says...
I would be happy with Direct3D or OpenGL support. Writing to a
specific proprietary API is what got them into the "verite only"
mindset to begin with.
--
/*===================================================*/
John Simmons (Redneck Techno-Biker)
http://www2.connectnet.com/~jms/
If you want to send me email, go the URL above and
click "Send Me Mail" in the Contents frame.
/*===================================================*/
Some helpful email addresses for spammers:
Current board of the FCC:
USPS:
Miscellaneous:
/*===================================================*/
>business sense. I'd rather see Papyrus concentrate on their new products
>than their old ones anyway. I'm sure that all of their new games (SODA
>isn't really a Papyrus product AFAIK) will support 3Dfx (at least as D3D).
But SODA does NOT support 3dfx. Niether does Red Baron 2, another
upcoming Sierra release. Face it, Sierra is way behind the curve for
3d card support. Only EA is as bad as Sierra, these too are tied for
last place. Utterly pathetic and inexcusable when you consider the
kinds of resources they have.
Joe
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >business sense. I'd rather see Papyrus concentrate on their new products > >than their old ones anyway. I'm sure that all of their new games (SODA > >isn't really a Papyrus product AFAIK) will support 3Dfx (at least as D3D). > But SODA does NOT support 3dfx. Niether does Red Baron 2, another > upcoming Sierra release. Face it, Sierra is way behind the curve for > 3d card support. Only EA is as bad as Sierra, these too are tied for > last place. Utterly pathetic and inexcusable when you consider the > kinds of resources they have. > JoeQuoted text (10 lines)
>says... >> What I dont understand is how Sierra can support 3DFX in some of its other >> titles, racing included, and not in Nascar2? I have read they will support >> 3DFX in the upcoming Grand Prix Legends. WHY NOT in Nascar2?????? By the >> way I do own a Rendition card . I just dont want it as my 2D card. All I >> use it for is Nascar2. >I would be happy with Direct3D or OpenGL support. Writing to a >specific proprietary API is what got them into the "verite only" >mindset to begin with.>"If you see what - *ack* those French blokes - have been able to do in
>MotoRacer with Direct3D, it's obviously the way to go"
I think MotoRacer is great, just bought the full version this weekend,
*but* I don't think it's a great tester of the merits of D3D.
It's a "walled" driver, just like Need For Speed. It isn't acutally
doing much rendering. It ought to be fast.
As a counterpoint, look at the Mercenaries D3D patch.
It gets dog-slow when there is a lot of action on screen, even on
Pentium 200's.
I have a 166, and my frame rate drops from 45 to below 10 with 3 enemy
mechs on screen. It's pathetic.
My point is, that there is just too wide a performance disparity in
the D3D titles right now. Are MotoRacer and Mercs the "exceptions to
the rule", the best and worst we'll see? Dunno... Who can say?
It also remains to be seen if the DX5 D3D performance increase
(Draw Primitive, or whatever) will be for real.
I will say that I haven't seen any D3D title except MotoRacer that
impressed me with its performance.
Monster Truck Madness and Hellbender both ran much slower than I
expected. Flying Corps is pretty good, but not great.
Lots of goofy twitches and pauses.
In my experience, the D3D games are allowing me to run at the same
frame rate with nicer graphics, while the direct ports have both the
nice graphics and a 50% increase in speed.
I was hoping SODA was going to be D3D, since it would give us a good
idea about D3D for racing games/sims.
Framerate is very important in driving sims, and I've only seen D3D
deliver the goods once in about 6 games, and in that one case, it
wasn't a very demanding game.
--
> doesn't like it, therefore it must be crap". Also, OpenGL is SGI's
> proprietary API. There is definitely an issue regarding MS's refusal
> to support OpenGL properly, but that doesn't make one API better than
> any other.
According to www.opengl.org, Microsoft is a member of the
Architectural Review Board for OpenGL. In fact, Microsoft is one of
the five permanent members of the ARB (the ARB currently has seven
member companies). IRIS GL was SGI's proprietary API, but OpenGL
(which isn't even fully compatible with IRIS GL) is a licensed open
technology.
Dept. of Computer Sciences http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/bingle
Purdue University (765) 494-0893
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1398
>Actually, EA is going whole hog into 3dfx accleration with their upcoming
>sports games. They even have a sizeable investment in 3dfx Corp.(not long
>before the IPO), though you're right that they were very cautious in
>approaching 3D acceleration (not a suprise since their titles reach a very
>broad base). I believe their Win 95 Andretti Racing and NHL 98 will
>support 3dfx, at least that's what I heard around the time of E3.
You're right, EA is slowly getting with the program. Sierra, though,
there the slowest, most backwards ... it's very annoying.
Joe
>I'd prefer OpenGL, vs MS crappy Proprietary 3D garbage.
Have you programmed to either API? If not, how can you draw a
comparison other than by the second-hand comment of "John Romero
doesn't like it, therefore it must be crap". Also, OpenGL is SGI's
proprietary API. There is definitely an issue regarding MS's refusal
to support OpenGL properly, but that doesn't make one API better than
any other.
"If you see what - *ack* those French blokes - have been able to do in
MotoRacer with Direct3D, it's obviously the way to go"
Both these statements have equal merit, IMO.
Ken
--
#include <disclaim>
Quoted text (12 lines)
>>"If you see what - *ack* those French blokes - have been able to do in >>MotoRacer with Direct3D, it's obviously the way to go" >I think MotoRacer is great, just bought the full version this weekend, >*but* I don't think it's a great tester of the merits of D3D. >It's a "walled" driver, just like Need For Speed. It isn't acutally >doing much rendering. It ought to be fast. >As a counterpoint, look at the Mercenaries D3D patch. >It gets dog-slow when there is a lot of action on screen, even on >Pentium 200's. >I have a 166, and my frame rate drops from 45 to below 10 with 3 enemy >mechs on screen. It's pathetic.Quoted text (8 lines)
> >business sense. I'd rather see Papyrus concentrate on their new products > >than their old ones anyway. I'm sure that all of their new games (SODA > >isn't really a Papyrus product AFAIK) will support 3Dfx (at least as D3D). > But SODA does NOT support 3dfx. Niether does Red Baron 2, another > upcoming Sierra release. Face it, Sierra is way behind the curve for > 3d card support. Only EA is as bad as Sierra, these too are tied for > last place. Utterly pathetic and inexcusable when you consider the > kinds of resources they have.Well also because they are big they move slow....consider that EA is
going to be supporting the 3dfx chip with almost all new games...
I have not purchased Nascar2 because of its lack of support of the
3dfx...they dont want to support it and want to have an exclusive
Rendition deal fine...just dont expect my money, small thing I know
but sure are alot of 3dfx owners out there....
Pierre
Actually Nascar2 has a great framerate even on a P5-166. 3D is not
really needed. Believe it or not.
--
Header address intentionaly scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
>> I have not purchased Nascar2 because of its lack of support of the
>> 3dfx...they dont want to support it and want to have an exclusive
>Actually Nascar2 has a great framerate even on a P5-166. 3D is not
>really needed. Believe it or not.
Not. I have a P200, and while N2 is better than most unaccelerated
software, it would benefit greatly from 3dfx support. I could turn
many mroe graphic details on, and the increased frame-rate would make
the game that much better.
Joe
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >> I have not purchased Nascar2 because of its lack of support of the > >> 3dfx...they dont want to support it and want to have an exclusive > >Actually Nascar2 has a great framerate even on a P5-166. 3D is not > >really needed. Believe it or not. > Not. I have a P200, and while N2 is better than most unaccelerated > software, it would benefit greatly from 3dfx support. I could turn > many mroe graphic details on, and the increased frame-rate would make > the game that much better.:>I would be happy with Direct3D or OpenGL support. Writing to a
:>specific proprietary API is what got them into the "verite only"
:>mindset to begin with.
:I'd prefer OpenGL, vs MS crappy Proprietary 3D garbage. If you see
:what ID has been able to do in Quake with OpenGL, it's obviously the
:way to go.
There are great looking and moving Direct3D games (demos) as well,
for instance G-Police. Also, it is said at the moment Direct3D 5.0
may actually be faster than OpenGL on Wintel machines, because
the D3D drivers different 3D accelerators have are closer to the
metal than existing OpenGL drivers (including 3Dfx's mini-GL driver),
which are merely some "wrappers" around 3D cards' proprietary APIs,
like 3Dfx's WinGlide.
Anyways, it seems we will be getting great looking Direct3D and
OpenGL games, so I don't care which API the games use, as long as
most 3D cards have working drivers for both APIs.
:>"If you see what - *ack* those French blokes - have been able to do in
:>MotoRacer with Direct3D, it's obviously the way to go"
:I think MotoRacer is great, just bought the full version this weekend,
:*but* I don't think it's a great tester of the merits of D3D.
Very true, because Moto Racer is using only Direct3D 3.0 IM, while
there already is a superior Direct3D 5.0 available. Try for instance
G-Police demo (a D3D 5.0 game), very pretty and moves very nicely.
:It's a "walled" driver, just like Need For Speed. It isn't acutally
:doing much rendering. It ought to be fast.
I don't know how being a "walled driver" has anything to do with the
amount of rendering the game has to do.
:My point is, that there is just too wide a performance disparity in
:the D3D titles right now. Are MotoRacer and Mercs the "exceptions to
:the rule", the best and worst we'll see? Dunno... Who can say?
Irrelevant, since both games are using the _older_ Direct3D.
:It also remains to be seen if the DX5 D3D performance increase
:(Draw Primitive, or whatever) will be for real.
Judging by the comments from the game developers so far, this
appears to be the case.
:In my experience, the D3D games are allowing me to run at the same
:frame rate with nicer graphics, while the direct ports have both the
:nice graphics and a 50% increase in speed.
I thought the issue was "OpenGL vs. Direct3D", not "native vs. Direct3D"?
Naturally native support is faster than either Direct3D or OpenGL,
but it has its own drawbacks, like that it won't run on any other
cards besides the one it is ported to.
For instance, if you now have a Verite V1000 card, and replace it
with another 3D card which is not 100% compatible with V1000
(I heard even V2200 is not), you can pretty much kiss goodbye
to your 3D accelerated Nascar 2, ICR 2 etc. Most probably this
wouldn't be the case if those games were using either OpenGL
or Direct3D, even though there have been some compatibility/driver
issues with both APIs.
:Framerate is very important in driving sims, and I've only seen D3D
:deliver the goods once in about 6 games, and in that one case, it
:wasn't a very demanding game.
G-Police demo does look pretty nice. ;-)
>Very true, because Moto Racer is using only Direct3D 3.0 IM, while
>there already is a superior Direct3D 5.0 available. Try for instance
>G-Police demo (a D3D 5.0 game), very pretty and moves very nicely.
The demo has been pulled. I didn't have a chance to check it out.
Have you played the full version? If you do big jumps on a lot of the
tracks, you'll see that there is nothing outside the track.
What you're seeing for much of the track is a couple of textures
repeated over and over.
Really? I feel it's very relevant, since these two games are available
now. DX5 is still unproven.
The one DX5 game I've heard about is a demo, and it's been pulled at
the request of the manufacturer.
I didn't really know there was an issue, but I think the thread
started out with a guy asking why NASCAR2 didn't have 3DFX support.
I was just responding to the guy that suggested D3D for racing sims.
I think a D3D (with 3.x) NASCAR 2 would be dog slow.
Hopefully the demo will be re-released. It didn't say why it was
pulled.
--
Have you looked closely at the Papy products? Try driving down to the
keyhole at Mid-Ohio in ICR2. Drive around it onto the backstraight and
look back across toward the pits - wow, where did the ground go?!?
Does that detract from the game? Not at all, in fact Moto-Racer is one
of the smoothest and fastest 3D games around. If repeating a couple of
testures is a clever way to gain frame-rate and can be done without
looking "samey" then I see no problem with it.
Well, D3D support in Moto-Racer is pretty nice actually. I doubt it
would be "dog slow" if it was done correctly.
Cheers!
John
>Does that detract from the game? Not at all, in fact Moto-Racer is one
>of the smoothest and fastest 3D games around. If repeating a couple of
>testures is a clever way to gain frame-rate and can be done without
>looking "samey" then I see no problem with it.
Read back to my previous post if you can. I think MotoRacer is great.
It is the only D3D game I've seen that impressed me.
I went on to hypothesize that it was because it was a "walled" game
like Need For Speed, and wasn't as demanding as the other D3D games
I'd played.
Of all the D3D games I've played, MotoRacer is the only one that
impressed me. Flying Corps is good, but it has a lot of pauses while
it does the texture swaps.
Mercenaries is plain awful. It looks great, but it turns into a slide
show during fire-fights.
They're all giant too. Do you know why?
The Native Voodoo and Rendition patches fit on a single floppy.
The Mercs and Flying Corps patches are between 5 and 8 meg ZIPPED.
Pretty klunky.
I hope games that use DX5 are as fast as claimed. It'd be nice to be
able to have one standard so that old stuff would keep running on new,
faster cards.
--
