Re: Worst 3D Engine Ever?

The GP2 engine wasn't out of date, it was tremendously sloppy. You do not full take advanatage of what's available to you and you are underachieving, no? The core code is four years, how long is that in 'computer' years? In article <Ik1h5.3005$[email hidden]>, "Graham Triggs" <[email hidden]> wrote: > 4 years out of date? Why don't you go and put GP 2 back on yoursystem and > do a side by side comparison... I've just tried it, and there is aHUGE > difference. > > Of course that may just mean that the GP 2 engine was out of date,but I > don't recall too many people saying that at the time... > > G > > <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:8m25ji$jff$[email hidden]... > > Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of > > date. Are there really people out there who still argue thatfantastic > > graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer > > entertainment release)? I'd be pissed if I had a Playstation andthe > > graphics looked that bad on a TV screen. Eye candy does not make asim > > or game, but it does complete your immersion within it. > > > > Oh yeah, being able to drive a simulated car with a wheel helpstoo! ::)

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > In article <8m216s$lha$[email hidden]>, > > "Per Frederiksen" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3 > > than f1. > > > So 3d or not, why care? > > > > > > regards > > > > > > "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > > > news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > > > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I

do > > enjoy > > > GP3 > > > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (carefulchoice of > > words > > > > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > > > > > > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is > > not using > > > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cardsfor > > > special > > > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is > > entirely a > > > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3Daccelerators, > > is for > > > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why > > the game > > > is > > > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using thesoftware > > engine > > > to > > > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to > > output its > > > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygoncount > > > depending > > > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is > > used? The > > > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow forrunning in > > > higher > > > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run itat

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 640x480 > > > or > > > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > > > > > > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and > > Total > > > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced > > lighting and > > > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if

GP3

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > was > > > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D > > cards on > > > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 > > offloaded > > > a > > > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > > > > > > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > > > > > > > Michael M > > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3 than f1. So 3d or not, why care? regards "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoyGP3 > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards forspecial > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the gameis > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engineto > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon countdepending > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running inhigher > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480or

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded

a

Quoted text (9 lines)

> lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > Michael M > [email hidden] > > >

Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of date. Are there really people out there who still argue that fantastic graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer entertainment release)? I'd be pissed if I had a Playstation and the graphics looked that bad on a TV screen. Eye candy does not make a sim or game, but it does complete your immersion within it. Oh yeah, being able to drive a simulated car with a wheel helps too! ::) In article <8m216s$lha$[email hidden]>, "Per Frederiksen" <[email hidden]> wrote: > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3than f1.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> So 3d or not, why care? > > regards > > "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do

enjoy > GP3 > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice ofwords > > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 isnot using > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for > special > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game isentirely a > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators,is for > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's whythe game > is > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the softwareengine > to > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer tooutput its > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count > depending > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine isused? The > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in > higher > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at640x480 > or > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II andTotal > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhancedlighting and > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3was > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3Dcards on > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98offloaded

Quoted text (12 lines)

> a > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > > > Michael M > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of date. Are there really people out there who still argue that fantastic graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer entertainment release)? I'd be pissed if I had a Playstation and the graphics looked that bad on a TV screen. Eye candy does not make a sim or game, but it does complete your immersion within it. Oh yeah, being able to drive a simulated car with a wheel helps too! ::) > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3 than f1.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> So 3d or not, why care? > regards > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do

enjoy > GP3 > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words > > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for > special > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the game > is > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engine > to > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count > depending > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in > higher > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480 > or > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded > a > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > Michael M Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoy GP3 and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words there : ). Now on to my argument... After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for special effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the game is limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engine to generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count depending on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in higher resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480 or 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded a lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) Discuss amongst yourselves, Michael M [email hidden]

Well I was gonna buy GP3 for those little amusing times when I feel like racing around a GoKart track...(not the fault of GP3...the fault of boring Modern GP's)...but because it was gonna be bought for amusement the graphics would have to be great...they are most certainly not even close to great. The are astoundingly close to awful.....I mean he makes the buildings look great and the cars look awful...? Whatever for..? Its supposed to be the other way around....buildings look average and the cars outstanding. Heck even Carmageddon 2 got that right... PAPA DOC > >What racing sim does that? I don't know of any, sorry. > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy Video Card Wizard www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

4 years out of date? Why don't you go and put GP 2 back on your system and do a side by side comparison... I've just tried it, and there is a HUGE difference. Of course that may just mean that the GP 2 engine was out of date, but I don't recall too many people saying that at the time... G <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8m25ji$jff$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (79 lines)

> Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of > date. Are there really people out there who still argue that fantastic > graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer > entertainment release)? I'd be pissed if I had a Playstation and the > graphics looked that bad on a TV screen. Eye candy does not make a sim > or game, but it does complete your immersion within it. > > Oh yeah, being able to drive a simulated car with a wheel helps too! ::) > > In article <8m216s$lha$[email hidden]>, > "Per Frederiksen" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3 > than f1. > > So 3d or not, why care? > > > > regards > > > > "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > > news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do > enjoy > > GP3 > > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of > words > > > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > > > > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is > not using > > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for > > special > > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is > entirely a > > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, > is for > > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why > the game > > is > > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software > engine > > to > > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to > output its > > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count > > depending > > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is > used? The > > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in > > higher > > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at > 640x480 > > or > > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > > > > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and > Total > > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced > lighting and > > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 > was > > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D > cards on > > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 > offloaded > > a > > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > > > > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > > > > > Michael M > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:49:44 GMT, "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using >3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for special >effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a >software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for >bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the game is >limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engine to >generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its >results.

Yes, GP3 uses basically a software 3D engine. So does Unreal Tournament, but it doesn't look bad, or? There's nothing wrong with your statement, but imo it doesn't mean that GP3 takes less advantage of 3d accelerators than other (racing) games do. I think it's pretty the same as with GPL - basically a software engine with 3d acceleration support. The only difference is that GP3 has a pretty good software rasterizer. Daniel

"Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480 or > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. Which is how it should be - whatever game you use. The work of the processor doesn't change depending on the resolution you select if the rastering is carried out by 3D hardware... > Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloadeda > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) It would probably suck. The Grand Prix series have always employed a lot of clever tricks for hidden surface removal and so on... why else do you get those silly errors where a car is suddenly visible through a wall? That certainly isn't the fault with a Z buffer... If you took away all those HSR tricks, you would probably increase the amount of transformation work required dramatically (as well as rendering, because for most cards they would have to render all those things that we can't see and get overwrite them, whereas with the HSR tricks it never gets that far)... can current cards keep up with that? G

[email hidden] wrote: : Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of : date. Are there really people out there who still argue that fantastic : graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer : entertainment release)? Indeed - and plenty of them. I don't give a stuff what it looks like if it drives well and there's enough markers to pick a braking point. Other than that graphics are well down there with "free key ring" on my list of requirements in a race sim. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

hehe...Rrevved deary you should know better than to attempt so bald a bait with me....NFS:PU....whatever for. I have F1-2000 whose graphics are astounding...GP2 did great because there was no competition...thats not the case these days. F1-2000 will do fine to satisfy the urge to fly around F1 Kart Tracks....and its current...both tracks and drivers. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Hey PD! Yep, if you want to buy a racing sim/game whose primary >feature is great graphics, you may want to look elsewhere. > >Have you tried out NFS:PU? > >You should.. ;) >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy Video Card Wizard www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

Karl Zosel wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Of course that may just mean that the GP 2 engine was out of date, but I > > It was massively INEFFECTIVE, it couldnt handle the hardware at the time. > > IT WAS A BAD GRAPHICS ENGINE FROM THE START, EVEN IN 1996. > AND NOW THEY USE THE SAME ENGINE... >

snip > > My God, Crammond and co must be really laugh their ass off with all you > naive suckers. I'm having fun with GP3 (hoping some of the bugs, esp. FF, are fixed). If that makes me a sucker, I just found a new hobby. -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

In article <8m4ek8$fke$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > GP3 runs at 1024 X 768 with all graphics on at 42fps and > totally blows F1 2000's graphics away. > Ian, how do you get the graphics running above 25fps? - Michael

Rrevved is spot on PD NFS:PU is a blast, It drives great looks great (well better thatn great) and has atmosphere bythe bucketload. Its the only game that I have driven slowly round to take in the sights. Cote D'Zur in the early evening wonderful.... Regards Mike On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:42:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>hehe...Rrevved deary you should know better than to attempt so bald a >bait with me....NFS:PU....whatever for. I have F1-2000 whose graphics >are astounding...GP2 did great because there was no >competition...thats not the case these days. F1-2000 will do fine to >satisfy the urge to fly around F1 Kart Tracks....and its >current...both tracks and drivers. > >PAPA DOC > >>Hey PD! Yep, if you want to buy a racing sim/game whose primary >>feature is great graphics, you may want to look elsewhere. >> >>Have you tried out NFS:PU? >> >>You should.. ;) >> > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... >Flanker Target >GPL Crash Dummy >Video Card Wizard >www.papadoc.net >FALCON 4 Benchmarks >Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

Take a fat gal. Take a supermodel/actress of your choice. You can screw one, but not both of them. It doesn't matter which 'cause they both get down the same? Not in my world! ::)) In article <8m2e1g$53s$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: > [email hidden] wrote: > : Because the graphical prowess of this 3D engine is 4 years out of > : date. Are there really people out there who still argue thatfantastic > : graphics are not essential to a simulation(or any other computer > : entertainment release)? > > Indeed - and plenty of them. I don't give a stuff what it lookslike > if it drives well and there's enough markers to pick a braking point. > Other than that graphics are well down there with "free key ring" onmy

Quoted text (8 lines)

> list of requirements in a race sim. > > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/ >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

GP3 is using your 3d card to draw all the triangles, just like any other game. Maybe you don't know much about 3d accelerator cards, but before nVidia introduced the first GPU (Geometry-Processing-Unit) on the GeForce 256, all 3d cards ever did was draw 2d screen triangles, which is exactly what the 3d card is used for in GP3. A card like a Voodoo 3 for instance, can do nothing but draw 2d triangles straight onto the screen. The game engine has always been responsible for transforming the triangles into screen-space, so when you say that GP3 is only using D3D to display the results, well, that's how all games work. As a programmer using D3D you have the option of writing your own transformation code, or letting D3D do it itself, but both methods are done entirely using your CPU, unless your card has a hardware transformation chip on it, which of course, GP3 doesn't support anyway. The graphical problems you see in GP3, like bad clipping, polygon positioning errors, lack of perspective-correction on some textures, and texture warping are all entirely fixable. They are hang-overs from the software engine, which is obviously optimized for maximum speed, but these things haven't been corrected in the D3D code. Clearly GP3 should have been disigned more with 3d cards in mind. Simon. "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoyGP3 > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards forspecial > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the gameis > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engineto > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon countdepending > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running inhigher > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480or

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded

a

Quoted text (9 lines)

> lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > Michael M > [email hidden] > > >

Then why at 1024/768 does GP3 look blocky whereas all my other games look very good? I think it's because it's a very poor graphics engine held over from GP2 just like everything else with this game. Don't get me wrong, GP3 is a nice step up from GP2 but it's not really worth the money. He could have just put out a 3D patch like papy did for Nascar2 and we would have something pretty much the same minus the weather. Then he could have spent the last 3 years working on something much better because this game just doesn't show 4 years of work, or 3,2 or 1 year of work either (well, maybe 1 year). Vintook "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jI5h5.8606$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> GP3 is using your 3d card to draw all the triangles, just like any other > game. Maybe you don't know much about 3d accelerator cards, but before > nVidia introduced the first GPU (Geometry-Processing-Unit) on the GeForce > 256, all 3d cards ever did was draw 2d screen triangles, which is exactly > what the 3d card is used for in GP3. > A card like a Voodoo 3 for instance, can do nothing but draw 2d triangles > straight onto the screen. The game engine has always been responsible for > transforming the triangles into screen-space, so when you say that GP3 is > only using D3D to display the results, well, that's how all games work. > As a programmer using D3D you have the option of writing your own > transformation code, or letting D3D do it itself, but both methods are

done > entirely using your CPU, unless your card has a hardware transformationchip > on it, which of course, GP3 doesn't support anyway. > The graphical problems you see in GP3, like bad clipping, polygon > positioning errors, lack of perspective-correction on some textures, and > texture warping are all entirely fixable. They are hang-overs from the > software engine, which is obviously optimized for maximum speed, but these > things haven't been corrected in the D3D code. Clearly GP3 should havebeen

Quoted text (9 lines)

> disigned more with 3d cards in mind. > Simon. > > > "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoy > GP3 > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of

words > > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is notusing > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for > special > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirelya > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, isfor > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why thegame > is > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the softwareengine > to > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to outputits > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count > depending > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in > higher > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at640x480

Quoted text (7 lines)

> or > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards

on > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98offloaded

Quoted text (12 lines)

> a > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > > > Michael M > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > >

GP3 is using your 3d card to draw all the triangles, just like any other game. Maybe you don't know much about 3d accelerator cards, but before nVidia introduced the first GPU (Geometry-Processing-Unit) on the GeForce 256, all 3d cards ever did was draw 2d screen triangles, which is exactly what the 3d card is used for in GP3. A card like a Voodoo 3 for instance, can do nothing but draw 2d triangles straight onto the screen. The game engine has always been responsible for transforming the triangles into screen-space, so when you say that GP3 is only using D3D to display the results, well, that's how all games work. As a programmer using D3D you have the option of writing your own transformation code, or letting D3D do it itself, but both methods are done entirely using your CPU, unless your card has a hardware transformation chip on it, which of course, GP3 doesn't support anyway. The graphical problems you see in GP3, like bad clipping, polygon positioning errors, lack of perspective-correction on some textures, and texture warping are all entirely fixable. They are hang-overs from the software engine, which is obviously optimized for maximum speed, but these things haven't been corrected in the D3D code. Clearly GP3 should have been disigned more with 3d cards in mind. Simon. > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoy GP3 > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words > there : ). Now on to my argument... > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for special > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the game is > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engine to > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count depending > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in higher > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480 or

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded

a > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > Discuss amongst yourselves, > Michael M

Oh dear.

If GP3 looked half as good as Unreal there would be no problem at all. The big difference is Unreal was revolutionary....GP3 sadly isnt. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Yes, GP3 uses basically a software 3D engine. So does Unreal >Tournament, but it doesn't look bad, or? There's nothing wrong with >your statement, but imo it doesn't mean that GP3 takes less advantage >of 3d accelerators than other (racing) games do. I think it's pretty >the same as with GPL - basically a software engine with 3d >acceleration support. The only difference is that GP3 has a pretty >good software rasterizer. > >Daniel >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce Shootout http://www.papadoc.net/Voodoo_vs_Geforce2.htm Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Aim-120 Propellent Addict Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<VBG> Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:10:56 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) thus spoke: >If GP3 looked half as good as Unreal there would be no problem at all. >The big difference is Unreal was revolutionary....GP3 sadly isnt. > >PAPA DOC It doesn't look bad PD. It sort of grows on you. GP3 is not as bad as some would have you believe, it's not as good as others would have you believe either. It's somewhere in the middle. :-) -- Nos

How can people slate GP3's graphics when comparing to F1 2000 ? To get a decent framerate in F1 2000 (Athlon 750 Voodoo3 and 128MB RAM) I have to run at 640 X 480 with mirrors off, it looks crap to say the least. Sure you can make it look pretty good but then it becomes undrivable due to low framerate. GP3 runs at 1024 X 768 with all graphics on at 42fps and totally blows F1 2000's graphics away. I have done a comparison screenshot at http://www.ianparker1.freeserve.co.uk/spa-gp3-f12k.jpg to show how the games look on my PC under race conditions, the GP3 pic is reduced in size to match that of F1 2000 and looked better originally. Screenshots are entering the bus stop at Spa. -- Ian Parker "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." <email invalid due to spam> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > hehe...Rrevved deary you should know better than to attempt so bald a > bait with me....NFS:PU....whatever for. I have F1-2000 whose graphics > are astounding...GP2 did great because there was no > competition...thats not the case these days. F1-2000 will do fine to > satisfy the urge to fly around F1 Kart Tracks....and its > current...both tracks and drivers. > > PAPA DOC > > >Hey PD! Yep, if you want to buy a racing sim/game whose primary > >feature is great graphics, you may want to look elsewhere. > > > >Have you tried out NFS:PU? > > > >You should.. ;) > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... > Flanker Target > GPL Crash Dummy > Video Card Wizard > www.papadoc.net > FALCON 4 Benchmarks > Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

GP3 is using your 3d card to draw all the triangles, just like any other game. Maybe you don't know much about 3d accelerator cards, but before nVidia introduced the first GPU (Geometry-Processing-Unit) on the GeForce 256, all 3d cards ever did was draw 2d screen triangles, which is exactly what the 3d card is used for in GP3. A card like a Voodoo 3 for instance, can do nothing but draw 2d triangles straight onto the screen. The game engine has always been responsible for transforming the triangles into screen-space, so when you say that GP3 is only using D3D to display the results, well, that's how all games work. As a programmer using D3D you have the option of writing your own transformation code, or letting D3D do it itself, but both methods are done entirely using your CPU, unless your card has a hardware transformation chip on it, which of course, GP3 doesn't support anyway. The graphical problems you see in GP3, like bad clipping, polygon positioning errors, lack of perspective-correction on some textures, and texture warping are all entirely fixable. They are hang-overs from the software engine, which is obviously optimized for maximum speed, but these things haven't been corrected in the D3D code. Clearly GP3 should have been designed more with 3d cards in mind. Simon. "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do enjoyGP3 > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of words > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is not using > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards forspecial > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is entirely a > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, is for > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why the gameis > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software engineto > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to output its > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon countdepending > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is used? The > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running inhigher > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at 640x480or

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and Total > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced lighting and > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 was > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D cards on > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 offloaded

a > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > Michael M > [email hidden]

as usual, you don't comprehend what you read Vintook "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:55:20 GMT, "Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]>wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > >rrevved <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws > >[email hidden]... > >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:36:02 GMT, "Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]> > >wrote: > >> > >> >With GP2 they left out many stuff they had promised in the interviews

and

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> >the prewiews. > >> > >> Like..? > > > > > >I guess you are too young to know :) > > > >Do I really have to look for the old magazines? > >I read so much at the time;, in fact I sold my Atari and bought a PC

becasue > >GP2 was arriving... > > > Oops. I thought you were referring to GP3. My bad. >

Oh dear.

> Of course that may just mean that the GP 2 engine was out of date, but I It was massively INEFFECTIVE, it couldnt handle the hardware at the time. IT WAS A BAD GRAPHICS ENGINE FROM THE START, EVEN IN 1996. AND NOW THEY USE THE SAME ENGINE... Yes Im shouting because Im getting sick of all you ignorant people. Just because you gave your money, and eventually have fun with the game, doesn't mean other people who get into things and compare it, can't critisize it. Take a look at the other racing games, or at other recent games to see what 3D looks like. How the faster poligons really make things happen on your screen. My God, Crammond and co must be really laugh their ass off with all you naive suckers. With GP2 they left out many stuff they had promised in the interviews and the prewiews. Promises,...promises and then they released an unfinished game (just check all the data on the GP2 that wasn't used in the game). And did they ever release an update or a patch? No, why should they: the money was in! To me Crammond and co are just a bunch of crooks.

Quoted text (72 lines)

> > In article <8m216s$lha$[email hidden]>, > > "Per Frederiksen" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > But the framerate and the look is in my opninion way better in gp3 > > than f1. > > > So 3d or not, why care? > > > > > > regards > > > > > > "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > > > news:sF%g5.22388$[email hidden]... > > > > Before I begin, let me clarify that despite its shortcomings I do > > enjoy > > > GP3 > > > > and find it to be a fun accessible sim-type game (careful choice of > > words > > > > there : ). Now on to my argument... > > > > > > > > After trying some tests, I've come to the conclusion that GP3 is > > not using > > > > 3D cards for acceleration. I believe the game is using 3D cards for > > > special > > > > effects and lighting ala Diablo II. In other words, the game is > > entirely a > > > > software engine. The only advantage of support for 3D accelerators, > > is for > > > > bi-linear filtering, lighting and higher resolutions. That's why > > the game > > > is > > > > limited to 25.6 fps out of the box. The game is using the software > > engine > > > to > > > > generate the polygons and just asking the Direct3D renderer to > > output its > > > > results. Notice that the game does not have a higher polygon count > > > depending > > > > on whether the software engine or the 3D accelerated engine is > > used? The > > > > main advantage of a 3D accelerator in GP3 is to allow for running in > > > higher > > > > resolutions. I have a GeForce 2 and no matter whether I run it at > > 640x480 > > > or > > > > 1280x1024 in 3D mode, I get the exact same CPU occupancy. > > > > > > > > It's not unheard of to use a 3D card for lighting, Diablo II and > > Total > > > > Annihilation: Kingdoms both used 3D cards just for enhanced > > lighting and > > > > other effects. Just think of the performance they could get if GP3 > > was > > > > written from day one to use the onboard geometry of the newer 3D > > cards on > > > > the market? (Actually even the Voodoo2 released back in early 98 > > offloaded > > > a > > > > lot of the polygon processing from the CPU) > > > > > > > > Discuss amongst yourselves, > > > > > > > > Michael M > > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > >

rrevved <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws [email hidden]... > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:36:02 GMT, "Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]>wrote: > > >With GP2 they left out many stuff they had promised in the interviews and > >the prewiews. > > Like..? I guess you are too young to know :) Do I really have to look for the old magazines? I read so much at the time;, in fact I sold my Atari and bought a PC becasue GP2 was arriving...

Go to http://www.alphaf1.com (I think) and in the GP3 section under utilities you'll find a file called gp3fra5.zip which lets you select the framerate you want to use. -- Ian Parker "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." <email invalid due to spam> MichaelJP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <8m4ek8$fke$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > GP3 runs at 1024 X 768 with all graphics on at 42fps and > > totally blows F1 2000's graphics away. > > > > Ian, how do you get the graphics running above 25fps? > > - Michael

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:05:47 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> wrote: >In article <8m4ek8$fke$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... >> GP3 runs at 1024 X 768 with all graphics on at 42fps and >> totally blows F1 2000's graphics away. >> > >Ian, how do you get the graphics running above 25fps? There is a crack on www.alphaf1.com/gp3 which allow the fps to exceed 25. .. MVH Anders H. J�rgensen, der snart flytter til �rhus. email: [email hidden]

"Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mGjh5.83917$[email hidden]... > Yes Im shouting because Im getting sick of all you ignorant people. Ignorant? Well, I'm sick of all these people who think that because the software and hardware renderers in GP3 don't show much difference, that means the hardware version isn't very good... when in fact it's the software renderer that is very, very, good. How many F1 sims look as good as GP3? F1 2000 certainly doesn't... G

In article <8m4u31$q7a$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Go to http://www.alphaf1.com (I think) and in the GP3 section under > utilities you'll find a file called gp3fra5.zip which lets you select the > framerate you want to use. > > -- > Ian Parker Thanks, - Michael

Thanks, - Michael

Dont tell anyone but I have a copy....I know what it looks like..<G> Im not impressed.....and text editing to adjust the graphics...neat stuff. Nope back to GPL....I will have to wait till the real genius makes a Modern F1 game I be drawn away from GPL...like the guy who made GPL. Though the World Sports Car guys are saying all the right things. PAPA DOC > >It doesn't look bad PD. It sort of grows on you. GP3 is not as bad as >some would have you believe, it's not as good as others would have you >believe either. It's somewhere in the middle. :-) >-- >Nos Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy Video Card Wizard www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks Rants, Bullshit and Reviews