In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote:
i don't see what their problem is. there are plenty of highend videocards out
on the market NOW that cost even more then that. 3d labs being one of the
more popular brands. maybe the new card isn't aimed at kids that wanna play
games on their daddy's computer? and even if it is, the price will fall
quickly. some might not be able to afford it on the release date, but most
won't mind the wait. they don't need to impress people with flash computers.
Obake
Outrage over GeForce3's reported $600-700 launch price
Following reports that GeForce3 cards would cost around $599-699 and that Overclockers.com refused to review it, posters attacked NVIDIA's pricing and driver quality and worried about its dominance after 3dfx's demise. Others, including developer Derek Smart, said hobbyists will pay and prices would fall, and discussed the card's programmable shading and specs. The thread drifted into Quake netcode and ATI's finances, with some personal sniping.
With Derek Smart (3000AD)
hardware: PC/graphicsindustry/business
Automated summary.
They are going to push the limit's on price's till the market say's NO MORE,
then they will come back to reality........Remember the old saying "just
say no to drugs"? New one: " Just say no to nVidia"!!
rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (26 lines)
> > I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and > can charge exorbitant prices. Read on .. > > http://www.overclockers.com/tips344/ > > SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!???? > > YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!! > > They don't need publicity at NVidia; they need drug rehabilitation. > > We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the > absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and > only serve to encourage people to waste money. > > We strongly urge other computer websites to do the same. NVidia needs > to be sent a message. This is just greed. Maybe they'll roll back the > prices somewhat if there are enough messengers willing to take a > stand. > > For those of you who say, "If you don't like the price, don't buy it," > that's just what I was going to say.:) > > Email Ed >Several things:
1) This is from the link (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/#982608161)
your link pointed to
"The cards on GeForce3 are expected to start selling in mid March and
their recommended price is set around $699. Although we believe the
cost will drop down by $100-150 by the time the cards become really
available."
Don't know the mechanics of the price drop, but guess they have their
reasons for believing such.
2) Just like the V5 6000 (still on the boards by whomever?) when it
was planned, the openning price is kinda high. Not to worry, ATI and
Matrox are still out there capable of (and have) competetive products.
3) 3dfx probably had more to do with their own demise than NVIDIA did.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:49:25 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:
>I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and
>can charge exorbitant prices. Read on ..
>
With this video card, you don't need a computer. It would only slow
things down. You won't, however, be able to store recipes with it.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!???? > >YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!! >Email Ed >This is completely futile....Nvidia's tactics and company policies
have always been ridiculous and nothing anyone will do is gonna change
it. Now they have absolutely no reason to change, ATI will die soon,
and indeed Nvidia's behaviour has been reinforced. The only hope for
change is the pitiful driver stability will likely improve just
because they may have discarded that silly view that they must whether
its ready or not release a video card every six months. The driver
stability wont improve because of their desire to do a job correctly
but because it costs them money to do it wrong.
PAPA DOC
>
>For those of you who say, "If you don't like the price, don't buy it,"
>that's just what I was going to say.:)
>
>Email Ed
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:49:25 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and
>can charge exorbitant prices. Read on ..[snip]
And the truly sad thing is that one of the reasons 3dfx canned the
V5-6000 is because it's price would be somewhere around $600 on
release, and they didn't believe people would be willing to spend that
much.
But hell, people are buying P4's when a T-bird will stomp all over it,
so you never know :(...
Maybe nVidia are keeping NV20's at ludicrous price levels to ensure a
good X-Box launch? They probably also have to clear the channels a
bit of the high-priced GF2 cards as well before they can re-align
prices.
Yeah that's it, nothing to do with complete lack of competition in the
high-end :(....
Kendt
rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:
:(
:(I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and
:(can charge exorbitant prices. Read on ..
:(
:(http://www.overclockers.com/tips344/
:(
:(SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!????
:(
:(YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!!
:(
:(They don't need publicity at NVidia; they need drug rehabilitation.
:(
:(We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the
:(absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and
:(only serve to encourage people to waste money.
:(
:(We strongly urge other computer websites to do the same. NVidia needs
:(to be sent a message. This is just greed. Maybe they'll roll back the
:(prices somewhat if there are enough messengers willing to take a
:(stand.
:(
:(For those of you who say, "If you don't like the price, don't buy it,"
:(that's just what I was going to say.:)
:(
:(Email Ed
Maybe the Justice Department should look at NVida vis-a-vis Anti-Trust.
ROFLMAO!!!!
I'd NEVER spend that much on a damn vid card. My personal limit tops out at
about 180 bucks or so. Any more than that is just gratuitious.
And yes, I'm a very patient man. :)
Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any designing *specifically* for
this card (without full backwards compatability). At that price it will
never see the inside of my computer, nor, consequently, would your product.
As Mike Tyson would say: "That is just ludicrous." :)
D. "Dada" Miller
"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (26 lines)
> > I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and > can charge exorbitant prices. Read on .. > > http://www.overclockers.com/tips344/ > > SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!???? > > YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!! > > They don't need publicity at NVidia; they need drug rehabilitation. > > We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the > absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and > only serve to encourage people to waste money. > > We strongly urge other computer websites to do the same. NVidia needs > to be sent a message. This is just greed. Maybe they'll roll back the > prices somewhat if there are enough messengers willing to take a > stand. > > For those of you who say, "If you don't like the price, don't buy it," > that's just what I was going to say.:) > > Email Ed >> Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any designing *specifically*for
> this card
I believe crytek.com is doing a GF3-only demo prog now.
rms
[email hidden]
The referenced article points out that the video cards are produced by
Hercules, ASUS, and ELSA. nVidia makes and sells the chip, not the
video card, so blame the card manufacturers for the price of the card.
I don't know what the GEForce3 chip costs, but I bet the 350MHz RAMDAC
and 460MHz memory don't come cheap!
By the way, I think 3Dfx killed themselves, rather than being
"crushed" by nVidia. Unless making a superior product is somehow a
bad thing now, I don't see what nVidia did that was "crushing".
Walt
rrevved wrote:
Quoted text (25 lines)
> > I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and > can charge exorbitant prices. Read on .. > > http://www.overclockers.com/tips344/ > > SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!???? > > YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!! > > They don't need publicity at NVidia; they need drug rehabilitation. > > We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the > absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and > only serve to encourage people to waste money. > > We strongly urge other computer websites to do the same. NVidia needs > to be sent a message. This is just greed. Maybe they'll roll back the > prices somewhat if there are enough messengers willing to take a > stand. > > For those of you who say, "If you don't like the price, don't buy it," > that's just what I was going to say.:) > > Email EdOn Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:36:45 -0700, "Roger Squires"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any designing *specifically*
>for
>> this card
>
> I believe crytek.com is doing a GF3-only demo prog now.
How would they want to do that? AFAIK there is not a single feature in
the GF3 that the competition doesn't have.
It's not like 3DFX with their Glide API.
Marc
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:27:07 GMT, "D.Miller" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
While I don't share the pain (I get these toys for free <g>), it is a
tad absurd.
But hey, guess what?!? Gaming is a hobbist sport. And hobbyists are
notorious for having all the cool stuff. So, if the price is out of
your range, don't buy it. heh, its like walking into a grocery store
and going...
SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!????
YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!!
- or -
SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR AN SUV!!!!????
YOU CAN BUY TEN CARS FOR THAT!!
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435
"Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a
living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct,
then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
- Warren Marshall, Epic Games"
Quoted text (12 lines)
>ROFLMAO!!!! > >I'd NEVER spend that much on a damn vid card. My personal limit tops out at >about 180 bucks or so. Any more than that is just gratuitious. > >And yes, I'm a very patient man. :) > >Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any designing *specifically* for >this card (without full backwards compatability). At that price it will >never see the inside of my computer, nor, consequently, would your product. > >As Mike Tyson would say: "That is just ludicrous." :)> How would they want to do that? AFAIK there is not a single feature in
> the GF3 that the competition doesn't have.
>True per-pixel shading and lighting... that is huge to developers.
--MikeE
"D.Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any
> designing *specifically* for this card (without full
> backwards compatability).
Not really, this is after all the same architecture as
found in the X-Box (a product designed to rid PC
game developers of backwards compatibility
limitations).
As for the quoted price, just because you read it
doesn't mean it is true. For instance if you were
to take the trouble of visiting the Nvidia website
and clicking on the GF3 link a few clicks later you
will end up at the Apple store where one can
buy an 'Apple Power Mac G4 NVIDIA GeForce3
Video Card Kit ' for $599.00.
Bear in mind that is bone stock retail for the more
expensive Apple variant. For reference the ATI
Radeon 32Mb Mac bought from the Apple store is
166% more than a PC variant from a online
discount store.
So it won't be cheap, but it certainly will not be
$700 (probably priced slighlty more than a GF2
Ultra), of more pressing concern will be availability
and just what on Earth will 'HRAA' mean?
- George
>
> By the way, I think 3Dfx killed themselves, rather than being
> "crushed" by nVidia. Unless making a superior product is somehow a
> bad thing now, I don't see what nVidia did that was "crushing".
>
> Walt I have yet to see how the nvidia is a superior product. This newsgroup
is
full of posts about folks having to wrestle their gewhiz cards just to
display
properly. I will admit the basic speed of the cards is good, especially in
the Quake world, but for simming the nvidia products are merely equal to
others like 3dfx and ATI.
Currently the I'm running a 3dfx V5 and nothing I have seen in this
newsgroup
has caused me to have 2nd thoughts about that purchase. Someday I will be
forced to abandon the card, but I haven't seen anything out there yet that
justifies switching.
3dfx's failure could possibly be attributed to the lack of OEM sales. I
believe they thought purchasing STB would give them plenty of OEM accounts,
but
nvidia was able to grab the lion's share of these and 3dfx was doomed.
Right up til the time they ceased operations, I believe 3dfx retail sales
were still higher than nvidia based cards, but these sales weren't enough to
offset the lack of OEM contracts
dave henrie
> True per-pixel shading and lighting... that is huge to developers.
If you've seen the Doom3 footage video, that's just what Carmack said
too.
rms
[email hidden]
"PG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Xz6l6.3320$[email hidden]...
> They are going to push the limit's on price's till the market say's NOMORE,<snip>
I think that just happened LOL.
Personally, I have always kept my 3D budget at no more than $150. And at
$150 it better be fast and beautiful or Im taking it back.
"Kendt Eklund" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> And the truly sad thing is that one of the reasons 3dfx canned the
> V5-6000 is because it's price would be somewhere around $600 on
> release, and they didn't believe people would be willing to spend that
> much.
> But hell, people are buying P4's when a T-bird will stomp all over it,
> so you never know :(...
Fools and their money will soon be parted LOL.
> Maybe nVidia are keeping NV20's at ludicrous price levels to ensure a
> good X-Box launch?
Well the xbox might actually be a good deal if it's kept at $300 or less
like they have been guestimating.
>They probably also have to clear the channels a
> bit of the high-priced GF2 cards as well before they can re-align
> prices.
> Yeah that's it, nothing to do with complete lack of competition in the
> high-end :(....
High End or CAD / Professional End?
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:08:30 GMT, Walt Bertram
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>The referenced article points out that the video cards are produced by
>Hercules, ASUS, and ELSA. nVidia makes and sells the chip, not the
>video card, so blame the card manufacturers for the price of the card.
>
>I don't know what the GEForce3 chip costs, but I bet the 350MHz RAMDAC
>and 460MHz memory don't come cheap!
A bit over indulgeng on those specs aren't you? Found this on a forum
dated Feb.1.
"The NVIDIA will release its GeForce3 in a few days. Several leak info
have indicated that the video core and memory on GeForce3 will run at
200MHz and 230MHz respectively. These are no any faster than those of
GeForce2 Ultra (core/memory = 250MHz/230MHz). We all know that memory
bandwidth is the main factor that limits the performance of video
cards today. Then, with the same memory bandwidth and lower video core
speed how can that GeForce3 take on a better performance than its
predecessor? "
The GF2 has a single 256-bit memory controller, while the GF3 has 4 64-bit
controllers. While the GF2 might be using its single controller to move
only a small amount of data at a time, the GF3 can move 4.
Also, the GF3 has its own version of HSR, and something similar to ATI's
HyperZ (both in hardware). All of which adds up to much greater effective
memory bandwidth.
So that's partly where the greater performance comes in. The FSAA is done
in hardware as well.
RedEye
--
Unreal and UT Editing --- http://members.home.net/redeyesretreat
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:08:30 GMT, Walt Bertram
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >The referenced article points out that the video cards are produced by
> >Hercules, ASUS, and ELSA. nVidia makes and sells the chip, not the
> >video card, so blame the card manufacturers for the price of the card.
> >
> >I don't know what the GEForce3 chip costs, but I bet the 350MHz RAMDAC
> >and 460MHz memory don't come cheap!
>
> A bit over indulgeng on those specs aren't you? Found this on a forum
> dated Feb.1.
>
> "The NVIDIA will release its GeForce3 in a few days. Several leak info
> have indicated that the video core and memory on GeForce3 will run at
> 200MHz and 230MHz respectively. These are no any faster than those of
> GeForce2 Ultra (core/memory = 250MHz/230MHz). We all know that memory
> bandwidth is the main factor that limits the performance of video
> cards today. Then, with the same memory bandwidth and lower video core
> speed how can that GeForce3 take on a better performance than its
> predecessor? "
>
In article <3a95210f.1139800@news>, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) wrote:
>This is completely futile....Nvidia's tactics and company policies
>have always been ridiculous and nothing anyone will do is gonna change
>it. Now they have absolutely no reason to change, ATI will die soon,[snip]
ATI won't be dying anytime soon. They're still the #1 OEM manufacturer, and
they have huge contracts Nvidia would sell their souls for.
If I remember correctly, ATI gets most of their income from bulk OEM sales
(onboard mobo goodies)
Not if no one can afford to buy the damned card...
They ain't gonna write a game for, what, 4 people ?
-Larry
"Mike Eppel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:973kk5$3ef$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > How would they want to do that? AFAIK there is not a single feature in > > the GF3 that the competition doesn't have. > > > True per-pixel shading and lighting... that is huge to developers. > > --MikeE > >CompUSA has the Hercules GF3 sku'd at $599 from what I understand.
-Larry
"George M. Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:GHcl6.7$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (35 lines)
> > "D.Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any > > designing *specifically* for this card (without full > > backwards compatability). > > Not really, this is after all the same architecture as > found in the X-Box (a product designed to rid PC > game developers of backwards compatibility > limitations). > > As for the quoted price, just because you read it > doesn't mean it is true. For instance if you were > to take the trouble of visiting the Nvidia website > and clicking on the GF3 link a few clicks later you > will end up at the Apple store where one can > buy an 'Apple Power Mac G4 NVIDIA GeForce3 > Video Card Kit ' for $599.00. > > Bear in mind that is bone stock retail for the more > expensive Apple variant. For reference the ATI > Radeon 32Mb Mac bought from the Apple store is > 166% more than a PC variant from a online > discount store. > > So it won't be cheap, but it certainly will not be > $700 (probably priced slighlty more than a GF2 > Ultra), of more pressing concern will be availability > and just what on Earth will 'HRAA' mean? > > - George > > >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:20:37 GMT, "Derek Smart (3000AD)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!????
>
>YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!!
Yea, except if you wait 9 months to buy crack or steak it's the same
price. In the same 6 months, the video card will be $199.
I don't know what everyone's getting so excited about.
Tim
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> CompUSA has the Hercules GF3 sku'd at $599 from
> what I understand.
If true, that is $100 more than what CompUSA has the
Hercules 3D Prophet II Ultra for sale at, which in of itself
is $150 more than what one would paid for the similar
Elsa Gladiac Ultra at a discounter. Retail prices for
overpriced (by the manufacturer) boards :-(.
- George
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:20:37 GMT , Derek Smart (3000AD) wrote:
> SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!????
>
> YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!!
Well with that much crack at least you'll have a few good hours. With a
videocard I doubt that ;-)
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://www.vanree.net
Thrustmaster Resource Center | http://www.vanree.net/tmresourcecenter/
rrevved wrote in message ...
>
>
>This is a gaming newsgroup, not a graphics art or CAD/CAM newsgroup.
=o0
I will do with the Nv999999 or whatever as I always do...
Wait for cheapety!
<skips off>
Little Red Pasha Hood
Quoted text (7 lines)
> So it won't be cheap, but it certainly will not be > $700 (probably priced slighlty more than a GF2 > Ultra), of more pressing concern will be availability > and just what on Earth will 'HRAA' mean? > > - George >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:50:14 GMT, "Randy Shrader"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
I wasn't asking that quesiton (it was a quote) I was just posting more
realistic memory and RAMDAC speeds of the Geforce3 than the other guy
did.
> The FSAA is done
>in hardware as well.
Always has been.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>The GF2 has a single 256-bit memory controller, while the GF3 has 4 64-bit >controllers. While the GF2 might be using its single controller to move >only a small amount of data at a time, the GF3 can move 4. > >Also, the GF3 has its own version of HSR, and something similar to ATI's >HyperZ (both in hardware). All of which adds up to much greater effective >memory bandwidth.
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Dude,
Hehe, first of all, I don't game (or for that mattter, purchase a damn
thing), to be cool. or to impress anyone. I fly sims to enjoy myself and
find respite from my kids. =).
Moreover:
1. I can afford to buy just about whatever I want.
2. Whether I think it is sane to do is another story. :)
3. The discrimination of #2 leads to the ability of #1. (The big bad secret
of most of the well-to-do). :)
>
> SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!????
>
> YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!!
>
Voice of experience there, Derek?
Come to think of it, that *would* explain a lot. ;-)
DDM
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:27:07 GMT, "D.Miller" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > While I don't share the pain (I get these toys for free <g>), it is a > tad absurd. > > But hey, guess what?!? Gaming is a hobbist sport. And hobbyists are > notorious for having all the cool stuff. So, if the price is out of > your range, don't buy it.You are an idiot.
(sorry, not feeling like explaining at the moment. read the other posts).
-Tempest
"Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rs5l6.18779$[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]wrote:
out
> on the market NOW that cost even more then that. 3d labs being one of the
> more popular brands. maybe the new card isn't aimed at kids that wannaplay
> games on their daddy's computer? and even if it is, the price will fall
> quickly. some might not be able to afford it on the release date, butmost
> won't mind the wait. they don't need to impress people with flashcomputers.
>
> Obake
Quoted text (17 lines)
> > > >I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and > >can charge exorbitant prices. Read on .. > > > >http://www.overclockers.com/tips344/ > > > >SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!???? > > > >YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!! > > > >They don't need publicity at NVidia; they need drug rehabilitation. > > > >We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the > >absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and > >only serve to encourage people to waste money. > > i don't see what their problem is. there are plenty of highend videocardsSpecs came from the article referenced in the original post.
"NVIDIA GeForce3 chip;
350MHz RAMDAC;
64MB DDR SDRAM (3.8ns memory chips);
200MHz core and 460MHz memory frequencies;
3.2Gtexel/sec theoretical fillrate;
AGP 2x/4x bus with FastWrites support;
TV-Out."
Walt
Jagg wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:08:30 GMT, Walt Bertram > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The referenced article points out that the video cards are produced by > >Hercules, ASUS, and ELSA. nVidia makes and sells the chip, not the > >video card, so blame the card manufacturers for the price of the card. > > > >I don't know what the GEForce3 chip costs, but I bet the 350MHz RAMDAC > >and 460MHz memory don't come cheap! > > A bit over indulgeng on those specs aren't you? Found this on a forum > dated Feb.1. > > "The NVIDIA will release its GeForce3 in a few days. Several leak info > have indicated that the video core and memory on GeForce3 will run at > 200MHz and 230MHz respectively. These are no any faster than those of > GeForce2 Ultra (core/memory = 250MHz/230MHz). We all know that memory > bandwidth is the main factor that limits the performance of video > cards today. Then, with the same memory bandwidth and lower video core > speed how can that GeForce3 take on a better performance than its > predecessor? "Jagg wrote:
230 Mhz with DDR memory is effectively a 460 Mhz clock.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> A bit over indulgeng on those specs aren't you? Found this on a forum > dated Feb.1. > > "The NVIDIA will release its GeForce3 in a few days. Several leak info > have indicated that the video core and memory on GeForce3 will run at > 200MHz and 230MHz respectively. These are no any faster than those of > GeForce2 Ultra (core/memory = 250MHz/230MHz). We all know that memory > bandwidth is the main factor that limits the performance of video > cards today. Then, with the same memory bandwidth and lower video core > speed how can that GeForce3 take on a better performance than its > predecessor? "On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:01:51 GMT, Walt Bertram
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Ok I see why now. It's because they are quoting the *effective* speed
of the DDR ram. But, didn't you say 350mhz core in your post?
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Specs came from the article referenced in the original post. > > > "NVIDIA GeForce3 chip; > 350MHz RAMDAC; > 64MB DDR SDRAM (3.8ns memory chips); > 200MHz core and 460MHz memory frequencies; > 3.2Gtexel/sec theoretical fillrate; > AGP 2x/4x bus with FastWrites support; > TV-Out."On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:29:37 -0600, Max <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>230 Mhz with DDR memory is effectively a 460 Mhz clock.
>
Yes, I realize that now, but he also said it will have a 350mhz core.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:19:34 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>230 Mhz with DDR memory is effectively a 460 Mhz clock.
>>
>
>Yes, I realize that now, but he also said it will have a 350mhz core.
RAMDAC != core.
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.66
D.Miller wrote in message ...
>
>Hehe, first of all, I don't game (or for that mattter, purchase a damn
>thing), to be cool. or to impress anyone. I fly sims to enjoy myself and
>find respite from my kids. =).
I play games to impress the chicks.
I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed
chicks..
>
>DDM
---
----> Pasha
Maybe if you changed it to playing games "with chicks" - things would be
different :)
"M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:E3kl6.4156$[email hidden]...
>
> D.Miller wrote in message ...
> >
> >Hehe, first of all, I don't game (or for that mattter, purchase a damn
> >thing), to be cool. or to impress anyone. I fly sims to enjoy myselfand
Quoted text (22 lines)
> >find respite from my kids. =). > > > I play games to impress the chicks. > > I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed > chicks.. > > > > > > > >DDM > > > > > --- > > ----> Pasha > >[email hidden] (M) wrote in <E3kl6.4156$[email hidden]>:
>
>I play games to impress the chicks.
Hmmmm, doesnt take much to impress the chicks these days huh ????
>I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed
>chicks..
Ooopps, maybe it does :+))
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:38:05 -0500, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>I play games to impress the chicks.
>
>I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed
>chicks..
>
Wrong kinds of games, that's why. Babes go for the Quake dudes, not
some geek playing PC pilot.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:34:59 +0100, Magnus Svensson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>RAMDAC != core.
I known that. And the info I got doesn't say 350mhz. Or is the info I
got posted Feb 1st wrong?
No, I said "350Mhz RAMDAC".
Walt
Jagg wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:01:51 GMT, Walt Bertram > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Specs came from the article referenced in the original post. > > > > > > "NVIDIA GeForce3 chip; > > 350MHz RAMDAC; > > 64MB DDR SDRAM (3.8ns memory chips); > > 200MHz core and 460MHz memory frequencies; > > 3.2Gtexel/sec theoretical fillrate; > > AGP 2x/4x bus with FastWrites support; > > TV-Out." > > Ok I see why now. It's because they are quoting the *effective* speed > of the DDR ram. But, didn't you say 350mhz core in your post?>I play games to impress the chicks.
>
>I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed
>chicks..
Very3? Is that you?
Jagg wrote in message ...
>Wrong kinds of games, that's why. Babes go for the Quake dudes, not
>some geek playing PC pilot.
I am not a geek playing pc pilot...
I AM A SKY GOD!! I AM A WW2 FIGHTER ACE!!!!! DAMNIT!!!
I have over 10,000,090 confirmed kills, by golly...
Respect me! I am a far cry above that dweeb Hartman, and any of those other
fancy pants wannabes....
>=o|
I could have one the war for either side, at any time..
Pasha
Vernon Pellerin wrote in message ...
>>I play games to impress the chicks.
>>
>>I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed
>>chicks..
>
>Very3? Is that you?
=o|
ROFLMAO!
Pasha
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:01:15 GMT, Walt Bertram
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>No, I said "350Mhz RAMDAC".
Hehe...my head hurts. :-)
Even the V3 has 350mhz ramdac.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:59:58 GMT, "D.Miller" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
You mean the steak, right? <g>
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435
"Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a
living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct,
then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
- Warren Marshall, Epic Games"
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> >> SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!???? >> >> YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!! >> > >Voice of experience there, Derek? > >Come to think of it, that *would* explain a lot. ;-)
"M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:E3kl6.4156$[email hidden]...
ROFLMAO!
psssst.
No come closer. *whispers confidentially* Try losing the pocket protector.
;-D
(Thank God flightsims didn't come along until I was pretty much
amourously-settled. The wife ain't going anywhere. I got a paper that says
so. =) )
D. "Dada-who-got-laid-way-too-much-in-college" Miller.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > I play games to impress the chicks. > > I haven't been laid in 9 years.... unfortunately for the unimpressed > chicks.. > >Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > --- > > ----> Pasha > >Ahh, very nice. I'm impressed. :)
There's hope for you yet. *ggg*
I must confess that I had you pegged for a sandal-wearing, tofu queen. ;-D
DDM
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (27 lines)
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:59:58 GMT, "D.Miller" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!???? > >> > >> YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!! > >> > > > >Voice of experience there, Derek? > > > >Come to think of it, that *would* explain a lot. ;-) > > You mean the steak, right? <g> > > > Derek Smart Ph.D. > Designer/Lead Developer > The Battlecruiser Series > www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435 > > "Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a > living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, > then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them. > - Warren Marshall, Epic Games" >Yea, OEM sells mean more then any of the relativavily small Geforce 2 sells.
If you look at any of the notebooks, they have a ATI video card in them.
Think of all of the millions of notebooks out there, and if they just get 25
bucks for each of them, they are already ahead of nvida. OEM is also how
3dfx stayed in for so long. OEM is just so much more important that crappy
video cards do not matter if you can give them cheap cards that can run at
800x600 at 16-bit (or less)
--
-Stuart Becktell
Sports editor for UltimateGN.com
"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was
nothing to be frightened of and no limit, any fool could get into a
motor car, and racing would not exist as a sport."
- Jim Clark '62 and '65 World F1 Champion and Indy 500 Champion
"Magisystems Admin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <3a95210f.1139800@news>, [email hidden] (Pierre
Legrand) wrote:
> >This is completely futile....Nvidia's tactics and company policies
> >have always been ridiculous and nothing anyone will do is gonna change
> >it. Now they have absolutely no reason to change, ATI will die soon,
> [snip]
>
> ATI won't be dying anytime soon. They're still the #1 OEM manufacturer,
and
> they have huge contracts Nvidia would sell their souls for.
>
> If I remember correctly, ATI gets most of their income from bulk OEM sales
> (onboard mobo goodies)
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:58:54 GMT, "Derek Smart (3000AD)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
OH MY GOD - What is Smart doing here in RAS???
Hey, go away, we allready have our own DGF!!
Andre
"Michael feels the same way about safety in auto racing as I do. Great minds
think alike." - David G Fisher
Quoted text (12 lines)
> >You mean the steak, right? <g> >Derek Smart Ph.D. >Designer/Lead Developer >The Battlecruiser Series >www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435 > >"Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a >living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, >then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them. >- Warren Marshall, Epic Games">"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote
> OH MY GOD - What is Smart doing here in RAS???
> Hey, go away, we allready have our own DGF!!
Hehe I had the same reaction. Looks like Ed decided for a big cross-post
this time ;-)
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:43:14 GMT, "D.Miller" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Ahh, very nice. I'm impressed. :)
>
>There's hope for you yet. *ggg*
hehe
>I must confess that I had you pegged for a sandal-wearing, tofu queen. ;-D
...actually, am cutting back on the tofu <G>
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435
"Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a
living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct,
then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
- Warren Marshall, Epic Games"
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:34:49 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, they aren't. I just recognized that the only 350MHz Walt mentioned
in this thread was the RAMDAC speed.
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.66
Quoted text (8 lines)
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:34:59 +0100, Magnus Svensson ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>RAMDAC != core. > >I known that. And the info I got doesn't say 350mhz. Or is the info I >got posted Feb 1st wrong?I've owned both a V5 and GF2, and they're both very compatible cards.
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:9Ocl6.459154$[email hidden]...
>
> I have yet to see how the nvidia is a superior product. This newsgroup
> is
> full of posts about folks having to wrestle their gewhiz cards just to
> display
> properly. I will admit the basic speed of the cards is good, especiallyin
accounts,
> but
> nvidia was able to grab the lion's share of these and 3dfx was doomed.
> Right up til the time they ceased operations, I believe 3dfx retail sales
> were still higher than nvidia based cards, but these sales weren't enoughto
> offset the lack of OEM contracts
> dave henrie
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> the Quake world, but for simming the nvidia products are merely equal to > others like 3dfx and ATI. > Currently the I'm running a 3dfx V5 and nothing I have seen in this > newsgroup > has caused me to have 2nd thoughts about that purchase. Someday I will be > forced to abandon the card, but I haven't seen anything out there yet that > justifies switching. > 3dfx's failure could possibly be attributed to the lack of OEM sales. I > believe they thought purchasing STB would give them plenty of OEMThe card has no features that fall outside the realms of DirectX8. If
developers don't want to use DX8 features, then more than GF3 owners will
miss out. Whatever ATI bring out to follow the Radeon, it will most likely
support Pixel Shaders, just like the GF3. Plus the GF3 is the hardware in
the X-Box, so anything written to take advantage of pixel shaders will be
easily portable to the X-box.
Supporting the GF3 is no different from supporting any other video card. PC
developers always have and always will need to ensure their products run on
a broad range of hardware.
"D.Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fdal6.2163$[email hidden]...
> ROFLMAO!!!!
>
> I'd NEVER spend that much on a damn vid card. My personal limit tops outat
> about 180 bucks or so. Any more than that is just gratuitious.
>
> And yes, I'm a very patient man. :)
>
> Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any designing *specifically*for
> this card (without full backwards compatability). At that price it will
> never see the inside of my computer, nor, consequently, would yourproduct.
>
> As Mike Tyson would say: "That is just ludicrous." :)
>
> D. "Dada" Miller
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:25:23 GMT, "Simon Brown"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I've owned both a V5 and GF2, and they're both very compatible cards.
I've owned both too and found the V5 drivers have far less
problems/bugs than the Nvidia flavour.
Who can afford that? I paid $299 CDN for a Voodoo 5500 AGP , it should meet
my needs for a while.
Most people I talk to think that's too much.
"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (26 lines)
> > I guess after they crushed 3dfx, they have a monopoly and > can charge exorbitant prices. Read on .. > > http://www.overclockers.com/tips344/ > > SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIDEO CARD!!!!???? > > YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE DAMN COMPUTER FOR THAT!! > > They don't need publicity at NVidia; they need drug rehabilitation. > > We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the > absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and > only serve to encourage people to waste money. > > We strongly urge other computer websites to do the same. NVidia needs > to be sent a message. This is just greed. Maybe they'll roll back the > prices somewhat if there are enough messengers willing to take a > stand. > > For those of you who say, "If you don't like the price, don't buy it," > that's just what I was going to say.:) > > Email Ed >In article <[email hidden]>,
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
This whole GF3 thing is getting ridiculous on the groups...
The RAM is DDR (230mhz, equivalent to 460mhz SDR)
Memory bandwidth IS important and NVidia will agree to that. The GF3
would appear to have the same limitations as the GF2Ultra cards given
the specs, but if you read further, you will see the GF3 takes advanage
of many different 'tricks' to bypass this problem, including Z-buffer
compression that can move data up to 4x faster than GF2Ultra, Hidden
Surface Removal as well..
It also does 4x4 FSAA without a significant speed hit... imagine your
favorite flight sim running 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA at 80FPS...
I, for one, ORDERED A GF3 for my new PowerMac g4/533 dual
processor..$350 as a Build to order, and I think it will be well worth
it..
Quoted text (22 lines)
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:08:30 GMT, Walt Bertram > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The referenced article points out that the video cards are produced by > >Hercules, ASUS, and ELSA. nVidia makes and sells the chip, not the > >video card, so blame the card manufacturers for the price of the card. > > > >I don't know what the GEForce3 chip costs, but I bet the 350MHz RAMDAC > >and 460MHz memory don't come cheap! > > A bit over indulgeng on those specs aren't you? Found this on a forum > dated Feb.1. > > "The NVIDIA will release its GeForce3 in a few days. Several leak info > have indicated that the video core and memory on GeForce3 will run at > 200MHz and 230MHz respectively. These are no any faster than those of > GeForce2 Ultra (core/memory = 250MHz/230MHz). We all know that memory > bandwidth is the main factor that limits the performance of video > cards today. Then, with the same memory bandwidth and lower video core > speed how can that GeForce3 take on a better performance than its > predecessor? " >In article <UOel6.5980$[email hidden]>,
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Not if no one can afford to buy the damned card...
>
> They ain't gonna write a game for, what, 4 people ?
>
I think more than 4 people are going to buy X-Boxes, and their video is
NV20/GF3 based.....
Developers are saying anything written to take advantage of X-Box
features will carry over to PC and Mac ports...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:33:21 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
>I, for one, ORDERED A GF3 for my new PowerMac g4/533 dual
>processor..$350 as a Build to order, and I think it will be well worth
>it..
Except the GF3 takes advantage of Directx8 features that your Powermac
doesn't have.
In article <[email hidden]>,
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
Not really, it is the other way around, DirectX8 takes direct advantage
of GF3 features...There really isn't ANYONE saying that that is a big
deal for other platforms (including Carmack and NVidia)
I tend to believe Carmack and NVidia over you, sorry.
Quoted text (10 lines)
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:33:21 -0600, Chris Schmelzer > <chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote: > > > >I, for one, ORDERED A GF3 for my new PowerMac g4/533 dual > >processor..$350 as a Build to order, and I think it will be well worth > >it.. > > Except the GF3 takes advantage of Directx8 features that your Powermac > doesn't have.>We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the
>absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and
>only serve to encourage people to waste money.
I think you're assuming too much about your audience. I wouldn't spend that sort of money on a graphics card, but I sure
would like to read a review of it and how it performs with various flight sims. Curiosity is the backbone of the
hardened surfer :)
Surely any site's refusal to review a particular board denotes a lack of impartiality of that site?
Just my 2c ...
James
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:38:14 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
>Not really, it is the other way around, DirectX8 takes direct advantage
>of GF3 features...
Not really, GF3 is designed around the Directx8 feature set. Remember,
Nvidia is working *very* closely with Microsoft these days.
>There really isn't ANYONE saying that that is a big
>deal for other platforms (including Carmack and NVidia)
>
>I tend to believe Carmack and NVidia over you, sorry.
I would like to direct you to a thread titled "Sorry Mac guys, Job's
dupes ya again" in the pc.video news group.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...
> Curiosity is the backbone of the
> hardened surfer :)
I resemble that.
<g>
Hiya James!
-Surfer
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...
I dont think refusal to review a given product denotes any kind of
indication of lacking impartiality....the total of the preceeding
paragraph however...well...ummm, how else is one to take it.
I read usenet to read such grand claims and wild accusations of drug use,
conspiracies etc, I would expect a responsible review site to make a
decision, and then let that decision be known in a somewhat more eloquent
and mature form.
I agree that there is no need to review a $700 video card on a mainstream
site. Whens the last time you saw one of the major site review a card
designed for high end graphic workstations....they dont, not because they
arn't quality cards that many users would find run at incredible speeds,
but because no-in in their right non-lotto winning mind would buy one for
a home computer. There will certainly be many people who will shell out
that large pile of dough to get the latest and greatest video card, but
it will probably not be more than 1% of the hardcore gamers (meaning a
fraction of a percent of the total computer gamers). After all, just how
many people who are fast car freaks go out an buy a Lamborghini...and
just how many Lamborghini reviews do you read in consumer reports?
I have enough disposable income to blow $700 on a new video card, but I
wouldnt. Heck, my primary computer is still an Athlon 600 even though I
could upgrade to a 1.2+ gHz Athlon for only a few hundred dollars. There
just isnt the need to upgrade every 6months like there used to be. My
computer is over a year old, and there still isnt a game out that I cant
run acceptably, and 99% of them I can max out the resolution and detail
options for the most part. I upgraded my Video card a few months ago to
a Radeon 64-DDR, I was jumping ship from 3Dfx (actually returned a V5500
that I had bought only a week before), and found the Radeon discounted
because it had no software and was open AND it had a $30 rebate bringing
the cost right down to $195 which was what I paid for the V5500. Even on
my Athlon 600, I run most games at 1600x1200, and nothing under 1024x768,
so just what do I want a $700 wideo card for?
For me, the only was Id even consider a $700 video card at this point was
if it had the following (and remember, I said CONSIDER...it would still
be a tough sell to get me to spend that much):
FSAA at qualities well beyond the excelent Voodoo 5500 4x standard, and
it would have to do it at 1600x1200 smooth as glass while still making
640x480 and 800x600 look great for my older games.
Every conneciton imaginable for video in and out, with a video capture
ability 30fps full screen, and included editing software that works as
well as the high end mac programs.
Speed beyond my woldest dreams, with all the T&L, Bump map ect, I mean I
want a card that can render volumetric lighing effects in real time.
Dual monitor support with specific drivers for 3D games to use so that I
can have a radar screen or comtrol pannels on the 2nd display....then I
want them to throw money at the major developers to incoperate it into
most major games.
I'd ask for 3d glasses or something, but I have yet to see the technology
needed to make it happen without halving resolution. Even in page flip
mode the Gamejoy 3D glassed sucked so bad it made me wonder why they
bothered.
Did I mention I wanted it to bench out at 3 times my radeons scores in
real games.
Ahh well, I can dream cant I
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the > >absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and > >only serve to encourage people to waste money. > > I think you're assuming too much about your audience. I wouldn't spend that sort of money on a graphics card, but I sure > would like to read a review of it and how it performs with various flight sims. Curiosity is the backbone of the > hardened surfer :) > > Surely any site's refusal to review a particular board denotes a lack of impartiality of that site? >ohh well. I guess I just don't need to see it then..
Roger Squires wrote:
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > Note to developers: you're crazy if you do any designing *specifically* > for > > this card > > I believe crytek.com is doing a GF3-only demo prog now. > > rms > [email hidden]didn't the ads for geforce-2 say per pixel lighting? I mean per-pixel
shading, is per-pixel shading! it either is or isn't, and if its fake
then its a lie.. oh well.. 700 bucks is too much for a videocard for
me.. yuck!
Mike Eppel wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > How would they want to do that? AFAIK there is not a single feature in > > the GF3 that the competition doesn't have. > > > True per-pixel shading and lighting... that is huge to developers. > > --MikeEreally, by the time software comes out, the price will be dropping to
reasonable levels.. like 200 or 300. 300 is absolute tops for me!
Tim O wrote:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:20:37 GMT, "Derek Smart (3000AD)" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >SEVEN DOLLARS FOR A RIB EYE STEAK!!!!???? > > > >YOU CAN BUY A WHOLE GRAM OF CRACK FOR THAT!! > > Yea, except if you wait 9 months to buy crack or steak it's the same > price. In the same 6 months, the video card will be $199. > I don't know what everyone's getting so excited about. > > Tim
>I agree that there is no need to review a $700 video card on a mainstream
>site. Whens the last time you saw one of the major site review a card
>designed for high end graphic workstations....they dont, not because they
[snip]
Point taken but there are indeed users out there who spend a considerable amount of money on hardware to enhance their
experience of sims - look at the cockpit builders for example. Therefore I think that it would be interesting to read
such a review, even if ones intentions aren't necessarily to purchase such products.
If Nvidia or whoever find that their products are receiving wonderful reviews but aren't selling, the onus is on them to
adjust their marketing strategy and hence price.
Cheers
James
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:16:21 -0800, Phil Worthen <[email hidden]> wrote:
Howdy buddy :)
Quoted text (11 lines)
>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >says... >> Curiosity is the backbone of the >> hardened surfer :) > >I resemble that. > ><g> > >Hiya James! >Yah! Besides, don't those nvidiots know that we're all saving our pennies
for theose new Ghoulie TM setups? =)
D. "Dada" Miller
"James Hallows" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >We will not review any such absurdly priced product until the
> >absurdity vanishes. To do so would be a disservice to our audience and
> >only serve to encourage people to waste money.
>
> I think you're assuming too much about your audience. I wouldn't spendthat sort of money on a graphics card, but I sure
> would like to read a review of it and how it performs with various flightsims. Curiosity is the backbone of the
> hardened surfer :)
>
> Surely any site's refusal to review a particular board denotes a lack ofimpartiality of that site?
>
> Just my 2c ...
>
> James
Jagg <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email hidden]...
Doesn't necessarily mean the Mac can't get it. They use OpenGL, and that has
a mechanism to allow the driver writers to make any extension they want. If
NVidia wants to support those features on OpenGL (available on Windows,
Linux, Mac,...) they could do it any time. Even before it gets into the
Direct3D drivers, if they wanted to. No technical reason to stop that from
happening (although there may be nontechnical reasons).
--
Wim Libaers
Remove DONTSPAM from my reply address to send me mail. (Email address
changed recently)
Quoted text (17 lines)
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:38:14 -0600, Chris Schmelzer > <chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote: > > > >Not really, it is the other way around, DirectX8 takes direct advantage > >of GF3 features... > > Not really, GF3 is designed around the Directx8 feature set. Remember, > Nvidia is working *very* closely with Microsoft these days. > > >There really isn't ANYONE saying that that is a big > >deal for other platforms (including Carmack and NVidia) > > > >I tend to believe Carmack and NVidia over you, sorry. > > I would like to direct you to a thread titled "Sorry Mac guys, Job's > dupes ya again" in the pc.video news group.On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:15:26 GMT, "Wim Libaers"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>>Doesn't necessarily mean the Mac can't get it. They use OpenGL, and that has
>a mechanism to allow the driver writers to make any extension they want.
How many games use Opengl? Not many.
In article <OHzm6.28817$[email hidden]>,
"Wim Libaers" <[email hidden]> wrote:
ARGH people, READ THE PREVIEWS from the experts before you go spouting
off... Even the Nvidia news sites that tend to be Windows slanted say
that almost all the GPU features will be supported in NVidia's
extensions to OpenGL...
NVidia says the EXACT SAME THING...ARGHHHHHHHH
No games for OpenGL? BS, just because you guys on the windows side see
things written for DirectX8 doesn't mean that their ports either 1)don't
exist or 2) don't use OpenGL for their linux and mac ports...
Quoted text (20 lines)
> > > > >Not really, it is the other way around, DirectX8 takes direct advantage > > >of GF3 features... > > > > Not really, GF3 is designed around the Directx8 feature set. Remember, > > Nvidia is working *very* closely with Microsoft these days. > > > > >There really isn't ANYONE saying that that is a big > > >deal for other platforms (including Carmack and NVidia) > > > > > >I tend to believe Carmack and NVidia over you, sorry. > > Doesn't necessarily mean the Mac can't get it. They use OpenGL, and that has > a mechanism to allow the driver writers to make any extension they want. If > NVidia wants to support those features on OpenGL (available on Windows, > Linux, Mac,...) they could do it any time. Even before it gets into the > Direct3D drivers, if they wanted to. No technical reason to stop that from > happening (although there may be nontechnical reasons). >On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:28:38 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
>ARGH people, READ THE PREVIEWS from the experts before you go spouting
>off... Even the Nvidia news sites that tend to be Windows slanted say
>that almost all the GPU features will be supported in NVidia's
>extensions to OpenGL...
>
>NVidia says the EXACT SAME THING...ARGHHHHHHHH
Of course they say that, they want you to buy the card!
>No games for OpenGL? BS, just because you guys on the windows side see
>things written for DirectX8 doesn't mean that their ports either 1)don't
>exist or 2) don't use OpenGL for their linux and mac ports...
Keep dreaming. You think every game developer is going to port to
Opengl just because a few Mac gamers need it? A few will, but not
many.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:23:07 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
Give it a rest. Everything the GF3 can do in DX8 it can do in OpenGL.
Actually potentially even more as the feature set in DX8 is set(until
DX9).
John Carmack uses OpenGL. Have you seen the Doom 3 promo? 'nuff said.
>Keep dreaming. You think every game developer is going to port to
>Opengl just because a few Mac gamers need it? A few will, but not
>many.
Of course not. But did Apple say that _all_ games will be ported to
Mac? Did anybody say anything like that?
The thing is _you dont need DX8_ to do the same things on the Apple.
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.86
Quoted text (8 lines)
>>ARGH people, READ THE PREVIEWS from the experts before you go spouting >>off... Even the Nvidia news sites that tend to be Windows slanted say >>that almost all the GPU features will be supported in NVidia's >>extensions to OpenGL... >> >>NVidia says the EXACT SAME THING...ARGHHHHHHHH > >Of course they say that, they want you to buy the card!The sad thing is that there'll be people buying it the day it comes out.
I'm sure those people that pays $1000+ for an everquest/ultima online
character wouldn't mind the $700...
But seriously...WHY? I don't care how fast the card is...it can be 10 times
faster than the current top of the line cards...how many frames/second can
you really see? In the last few reviews of gigahertz cpu w/ GeForce2...I
recall seeing 100+ fps at high resolution. What's the point of a faster
card especially at that price tag? If you have vsync on...you can't even go
beyond your monitor's refresh rate (usually at 75 or 85). Not to mention
human eyes can only see about 30 fps. Wait, you say there'll be more
polygon intensive game available in the future? But I'm sure AMD and Intel
aren't gonna sit on their asses...a CPU upgrade often brings more
performance boost than changing a video card.
I'm happy with my duron 700 with V3...so far I've yet to find a game (other
than falcon4 of course) in max detail at 1024x768 that stressed this system
enough to notice. Probably gonna get me a V5 soon just for the visual
enhancements...if I need speed, I'd just buy me a faster CPU that'll give me
more performance boost across the board at fraction of that $700 price tag.
Tazzel
"James Hallows" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
amount of money on hardware to enhance their
> experience of sims - look at the cockpit builders for example. Therefore Ithink that it would be interesting to read
> such a review, even if ones intentions aren't necessarily to purchase suchproducts.
>
> If Nvidia or whoever find that their products are receiving wonderfulreviews but aren't selling, the onus is on them to
> adjust their marketing strategy and hence price.
>
> Cheers
>
> James
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > >I agree that there is no need to review a $700 video card on a mainstream > >site. Whens the last time you saw one of the major site review a card > >designed for high end graphic workstations....they dont, not because they > > [snip] > > Point taken but there are indeed users out there who spend a considerable>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:55:32 +0100, Magnus Svensson
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't give a flying F what Jobs says. All I said is you _dont need
>>DX8_ to do all that GF3 supports. Now I said it twice.
From the source:
3D Prophet III's highly innovative programmable nFinite-FX� Vertex and
Pixel Shading engine support DirectX 8's new generation of real-time
animated texturing and geometric effects hardware.
In article <[email hidden]>,
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
no, it is because Jobs is a great show man and business man...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:25:51 +0100, Magnus Svensson > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >John Carmack uses OpenGL. Have you seen the Doom 3 promo? 'nuff said. > > One game, BFD. Listen I'm not the only one saying this. The reason the > Mac is getting the GF3 is because Job's thinks he can garner some of > us gamers over to the Mac. Not bloody likely.In article <[email hidden]>,
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
Does anyone here think first? You are reading the news from PC-centric
sites that hawk the DirectX8 tie ins...If you read the news from a
Mac-centric site, they will hawk the OpenGL tie ins...Simple as that...
Almost all the features work either way, DirectX8 for PC, OpenGL for Mac
Quoted text (12 lines)
> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:55:32 +0100, Magnus Svensson > ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > >>I don't give a flying F what Jobs says. All I said is you _dont need > >>DX8_ to do all that GF3 supports. Now I said it twice. > > From the source: > > 3D Prophet III's highly innovative programmable nFinite-FX� Vertex and > Pixel Shading engine support DirectX 8's new generation of real-time > animated texturing and geometric effects hardware.In article <[email hidden]>,
Chris Schmelzer <chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
Ok, my last rant..Thanks for putting up with me... ;)
From ZDNET Gamecenter:
<The incentive for developers to move toward shaders is clear, and
because it's all written to DirectX 8, they should work with other
manufacturer's graphics cards designed to be DirectX 8 compliant. But
while DirectX 8 is a big part of the GeForce3, the card's drivers
equally support OpenGL for all the new features. In fact, the first game
publicly demonstrated on a GeForce3 was id Software's next Doom game
running in OpenGL. >
Quoted text (15 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:25:51 +0100, Magnus Svensson > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >John Carmack uses OpenGL. Have you seen the Doom 3 promo? 'nuff said. > > > > One game, BFD. Listen I'm not the only one saying this. The reason the > > Mac is getting the GF3 is because Job's thinks he can garner some of > > us gamers over to the Mac. Not bloody likely. > > > no, it is because Jobs is a great show man and business man...On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:25:39 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
>no, it is because Jobs is a great show man and business man...
Not as good as Bill Gates, obviously.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:54:29 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
*All* the features? If so, my apologies. :-)
Quoted text (9 lines)
>From ZDNET Gamecenter: > ><The incentive for developers to move toward shaders is clear, and >because it's all written to DirectX 8, they should work with other >manufacturer's graphics cards designed to be DirectX 8 compliant. But >while DirectX 8 is a big part of the GeForce3, the card's drivers >equally support OpenGL for all the new features. In fact, the first game >publicly demonstrated on a GeForce3 was id Software's next Doom game >running in OpenGL. >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:26:59 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
I said form the *source*, that was a Nvidia PR quote.
Quoted text (11 lines)
>> From the source: >> >> 3D Prophet III's highly innovative programmable nFinite-FX� Vertex and >> Pixel Shading engine support DirectX 8's new generation of real-time >> animated texturing and geometric effects hardware. > >Does anyone here think first? You are reading the news from PC-centric >sites that hawk the DirectX8 tie ins...If you read the news from a >Mac-centric site, they will hawk the OpenGL tie ins...Simple as that... > >Almost all the features work either way, DirectX8 for PC, OpenGL for Mac
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> From the source:
>
> 3D Prophet III's highly innovative programmable nFinite-FXT
> Vertex and Pixel Shading engine support DirectX 8's new
> generation of real-time animated texturing and geometric
> effects hardware.
From a better source (John Carmack's .plan):
"Now we come to the pixel shaders, where I have the most
serious issues. I can just ignore this most of the time, but
the way the pixel shader functionality turned out is painfully
limited, and not what it should have been.
DX8 tries to pretend that pixel shaders live on hardware that
is a lot more general than the reality.
Nvidia's OpenGL extensions expose things much more the way
they actually are: the existing register combiners functionality
extended to eight stages with a couple tweaks, and the texture
lookup engine is configurable to interact between textures in
a list of specific ways."
- George
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:18:03 -0600, "George M. Smiley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Carmack, Carmack, Carmack...one would think the only game in town is
Quake3A and Doom3. But, if he says it then it must be true. I
gracefully bow out of this discussion. :-)
Quoted text (19 lines)
>From a better source (John Carmack's .plan): > >"Now we come to the pixel shaders, where I have the most >serious issues. I can just ignore this most of the time, but >the way the pixel shader functionality turned out is painfully >limited, and not what it should have been. > >DX8 tries to pretend that pixel shaders live on hardware that >is a lot more general than the reality. > >Nvidia's OpenGL extensions expose things much more the way >they actually are: the existing register combiners functionality >extended to eight stages with a couple tweaks, and the texture >lookup engine is configurable to interact between textures in >a list of specific ways." > > - George > >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:42:12 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Carmack, Carmack, Carmack...one would think the only game in town is
>Quake3A and Doom3.
It's not about Q3A or Doom3, it's about being God(tm) in the gaming
industry and one hellacious kickass programmer. :->
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
hehehe...Yea those tech demo's masquerading as games really show off
his gaming programming. WooHooo....maybe one of these days he can
actually get around to having a game alongside the tech demo. Then I
might see what the fuss is all about....so far he hasnt had to deal
with all the stuff that I think makes a person a "god" in games
programming. AI, Realistic enviroments, Ability to have more than a
couple of AI's running around at one time...
Im alot more impressed by the people programming Flight sims and Car
sims than I am anyone doing something as simple as a FPS.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >It's not about Q3A or Doom3, it's about being God(tm) in the gaming >industry and one hellacious kickass programmer. :-> > > > >/Magnus >GPLRank hcp: -41.92On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:54:36 +0100, Magnus Svensson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>It's not about Q3A or Doom3, it's about being God(tm) in the gaming
>industry and one hellacious kickass programmer. :->
Well, he may know graphics engines, but I haven't ever seen him
program a game beyond the FPS genre so I don't know what he's really
capable of.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:31:00 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre
Legrand) wrote:
And it doesn't have *anything* to do with you liking flight sims and
car sims more than FPSs, right? That's objective...
JC isn't a games _designer_, he's a games _programmer_ with 3D-engine
and multiplayer code in focus. I don't know if you have to be a
programmer to appreciate his work, I think a lot goes over most
peoples heads.
Just for the record, I don't give a damn about Q3A(the game) either.
That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work for what it is. It
simply is the nicest, cleanest, most customizable piece of gaming code
around.
As for games _designing_ gods(as JC isn't a designer), there are
others. Peter Molynaux, Sid Meier et.al....
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
Quoted text (10 lines)
>hehehe...Yea those tech demo's masquerading as games really show off >his gaming programming. WooHooo....maybe one of these days he can >actually get around to having a game alongside the tech demo. Then I >might see what the fuss is all about....so far he hasnt had to deal >with all the stuff that I think makes a person a "god" in games >programming. AI, Realistic enviroments, Ability to have more than a >couple of AI's running around at one time... > >Im alot more impressed by the people programming Flight sims and Car >sims than I am anyone doing something as simple as a FPS.On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:16:17 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>It's not about Q3A or Doom3, it's about being God(tm) in the gaming
>>industry and one hellacious kickass programmer. :->
>
>Well, he may know graphics engines, but I haven't ever seen him
>program a game beyond the FPS genre so I don't know what he's really
>capable of.
I'm convinced that if he would make any other engine it would put
others in the genre to shame.
Btw, why the hell would it be so different that you couldn't do a
carsim 3d-engine but make the world's best FPS 3d-engine?
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:31:53 +0100, Magnus Svensson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Btw, why the hell would it be so different that you couldn't do a
>carsim 3d-engine but make the world's best FPS 3d-engine?
No reason. I was speaking more of game design than 3D graphics engine.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:31:00 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre
Legrand) wrote:
I second that.
>Im alot more impressed by the people programming Flight sims and Car
>sims than I am anyone doing something as simple as a FPS.
I've been quite impressed by some FPS. Half-Life was quite good
technically, but also had realistic environments, good AI (in those
special forces guys) and a great atmosphere.
IMO the people that wrote Half-Life deserver more credit than Id.
Marc
Quoted text (7 lines)
>hehehe...Yea those tech demo's masquerading as games really show off >his gaming programming. WooHooo....maybe one of these days he can >actually get around to having a game alongside the tech demo. Then I >might see what the fuss is all about....so far he hasnt had to deal >with all the stuff that I think makes a person a "god" in games >programming. AI, Realistic enviroments, Ability to have more than a >couple of AI's running around at one time...Quoted text (17 lines)
> >PAPA DOC > >> >>It's not about Q3A or Doom3, it's about being God(tm) in the gaming >>industry and one hellacious kickass programmer. :-> >> >> >> >>/Magnus >>GPLRank hcp: -41.92 > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >Flanker Target >Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy >Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at >www.papadoc.netActually you assume a great about me. And as my now favority quote
goes..."There's alot you dont know about me Mr. Smileyman".
The majority of my gaming time these days is almost evenly split
between FPS (UT, Rogue Spear, Deux Ex, NOLF) and simulations. Its
because I am such a devotee of every genre that I can comfortably
state that I dont think *JC* is all that....(and isnt it cute how you
abreviate his name so that it matchs that other great games programmer
who was so much better....)
>
>And it doesn't have *anything* to do with you liking flight sims and
>car sims more than FPSs, right? That's objective...
Your opinion of him is also subjective....just to keep you honest dont
you know.
>
>JC isn't a games _designer_, he's a games _programmer_ with 3D-engine
>and multiplayer code in focus. I don't know if you have to be a
>programmer to appreciate his work, I think a lot goes over most
>peoples heads.
Hey far be it from me to try and dampen the thunder and lightening
that go with being *JC* but there are people who make some rather
remarkable flight sims and car sims that have tremendous engines and
remarkable multiplayer code. To me a comparable achievement by *JC*
would be for his world to be living and breathing whilst we chase each
other around firing all sorts of things at each other...and each of
those things would be reacting and behaving according the actual
weapons according to the way the world actually works. Furthermore the
things that are AI would be reacting in an intelligent fashion using
real world tactics of evasion and offense. Just a touch different than
what is seen in most FPS engines...though Rogue Spear is pretty damn
good.
>
>/Magnus
>GPLRank hcp: -41.92
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:25:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre
Legrand) wrote:
>though Rogue Spear is pretty damn
>good.
You don't have Swat3? Run, don't walk, down to your nearest EB and buy
it. IMO, it's better than RS.
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
hate to wade in here.. but doom was just one game.. see the impact?
--
Bard
www.1vvfsc.org
Vancouver Virtual Flight Sim Club
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:25:51 +0100, Magnus Svensson > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >John Carmack uses OpenGL. Have you seen the Doom 3 promo? 'nuff said. > > One game, BFD. Listen I'm not the only one saying this. The reason the > Mac is getting the GF3 is because Job's thinks he can garner some of > us gamers over to the Mac. Not bloody likely.On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:29:06 GMT, "Bard"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>hate to wade in here.. but doom was just one game.. see the impact?
It doesn't rock my world. Now butt out. :-)
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:25:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre
Legrand) wrote:
>(and isnt it cute how you
>abreviate his name so that it matchs that other great games programmer
>who was so much better....)
No, it was for comfort, not namedropping. I can abbreviate some more
for you if you want. DK, TS, PB... fine?
Nice polemics, though.
Actually, I think that sims very often are sorely lacking in both
fields(multiplayer and graphics) and there are few games that can
stack it up in both fields at once. After all. there aren't *that*
much games in the sim genres or anywhere for that matter that can
handle 32-64 player online given any bandwidth, nor keep framerates
pegged and have lush graphics at the same time.
Let's look at auto-sims..
Nice cutting edge graphics: SBK2001, Mercedes Truck racing, F1RC...
then what?
Multi-player: GPL(not so stable though), N3/N4... hmm... Well I'm
out...
I think we talk past eachother constantly. I try to assess the quality
of the code and features and benefits of a graphics engine and you are
talking about gameplay, AI, and so on. I don't even think Carmack(tell
me when I can "namedrop" again willya) did AI work, but they brought
in some guy that did 3:d party bots for Q1.
Rouge Spear for example, I love the game, but it is pretty awful as
far as the graphics engine goes. Texture thrashing galore, pretty poor
unstable framerate, no dynamic lighting, so-so texture filtering and
detail. I don't think it even does multi-texturing! Give me that game
with the Q3 engine I say!
I got to play ST:Elite Force the other day, and *boy* what a treat it
was having the Q3A engine in a single player game experience, as
opposed to the lithtech engine in NOLF(better game, though) I had
played with for some weeks. Can't anybody see where I'm going with
this?
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
Quoted text (9 lines)
>>JC isn't a games _designer_, he's a games _programmer_ with 3D-engine >>and multiplayer code in focus. I don't know if you have to be a >>programmer to appreciate his work, I think a lot goes over most >>peoples heads. > >Hey far be it from me to try and dampen the thunder and lightening >that go with being *JC* but there are people who make some rather >remarkable flight sims and car sims that have tremendous engines and >remarkable multiplayer code.Quoted text (9 lines)
>To me a comparable achievement by *JC* >would be for his world to be living and breathing whilst we chase each >other around firing all sorts of things at each other...and each of >those things would be reacting and behaving according the actual >weapons according to the way the world actually works. Furthermore the >things that are AI would be reacting in an intelligent fashion using >real world tactics of evasion and offense. Just a touch different than >what is seen in most FPS engines...though Rogue Spear is pretty damn >good.On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:12:17 +0100, Marc de Vries
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>>Im alot more impressed by the people programming Flight sims and Car
>>sims than I am anyone doing something as simple as a FPS.
>
>I've been quite impressed by some FPS. Half-Life was quite good
>technically, but also had realistic environments, good AI (in those
>special forces guys) and a great atmosphere.
Which incindentally uses the licensed Quake2 engine! So the engine can
apparently be judged aside from the game.
>IMO the people that wrote Half-Life deserver more credit than Id.
How much credit should id have for making Half-life's engine then? We
all knew that their designers left much to be desired. But the great
thing about Quake 1,2 and 3 is the customizeability that is built in
to it.
Quake1 really was ground-breaking in that respect with an actual
modularized engine, where you could separate the "inner wokings" from
the actual game. Add to that the "mods" capability from QuakeC that
brought us Team Fortress, CTF and in the longer run the Counter-strike
phenomenon...
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 07:34:31 +0100, Magnus Svensson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Can't anybody see where I'm going with
>this?
Yea, you're an eye-candy weeny. :-)
In article <[email hidden]>, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>Which incindentally uses the licensed Quake2 engine! So the engine can
>apparently be judged aside from the game.
>That's a common misconception - Valve used the licensed Quake 1 engine, hence
the various moans you'd hear from time to time on Half-Life fora about the
netcode being not up to the standard of Quake 2's netcode. Valve themselves,
if i recall correctly, said that by the end of the project, the game engine
was around 30% Q1, 70% their own work.
>
>How much credit should id have for making Half-life's engine then? We
>all knew that their designers left much to be desired.
Pluses are the scripting, and the way that the enemy ai will work together in
a co-ordinated way. Downside was the netcode (wasn't that modified QuakeWorld
code?), as remarked above, although it's worth remembering that Valve did not
anticipate Half-Life having the "after-life" online that it turned out to
have, and so didn't feel that the netcode was a huge priority. In their
favour, they've released numerous free updates to the game at the request of
the community, including the recent complete rewrite of the netcode.
> But the great
>thing about Quake 1,2 and 3 is the customizeability that is built in
>to it.
>Some would argue that Unreal/UTs UScript is a far more flexible language. I
do have some saved posts knocking about on that topic, if you want to take a
look, I'll mail them to you. At the time of Q3's release, some parts of the
mod community felt that it was rather mod unfriendly - certainly in comparison
to UT, the other "big" multiplayer only title of the time.
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 07:40:06 +0100, Magnus Svensson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Yes of course it can. But that should make JC the "3D game engine god"
and not a "gaming god".
If you'd call him that I would agree with it. But I don't think that
distinction was made in this thread...
>>IMO the people that wrote Half-Life deserver more credit than Id.
>
>How much credit should id have for making Half-life's engine then?
How much credit should the Half-Life poeple get for making better use
of that engine? IMO Half-Life looked better than Quake2.
Or did Id improve the engine for them?
Marc
Quoted text (12 lines)
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:12:17 +0100, Marc de Vries ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>>Im alot more impressed by the people programming Flight sims and Car >>>sims than I am anyone doing something as simple as a FPS. >> >>I've been quite impressed by some FPS. Half-Life was quite good >>technically, but also had realistic environments, good AI (in those >>special forces guys) and a great atmosphere. > >Which incindentally uses the licensed Quake2 engine! So the engine can >apparently be judged aside from the game.On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:05:55 +0100, Marc de Vries
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>>Which incindentally uses the licensed Quake2 engine! So the engine can
>>apparently be judged aside from the game.
>
>Yes of course it can. But that should make JC the "3D game engine god"
>and not a "gaming god".
I don't believe I said those exact words, but ok. It doesn't really
matter what I or anybody else here thinks, it was a reference to how
much weight he actually throws in the gaming industry right now.
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:30:33 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 07:34:31 +0100, Magnus Svensson
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>Can't anybody see where I'm going with
>>this?
>
>Yea, you're an eye-candy weeny. :-)
;-)
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.92
That day, Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:05:55 +0100 dawned fine and sunny in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim, and Marc de Vries says to me...
> How much credit should the Half-Life poeple get for making better use
> of that engine? IMO Half-Life looked better than Quake2.
> Or did Id improve the engine for them?
> Q2 was very good for it's time - I liked it a lot, until Half-Life came
along. I remember one rather vexed discussion about the merits of the AI
in the two titles - key to the Quake advocates argument was that the
enemies ducked when fired upon - my counterpoint that enemy still ducked
when one fired at their ankles went unanswered...
--
"but then again we were what they call spazes and nerds in highschool
and are now adults who play computer games and if you are honest
recognize you wouldnt want anyone you know from say work to see you
sitting in a dark room playing games like little boys.
we ALL are sad. you AND me."
-Very3 on the appeal of computer games to the mature gamer.
Thats ok I hate him cause he smokes me in GPL rank...
8-)
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>Yea, you're an eye-candy weeny. :-) > >;-) > > >/Magnus >GPLRank hcp: -41.92On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:18:36 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre
Legrand) wrote:
>Thats ok I hate him cause he smokes me in GPL rank...
>
>8-)
He must be your better then, so shut up. :-)
hehe...
>Nice polemics, though.
>Thanks...
>Actually, I think that sims very often are sorely lacking in both
>fields(multiplayer and graphics) and there are few games that can
>stack it up in both fields at once. After all. there aren't *that*
>much games in the sim genres or anywhere for that matter that can
>handle 32-64 player online given any bandwidth, nor keep framerates
>pegged and have lush graphics at the same time.
Warbirds, Air Warrior, Nascar4...are not sorely lacking in either
graphics or multiplayer. But to me thats not the epitome of game
engines, just as Quake 3 is not the be all end all in engines. To me
its having an engine that is efficient enough to support the kinds of
graphics that one see's in sims such as Flanker 2.0, Janes F/A-18,
World War 2 fighters, Falcon 4 along with the incredible amounts of AI
calculations and realism. You want these to be counted in different
categories and yet its impossible to do so since its intergral to the
game itself. And as far as numbers of objects flying around in the
game at once I dont think any first person shooter is gonna equal what
I can see in sims such as the aforementioned sims. Hell Im playing a
mission in Flanker tonight that has over 80 aircraft a dozen ships and
a dozen SAM sites....all the while this is playing the graphics are
simply astounding with a very large arena being displayed. This is a
terrific engine in my book....an engine that takes into account not
only eye candy but also gameplay.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
Quoted text (22 lines)
>I think we talk past eachother constantly. I try to assess the quality >of the code and features and benefits of a graphics engine and you are >talking about gameplay, AI, and so on. I don't even think Carmack(tell >me when I can "namedrop" again willya) did AI work, but they brought >in some guy that did 3:d party bots for Q1. > >Rouge Spear for example, I love the game, but it is pretty awful as >far as the graphics engine goes. Texture thrashing galore, pretty poor >unstable framerate, no dynamic lighting, so-so texture filtering and >detail. I don't think it even does multi-texturing! Give me that game >with the Q3 engine I say! > >I got to play ST:Elite Force the other day, and *boy* what a treat it >was having the Q3A engine in a single player game experience, as >opposed to the lithtech engine in NOLF(better game, though) I had >played with for some weeks. Can't anybody see where I'm going with >this? > > > >/Magnus >GPLRank hcp: -41.92On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:33:30 GMT, WildStyle24_7 threw caution to the
wind and wrote the following:
Well I think a lot of people would argue that QuakeWorlds netcode was
better than Quake II's ;-)
Incidently I heard that they upgraded their code to the Quake II
engine midway though development. It would explain the bad netcode, I
thought Quakeworlds was shit hot compared to Quake IIs. Quake IIs
netcode was rubbish until they patched it about 20 times.
--
remove the OBVIOUS to reply by mail
Quoted text (14 lines)
>In article <[email hidden]>, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >>Which incindentally uses the licensed Quake2 engine! So the engine can >>apparently be judged aside from the game. >> >That's a common misconception - Valve used the licensed Quake 1 engine, hence >the various moans you'd hear from time to time on Half-Life fora about the >netcode being not up to the standard of Quake 2's netcode. Valve themselves, >if i recall correctly, said that by the end of the project, the game engine >was around 30% Q1, 70% their own work. >> >>How much credit should id have for making Half-life's engine then? We >>all knew that their designers left much to be desired.That day, Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:20:37 +0000 dawned fine and sunny in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim, and Jonathan Wells says to me...
>
> Well I think a lot of people would argue that QuakeWorlds netcode was
> better than Quake II's ;-)
>Really? Not heard that, although my MP days began with Q2, so I can't
speak from experience.
> Incidently I heard that they upgraded their code to the Quake II
> engine midway though development. It would explain the bad netcode, I
> thought Quakeworlds was shit hot compared to Quake IIs. Quake IIs
> netcode was rubbish until they patched it about 20 times.
> Maybe I've confused Q1 netcode with Quakeworlds, in that case - the two
did come up in a discussion of HL netcode, with the decision to build
based on one of them as the source of all it's problems...
The upgrade to the Q2 engine is untrue, afaik - what I heard was that
Valve were offered Q2, but didn't have the money/time to recode to make
licensing it worthwhile.
There's no mention of Q2 in HQH's Half-Life FAQ;
"[2.1.10]: Game Engine
Valve originally licensed the source for Quake from id Software and they
began working on that code around October of 1996. Between that time and
the time they finished Half-Life in October of 1998, they
modified/removed/created something like 70% of the code."
http://www.halflife.net/help/hqhfaq/split_faq_2.html
"Stuart Becktell" <[email hidden]> wrote:
You guys are sooooo out there.
ATI is trading at about 3 bucks, and just reported today MAJOR
earnings warnings.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010301/to053.html
NVIDIA is trading in the 40's and is producing record profits.
They also just completely swept ATI out of the Mac business.
The partnership with the Evil Empire (MS) will insure future growth
and development
NVIDIA wins because they deliver. 3DFX did not, ATI is not, Matrox is
not.
Instead of bashing Nvidia, you should at least admire their track
record.
Capitalism at its best. You guys make it sound like a conspiricy.
Sheesh....
Braun
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Yea, OEM sells mean more then any of the relativavily small Geforce 2 sells. >If you look at any of the notebooks, they have a ATI video card in them. >Think of all of the millions of notebooks out there, and if they just get 25 >bucks for each of them, they are already ahead of nvida. OEM is also how >3dfx stayed in for so long. OEM is just so much more important that crappy >video cards do not matter if you can give them cheap cards that can run at >800x600 at 16-bit (or less)On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 22:07:54 -0000, WildStyle24_7
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Possibly, I did a quick look and found this
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life/guide/faq.shtm#Is%20Half-Life's%20Game%20Engine
It doesnt' say whether they actually USED it or not but they could use
the Quake II engine. My point really was that I started playing
online with Quake. When Quake II came out I tried it and I found that
Quakeworlds netcode was much smoother, which basically stopped me
playing it seriously. I went back after they patched it to see how
good it was and I think tehy had improved it a lot, but like quite a
few Quake players it didn't appeal to me.
I don't think you did confuse the netcode btw, Quake without
Quakeworld was really just LAN netcode, no prediction or any of the
other saviours of the modemer we know now ;-) I don't think half life
was ever THAT bad.
If its a common misconception though I think the only way to be sure
would be to get the info off Valve and they just say "ID Software
technology" so maybe it a little but of both.
--
to reply by mail, please remove the OBVIOUS
Quoted text (17 lines)
>That day, Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:20:37 +0000 dawned fine and sunny in >comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim, and Jonathan Wells says to me... >> >> Well I think a lot of people would argue that QuakeWorlds netcode was >> better than Quake II's ;-) >> >Really? Not heard that, although my MP days began with Q2, so I can't >speak from experience. > >> Incidently I heard that they upgraded their code to the Quake II >> engine midway though development. It would explain the bad netcode, I >> thought Quakeworlds was shit hot compared to Quake IIs. Quake IIs >> netcode was rubbish until they patched it about 20 times. >> >Maybe I've confused Q1 netcode with Quakeworlds, in that case - the two >did come up in a discussion of HL netcode, with the decision to build >based on one of them as the source of all it's problems...Quoted text (12 lines)
>The upgrade to the Q2 engine is untrue, afaik - what I heard was that >Valve were offered Q2, but didn't have the money/time to recode to make >licensing it worthwhile. > >There's no mention of Q2 in HQH's Half-Life FAQ; > >"[2.1.10]: Game Engine > >Valve originally licensed the source for Quake from id Software and they >began working on that code around October of 1996. Between that time and >the time they finished Half-Life in October of 1998, they >modified/removed/created something like 70% of the code."In article <[email hidden]>,
Braun Tacon <[email hidden]> wrote:
ATI going under would be most unfortunate. NVidia would be left with no
competition, and thus, no drive to innovate or lower prices on the
Geforce 3....sigh....
Quoted text (22 lines)
> "Stuart Becktell" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > You guys are sooooo out there. > > ATI is trading at about 3 bucks, and just reported today MAJOR > earnings warnings. > > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010301/to053.html > > NVIDIA is trading in the 40's and is producing record profits. > > They also just completely swept ATI out of the Mac business. > > The partnership with the Evil Empire (MS) will insure future growth > and development > > NVIDIA wins because they deliver. 3DFX did not, ATI is not, Matrox is > not. > > Instead of bashing Nvidia, you should at least admire their track > record. >Chris Schmelzer <chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
I agree fully. Competition from AMD is what made Intel radically
change their pricing structure. Only because of AMD can you buy a
PIII 850 for about $150.00 nowadays.
OTOH...in my opinion, Nvidia is NOT predatory like other companies.
They have made their bones by excelling at every turn. They have
brought innovation to the market, and visuals to our PC's that we
never dreamed possible.
I can only hope that they will not choose to monopolize their
position. The good thing is we don't HAVE to have that GeForce III.
Let the market speak if the pricing is too high, but do not blame
Nvidia. As stated before they make the chips, not the cards.
MHO,
Braun
Quoted text (30 lines)
>In article <[email hidden]>, > Braun Tacon <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> "Stuart Becktell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> You guys are sooooo out there. >> >> ATI is trading at about 3 bucks, and just reported today MAJOR >> earnings warnings. >> >> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010301/to053.html >> >> NVIDIA is trading in the 40's and is producing record profits. >> >> They also just completely swept ATI out of the Mac business. >> >> The partnership with the Evil Empire (MS) will insure future growth >> and development >> >> NVIDIA wins because they deliver. 3DFX did not, ATI is not, Matrox is >> not. >> >> Instead of bashing Nvidia, you should at least admire their track >> record. >> > > >ATI going under would be most unfortunate. NVidia would be left with no >competition, and thus, no drive to innovate or lower prices on the >Geforce 3....sigh....
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Except the GF3 takes advantage of Directx8 features that
> your Powermac doesn't have.
Hardware taking advantage of software features, LOL, there
is a new one.
Didn't you say you were going to 'gracefully bow out of this
discussion' several posts ago?
- George
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:07:16 -0600, "George M. Smiley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Didn't you say you were going to 'gracefully bow out of this
>discussion' several posts ago?
>
> - George
>
>
And I did. I posted that *before*. Now don't respond to this or I will
jump back into the fray. :-)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:07:16 -0600, "George M. Smiley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hardware taking advantage of software features, LOL, there
>is a new one.
Now shutup you twat.
NVIDIA is extremely pleased to provide developers with NVIDIA's SDK
for DirectX� 8.0 development within hours of Microsoft's release. Our
engineering teams have worked very closely with Microsoft in
developing and tuning core functionality for this new, world-class
API. In particular, we expect you to find the programmability of the
graphics pipeline a defining moment in the history of real-time
graphics. For the first time, developers have a standard way to access
features such as programmable geometry or vertex shaders, programmable
pixel shaders, volumetric texture compression for 3D textures, and
support for high order surfaces.
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Now shutup you twat.
Ah, I see, rude behavior, having trouble arguing your case
without the help of Nvidia press releases? Why don't you
try:
http://www.nvidia.com/Developer.nsf
in order to get a little more substance into your discourse.
None of which *REQUIRES* DirectX8. Furthermore if
you had bothered to read my original post you would have
discovered that the generic DirectX8 interface to pixel
shaders is often too far removed from the actual Nvidia
hardware implementation to be of much use in comparison
to the Nvidia OpenGL extension for pixel shaders.
- George
Quoted text (7 lines)
> In particular, we expect you to find the programmability > of the graphics pipeline a defining moment in the history > of real-time graphics. For the first time, developers have > a standard way to access features such as programmable > geometry or vertex shaders, programmable pixel shaders, > volumetric texture compression for 3D textures, and > support for high order surfaces.In article <[email hidden]>,
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
Jesus christ.. Read the WHOLE STORY before you make foolish
Windows-Centric assumptions.. News.com AS WELL AS NVidia.com have both
CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY stated that all of the features of the Geforce 3
are accessible from both DirectX8 AND OpenGL with the NVidia
extensions...
Look back through the whole thread..
Quoted text (20 lines)
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:07:16 -0600, "George M. Smiley" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Hardware taking advantage of software features, LOL, there > >is a new one. > > Now shutup you twat. > > NVIDIA is extremely pleased to provide developers with NVIDIA's SDK > for DirectX� 8.0 development within hours of Microsoft's release. Our > engineering teams have worked very closely with Microsoft in > developing and tuning core functionality for this new, world-class > API. In particular, we expect you to find the programmability of the > graphics pipeline a defining moment in the history of real-time > graphics. For the first time, developers have a standard way to access > features such as programmable geometry or vertex shaders, programmable > pixel shaders, volumetric texture compression for 3D textures, and > support for high order surfaces. >On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:03:23 -0600, "George M. Smiley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
And you think ridiculing people is less rude? I said I would drop out
of this discussion some time back and I did. But, if you insist on
making smug comments then I will be rude to you.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Now shutup you twat. > >Ah, I see, rude behavior, having trouble arguing your case >without the help of Nvidia press releases? Why don't you >try:On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:03:43 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
I did read the whole thread. And if you read all of my posts you will
see that I agreed that I had made a mistake and was bowing out of this
thread. I posted the above to wind Mr. Smiley up a bit. He accused me
of getting back into this thread when in fact the post he was replying
to was made *before* I said I was dropping out.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Jesus christ.. Read the WHOLE STORY before you make foolish >Windows-Centric assumptions.. News.com AS WELL AS NVidia.com have both >CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY stated that all of the features of the Geforce 3 >are accessible from both DirectX8 AND OpenGL with the NVidia >extensions... > >Look back through the whole thread..On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:03:43 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
<chris@coffeecafes{no-spam}.com> wrote:
P.S. That was not even the point anyway. I was merely pointing out
that Nvidia and Microsoft worked in conjunction on what features the
Geforce3 would have based on what features Directx does/would support.
This is my final post to this thread.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Jesus christ.. Read the WHOLE STORY before you make foolish >Windows-Centric assumptions.. News.com AS WELL AS NVidia.com have both >CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY stated that all of the features of the Geforce 3 >are accessible from both DirectX8 AND OpenGL with the NVidia >extensions... > >Look back through the whole thread..
[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <5Q%m6.464$[email hidden]>
Organization:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Carmack, Carmack, Carmack...one would think the only game in town is
: Quake3A and Doom3. But, if he says it then it must be true. I
: gracefully bow out of this discussion. :-)
Plenty of flights sims have supported OpenGL in the past, and could
easily do so in the future, e.g. SDOE, WW2F, and I am sure others too.
Using OpenGL would make things much more cross-platform, especially
if people did the game option interfaces, etc, in something portable
(Java, or Tk with ports to Windows). How much easier it would be if
the developers could write the code almost in its entirety for Mac
OS X, Windows, Linux, BeOS in one go. They could spend more time getting
the code right as opposed to rewriting parts and putting in new bugs.
And you could buy one CD and have versions for four operating systems
on it and try the one that played the game best (notwithstanding that
the install scripts are going to have to cope with the multitude of
Linux versions!)
Aaron Turner
