Does anyone know if Papyrus has made any "announement" or statements with
regard to an GF3 "optimization patch" for N4 ...taking advantage of the GF3
new develeper-customized lighting and texture effects? Other developers are
considering GF3 Optimization Patches for their popular titles.....some will
be selling them on CD. I'd gladly pay for an N4 GF3 optimized patch (don't
need it on cd....download, via credit card purchase would be just dandy).
If I am going to drop $600 big ones for a new video card....who cares about
a few bucks for an optimized N4 version? Not me. I hope Papyrus has this
"in the works"....if not, they are missing out on some revenue.
Tom
I think it's unlikely, particularly with something like a racing sim. Pixel
shaders can do awesome special effects, but I don't think they'd add much to
N4, apart from per-pixel specular hi-lights, which you'd hardly notice
anyway. Maybe soft-shadows...can't think of much else. Not to mention that
these features the GF3 does are only supported through DirectX 8 (well, and
OpenGL 1.2), whereas N4 is DX7 code, so they'd have to update the code to
DX8 and re-optimize the engine.
How many games ever got patched to add TnL support which didn't ship with
it? Or bump-mapping? I think you'll find few developers patch existing
games for the GF3, it just doesn't pay for a game that's already shipped.
New games are a different matter entirely though.
I could be wrong though :) A GF3 will still be worth owning for N4, since
it's FSAA is far better and faster than the GF2, and it should perform
better in 32bit in general.
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5ksr6.28846$[email hidden]...
> Does anyone know if Papyrus has made any "announement" or statements with
> regard to an GF3 "optimization patch" for N4 ...taking advantage of theGF3
> new develeper-customized lighting and texture effects? Other developersare
> considering GF3 Optimization Patches for their popular titles.....somewill
> be selling them on CD. I'd gladly pay for an N4 GF3 optimized patch(don't
> need it on cd....download, via credit card purchase would be just dandy).
> If I am going to drop $600 big ones for a new video card....who caresabout
> a few bucks for an optimized N4 version? Not me. I hope Papyrus has this
> "in the works"....if not, they are missing out on some revenue.
>
> Tom
>
>
Actually, i've just had a look at the N4 demo, and it doesn't use lighting
anyway, apart from a globally set level of ambient light. The car hi-lights
are actually done with environmental mapping (not a lighting effect). This
is nothing new though, racing sims generally only use ambient light since it
simulates outdoor lighting pretty well, the only exception I can think of is
GP2/3 which uses specular lighting on the cars only.
"Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Y5zr6.1692$[email hidden]...
> I think it's unlikely, particularly with something like a racing sim.Pixel
<snip>
> better in 32bit in general.
>
I'm sure they will do a graphic patch for N4 just as soon as they get the
beta 3dfx patch for N2 finished, and the beta opengl or GPL completed, and
spiff up the D3d patch for
GPL, and what about that 3dfx patch for SODA??? Take a number and get in
line.
dave henrie
"Simon Brown" <[email hidden]
> > Does anyone know if Papyrus has made any "announement" or statementswith
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > regard to an GF3 "optimization patch" for N4 ...taking advantage of the > GF3> > > > Tom > > > > > >It "will pay"....if they sell the patch. If they don't ....that's not my
fault....but probably not enough people would buy it....not enough will buy
the GF3. That's why Nvidia made the thing so expensive on purpose. No
sense in making money, keeping stockholders happy and that sort of silly
thing.
You make a good point though Simon....the GF3 will be worth the price for
full screen FSAA (that works without a huge hit to FPS) and 32bit
color....but don't tell Dave Henrie...he's having a cow already over the
death of his beloved 3dfx.....lol.
Tom
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > You make a good point though Simon....the GF3 will be worth the price for > full screen FSAA (that works without a huge hit to FPS) and 32bit > color....but don't tell Dave Henrie...he's having a cow already over the > death of his beloved 3dfx.....lol. > > TomDave....go get the 3DMark2001 benchmark...from madonion...it was released
today. We may both be saying "N4 what?".....what racing sim....I run
FPS.....now (not Frames Per Second.....its "First Person
Shooters")........yikes!
Well, maybe, I just don't think N4 is suited to those kind of special
effects, which is the main reason I believe it won't get done. Also a lot
of people would not pay for a patch, and as you say, theres not going to be
a lot of GF3 owners in the first place. And as Dave points out Papy don't
have time for anything but bug fixes in their patches.
Hopefully NVidia can do a budget version of the card, ie GF3 MX to get the
technology (if not the speed) to lots of users and encourage developers to
support it.
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:N_Ar6.29950$[email hidden]...
> It "will pay"....if they sell the patch. If they don't ....that's not my
> fault....but probably not enough people would buy it....not enough willbuy
Quoted text (13 lines)
> the GF3. That's why Nvidia made the thing so expensive on purpose. No > sense in making money, keeping stockholders happy and that sort of silly > thing. > > You make a good point though Simon....the GF3 will be worth the price for > full screen FSAA (that works without a huge hit to FPS) and 32bit > color....but don't tell Dave Henrie...he's having a cow already over the > death of his beloved 3dfx.....lol. > > Tom > > >Simon...
The "MX" version of the GF2....for "low budget' buyers....was possible
because the GF2 was old architecture....(basically, it was a TNT 256) with
fast processing. So a slowed down version was simple to make...and reduced
costs. The GF3 is a whole new babe......new architecture...and the "speed"
is not what makes it expensive....its the new architecture/design. Doubt
they'll have a low end version.....they'll simply lower costs on the GF2 for
that purpose.
Tom
Ok, but couldn't they just make a GF3 without the DDR memory?
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:h4Nr6.33442$[email hidden]...
> Simon...
>
> The "MX" version of the GF2....for "low budget' buyers....was possible
> because the GF2 was old architecture....(basically, it was a TNT 256) with
> fast processing. So a slowed down version was simple to make...andreduced
> costs. The GF3 is a whole new babe......new architecture...and the"speed"
> is not what makes it expensive....its the new architecture/design. Doubt
> they'll have a low end version.....they'll simply lower costs on the GF2for
> that purpose.
>
> Tom
