering when IMHO > there may have been other ways to fix it besides giving your PC a 32bit > slowdown.

Understand. Don't ever tell me computers are fast enough until we can run everything at 32 bit color/depth at 60fps. :) Mud

Quoted text (17 lines)

> The reason 32 bit colour is important now is because of the extra colour > precision it allows in calculations. When you are combining textures, > the less colour precision you have, the more likely it is that errors in > calculations will be compounded. This is easily noticeable in 16bit > games by colour banding. Precision at 32-bit is much better, and so less > banding takes place. (Incidentally John Carmack is asking for 64-bit > precision, to combat colour banding in the 32-bit colour space). > > If you have internal 32-bit colour precision, then 16-bit colour can look > almost as good as 32-bit. For examples of this, please se the Kyro2, > which always works internally at 32-bit, and then dithers down to 16-bit > if thats required. > > Other issues such as that extra green bit leading to a green bias in > images have already been touched on elsewhere, so I wont bother, suffice > to say I play in 32-bit all the time, because I find the image quality > preferable.

Oh good, there are 32 bit fans out there!! Mud

On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:38:30 GMT in article <GocZ6.2426$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > If you have internal 32-bit colour precision, then 16-bit colour can look > > almost as good as 32-bit. For examples of this, please se the Kyro2, > > which always works internally at 32-bit, and then dithers down to 16-bit > > if thats required. > > > > Other issues such as that extra green bit leading to a green bias in > > images have already been touched on elsewhere, so I wont bother, suffice > > to say I play in 32-bit all the time, because I find the image quality > > preferable. > > Oh good, there are 32 bit fans out there!!

Yep, though personally I was amazed there are still 16-bit fans out there :) -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:34:45 GMT in article <9lcZ6.2419$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > > I get green smoke in NFS:PU if I run it in 16-bit mode on my TNTY2 Pro. > > > Running in 32-bit mode gives smoke of a more believable colour..... > > > > I know this sound bad but green smoke in NFS:PU is "Normal". That's what > I > > read somewhere anyway so if you smoke is not green, there may or may not > be > > a problem with your D3D rendering LOL. > > Trust me, the green smoke is NOT correct. I don't want to get into all of > the details, but it has to do with the fact that in 16 bit color, green has > 1 more bit of color (6) than red or blue (5).

You can add that the human eye is more sensitive to changes in green too, hence why people can really notice that extra bit :) -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

Not so much 16bit fans as realists...not too many systems can run 32bit games without choking...As more users get fasters systems, you'll probably see a gradual shift to all things 32bit. dave henrie "Stephen Powell" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Oh good, there are 32 bit fans out there!! > > Yep, though personally I was amazed there are still 16-bit fans out there > :) > -- > SteveP

On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:14:05 GMT in article <1WcZ6.237037$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Stephen Powell" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Oh good, there are 32 > bit fans out there!! > > > > Yep, though personally I was amazed there are still 16-bit fans out there > > :) > > Not so much 16bit fans as realists...not too many systems can run 32bit > games without choking...As more users get fasters systems, you'll probably > see a gradual shift to all things 32bit. > dave henrie

Personally I wouldnt call it that realistic on modern systems. As I said, I do *all* my gaming in 32 bit, because I can pretty much always notice the image quality difference, and on an Athlon@877 paired with a Geforce2MX, I find the performance hit preferable to the image quality degradation. YMMV of course. As for the gradual change, I'd have thought we were definately on the side of 32bit now. Especially with cards like the Kyro2 and Rage128 up to Radeon that take only a marginal hit going from 16->32bit, and with developers like John Carmack pushing for 64bit precision. -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:14:05 GMT in article (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> bit fans out there!! > > Yep, though personally I was amazed there are still 16-bit fans out there > > :) > Not so much 16bit fans as realists...not too many systems can run 32bit > games without ***...As more users get fasters systems, you'll probably > see a gradual shift to all things 32bit. > dave henrie

Personally I wouldnt call it that realistic on modern systems. As I said, I do *all* my *** in 32 bit, because I can pretty much always Geforce2MX, I find the performance hit preferable to the image quality degradation. YMMV of course. As for the gradual change, I'd have thought we were definately on the side of 32bit now. Especially with cards like the Kyro2 and Rage128 up to Radeon that take only a marginal hit going from 16->32bit, and with developers like John Carmack pushing for 64bit precision. -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

Dvorak(pcmag.com) has an interesting piece about Broadband and how it 'should' have been more popular by now...I think the same logic applies to 32 bit...sure it can be done, but as long as the masses move through AOL and off the shelf computer systems, the bulk of programming will be pointed at that end of the market. Even after the scale starts tilting toward increased broadband use or inclusion of 32bit color, it will still take some time to overcome the installed base of dial ups or slower systems using 16bit vs 32bit. While you may be more than ready to move up to 32bit, until the largest groups of non-computer-savy buy their way into faster systems, you won't see the big shift. dave henrie "Stephen Powell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:14:05 GMT in article > <1WcZ6.237037$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that > [email hidden] spewed forth this... > (I of course, believe none of it) > > "Stephen Powell" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Oh good, there are32 > > bit fans out there!! > > > > > > Yep, though personally I was amazed there are still 16-bit fans outthere > > > :) > > > > Not so much 16bit fans as realists...not too many systems can run32bit > > games without choking...As more users get fasters systems, you'llprobably

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > see a gradual shift to all things 32bit. > > dave henrie > > Personally I wouldnt call it that realistic on modern systems. As I > said, I do *all* my gaming in 32 bit, because I can pretty much always > notice the image quality difference, and on an Athlon@877 paired with a > Geforce2MX, I find the performance hit preferable to the image quality > degradation. YMMV of course. > > As for the gradual change, I'd have thought we were definately on the > side of 32bit now. Especially with cards like the Kyro2 and Rage128 up > to Radeon that take only a marginal hit going from 16->32bit, and with > developers like John Carmack pushing for 64bit precision. > > -- > SteveP > > http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

I run N4 , F1RC and MBTR in 32 bit with my radeon 64DDR, there is virtually no performance hit on an Athlon 750 @ 825 -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers> "Stephen Powell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:14:05 GMT in article > <1WcZ6.237037$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that > [email hidden] spewed forth this... > (I of course, believe none of it) > > "Stephen Powell" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Oh good, there are 32 > > bit fans out there!! > > > > > > Yep, though personally I was amazed there are still 16-bit fans out there > > > :) > > > > Not so much 16bit fans as realists...not too many systems can run 32bit > > games without choking...As more users get fasters systems, you'll probably > > see a gradual shift to all things 32bit. > > dave henrie > > Personally I wouldnt call it that realistic on modern systems. As I > said, I do *all* my gaming in 32 bit, because I can pretty much always > notice the image quality difference, and on an Athlon@877 paired with a > Geforce2MX, I find the performance hit preferable to the image quality > degradation. YMMV of course. > > As for the gradual change, I'd have thought we were definately on the > side of 32bit now. Especially with cards like the Kyro2 and Rage128 up > to Radeon that take only a marginal hit going from 16->32bit, and with > developers like John Carmack pushing for 64bit precision. > > -- > SteveP > > http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

On the Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:38:56 GMT in article <khdZ6.237120$[email hidden]>, it was rumoured that [email hidden] spewed forth this... (I of course, believe none of it)

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Dvorak(pcmag.com) has an interesting piece about Broadband and how it > 'should' have been more popular by now...I think the same logic applies to > 32 bit...sure it can be done, but as long as the masses move through AOL and > off the shelf computer systems, the bulk of programming will be pointed at > that end of the market. Even after the scale starts tilting toward > increased broadband use or inclusion of 32bit color, it will still take some > time to overcome the installed base of dial ups or slower systems using > 16bit vs 32bit. While you may be more than ready to move up to 32bit, until > the largest groups of non-computer-savy buy their way into faster systems, > you won't see the big shift. > dave henrie

Thats a good point, you always need to cater to the lowest common denominator, and while developers to that, theres less reason to upgrade. But I'd still say 32bit has been the more popular choice for quite some time, certainly not enough to dissalow the use of 16bit modes, but definately enough to make it worth using 32bit. -- SteveP http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim Andrew Dayton <[email hidden]> wrote: : I don't believe any of Nvidia's cars support mixed rendering modes (16 bit : color/32 bit depth or 32 bit color/16 bit depth). For one it only has 16 or 24 bit Z buffer depths! You can do 32 bit colour, 16 bit Z, though, but 32 bit colour makes for quite a hit on frame rates, but 24 bit or more Z is required for WB3 coastlines. Aaron Turner

the first TNT card ran 32 bit at 600x800 in Unreal/H-L on a 300Mhz PentiumMXX i was enjoying it... At those 'dark times' we already talked shitloads of 'shifting from 16 to32' ... Haha -- F r e e / <-I like this

I have a question about 16, and 32bit color. When I play Counter-Strike in 16bit, all the detail looks great, and things look good. but if I switch over to 32bit, all the walls and textures look smeared, and the text for the scores is not as sharp. I don't get a noticeable performance hit in 32bit mode, so is this a setting that I have wrong in my graphics card properties? My system specs. are as follows: Asus K7V bios 1008 Athlon Classic 950mhz not OCed Guillemot 3dprophet DDR/DVI Aureal Vortex 2500 256MB Crucial CL2 Western Digital 20gig invaderXL 7200rpm ATA100 Win98 I am using all the latest drivers for everything. I have tried the det.3 drivers and have had problems, so I reverted back to the vendors latest. I pull a 5600max in 3DMARK2000 and this is a good score from what I can see. any info would be great. thanks guys!!! Ryan

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:13:28 -0600, "nobody" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>I have a question about 16, and 32bit color. When I play Counter-Strike in >16bit, all the detail looks great, and things look good. but if I switch >over to 32bit, all the walls and textures look smeared, and the text for the >scores is not as sharp. I don't get a noticeable performance hit in 32bit >mode, so is this a setting that I have wrong in my graphics card properties? >My system specs. are as follows: > >Asus K7V bios 1008 >Athlon Classic 950mhz not OCed >Guillemot 3dprophet DDR/DVI >Aureal Vortex 2500 >256MB Crucial CL2 >Western Digital 20gig invaderXL 7200rpm ATA100 >Win98 > >I am using all the latest drivers for everything. I have tried the det.3 >drivers and have had problems, so I reverted back to the vendors latest. I >pull a 5600max in 3DMARK2000 and this is a good score from what I can see. >any info would be great. thanks guys!!! > >Ryan >

Counterstrike doesn't have support for 32 bit color as it used Half Life engine. 16 bit is all you are going to get. It's a very dated engine nowdays. -------------- Devo

Deus Ex. Horrible dithered when ran in 16 bit, but looked much better in 32. I had to run it in 32 bit even though it was a slight frame rate hit... Kevin

Devo wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:13:28 -0600, "nobody" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > Counterstrike doesn't have support for 32 bit color as it used Half > Life engine. 16 bit is all you are going to get. It's a very dated > engine nowdays. > > > -------------- > Devo >

It most definately does have 32-bit color support. There is a whole slew of advanced options in Half-Life that most people never see. Whether or not the textures are 32-bit is an entirely different question . . . -- Voltage Spike ,,, (. .) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--