Graphics or Physics.

Honestly I would prefer that Nascar 3 stays light on the flashy garphics this way we will not need a god like system to run the game with the detailed Grand Prix Legends physics model. I feel that EA felt that people will buy a game for the graphics and be able to s***together a physics model that just ain't realistic. By the way does anyone know if Nascar 3 will require a 3d card. Thank Y'all, Patrick Shumar

Yes Nascar3 will only support Hardware 3D acceleration.. This means you will need a 3dfx or Nvidia Riva TNT/TNT2 card. Cowen

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Honestly I would prefer that Nascar 3 stays light on the flashy garphics >this way we will not need a god like system to run the game with the >detailed Grand Prix Legends physics model. I feel that EA felt that >people will buy a game for the graphics and be able to s***together a >physics model that just ain't realistic. By the way does anyone know if >Nascar 3 will require a 3d card. >Thank Y'all, >Patrick Shumar

Actually, any card that supports Open GL should do... >Yes Nascar3 will only support Hardware 3D acceleration.. This means you >will need a 3dfx or Nvidia Riva TNT/TNT2 card.

Nascar 3 is hardware only. I read it will support openGL (yay!!!) and possibly Direct3D. Brian Short

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Honestly I would prefer that Nascar 3 stays light on the flashy garphics > this way we will not need a god like system to run the game with the > detailed Grand Prix Legends physics model. I feel that EA felt that > people will buy a game for the graphics and be able to s***together a > physics model that just ain't realistic. By the way does anyone know if > Nascar 3 will require a 3d card. > Thank Y'all, > Patrick Shumar

To bad its the other way around. :) Its the physics system and especially the multiple AI each running their own physics system that increases the system resources needed to run the game. If GPL requires a 3D card, you can bet N3 will. Hopefully by the time N3 ships they will have optimized a lot of the features of GPL, added more than just the Rendition and Glide renderers (so OpenGL would be out of beta...but OpenGL is rather pointless as they game won't be ported, so it would be better to write (although not as easy) a good D3D renderer since most cards like the Rage Fury, TNT, etc do a better job of D3D than OpenGL) and other changes. Flashy graphics are easy and cheap with 3D cards. Very detailed floating point (as opposed to fixed precision) multiple bodied physics are fairly expensive. :) >Honestly I would prefer that Nascar 3 stays light on the flashy garphics >this way we will not need a god like system to run the game with the >detailed Grand Prix Legends physics model. I feel that EA felt that >people will buy a game for the graphics and be able to s***together a >physics model that just ain't realistic. By the way does anyone know if >Nascar 3 will require a 3d card.

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:39:03 -0600, "Chris Schletter" >Flashy graphics are easy and cheap with 3D cards. Very detailed floating >point (as opposed to fixed precision) multiple bodied physics are fairly >expensive. :) Then what we need now is a "3D physics accelerator"? A. Renault

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:39:03 -0600, "Chris Schletter" >>Flashy graphics are easy and cheap with 3D cards. Very detailed floating >>point (as opposed to fixed precision) multiple bodied physics are fairly >>expensive. :) >Then what we need now is a "3D physics accelerator"? >A. Renault

hehe :)

: On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:39:03 -0600, "Chris Schletter" :>Flashy graphics are easy and cheap with 3D cards. Very detailed floating :>point (as opposed to fixed precision) multiple bodied physics are fairly :>expensive. :) : Then what we need now is a "3D physics accelerator"? Aren't those things about 6km in diameter and built underground? I doubt you would want to go to all the trouble just for a game... :) Stephen

Sure...its called FPU, the floating point unit, of the CPU. :? So yeah, we basically just need a faster processor. ;)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:39:03 -0600, "Chris Schletter" > >Flashy graphics are easy and cheap with 3D cards. Very detailed floating > >point (as opposed to fixed precision) multiple bodied physics are fairly > >expensive. :) > Then what we need now is a "3D physics accelerator"?

We've got them already, they're called FPU's. Trips

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:35:43 -0600, "Chris Schletter" >Sure...its called FPU, the floating point unit, of the CPU. :? >>Then what we need now is a "3D physics accelerator"? >So yeah, we basically just need a faster processor. ;) It was first intended as a joke, but now I'm beginning to wonder if this could really be done... Just imagine, a separate processor that would do all physics calculations... You just tell it the dimension, shape, weight distribution and all other important parameters, then you tell it what is the current direction of each object in relation to each other and what forces are applied... You could set gravity as a constant, so it'd take it into account every time it calculates something... This could be applied to several types of games: flight sims, driving sims, sport sims, and even in arcade games... Boy I'm pushing this a little bit... Woooh... Anyway, If it's still possible to take load off the CPU, I wish one of these'd be made soon... Remember what 3D graphics accelerators changed to games graphics, now imagine what physics accelerators could do for sims... Ok I'm dreaming out loud here, but what the h... <G> A. Renault