Catalyst 3.10 Available - Issue with N2003

The latest release of the Catalyst drivers are now available on ATI's site. According to the release notes, there's a known problem with Nascar 2003, here's the snippet: Known Issues The following section provides a brief description of known issues associated with the latest version of CATALYSTT. These include the following: <snip> Playing the game Nascar 2003 with the display resolution set to 1280x1024 32bpp results in display corruption being seen. This issue will be resolved in an upcoming CATALSYT release. Further information on this issue can be found at: www.ati.com/support/infobase/AAAI.html (The link doesn't work for me at the moment.) ...Klinn

Great. That's exactly what I run... I just _knew_ this ATI driver stuff was gonna bite me in the ass. It's why I waited so long. Now that I went ahead and did it... CHOMP! -Larry "Klinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WThEb.2507$[email hidden]... > The latest release of the Catalyst drivers are now available on ATI'ssite.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> According to the release notes, there's a known problem with Nascar 2003, > here's the snippet: > > Known Issues > > The following section provides a brief description of known issues > associated with the latest version of CATALYSTT. These include the > following: > <snip> > Playing the game Nascar 2003 with the display resolution set to 1280x1024 > 32bpp results in display corruption being seen. This issue will be

resolved

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in an upcoming CATALSYT release. Further information on this issue can be > found at: www.ati.com/support/infobase/AAAI.html > > (The link doesn't work for me at the moment.) > > ...Klinn > > >

> I just _knew_ this ATI driver stuff was gonna bite me in the ass. It'swhy > I waited so long. Now that I went ahead and did it... CHOMP! > > -Larry Just curious, but have you tried dropping the res and upping the FSAA & AF? I was running 1280x1024x32 (no FSAA/AF) with my GF3, but found I got a better image and frame rate running 1024x768 and 4x FSAA and AF. I am on the low end of the CPU scale with only a XP2100 so you might even be able to run a higher res as well with a faster CPU. MadDAWG

Ive never run 1280X1024 for the simple fact that 1280X960 is the non-scaled res for a 4X3 aspect monitor. I ran 1280X960 for awhile but like 1152X864 6X AA 16X AF a little better. Personally I rarely ever run ATI native drivers. Things are much nicer once Omega gives em a run through. Nvidia NEVER has driver issues hehe, I have some land for sale, interested :) Mitch "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:36kEb.35993$hf1.15252@lakeread06... > Great. That's exactly what I run... > > I just _knew_ this ATI driver stuff was gonna bite me in the ass. It'swhy > I waited so long. Now that I went ahead and did it... CHOMP! > > -Larry >

Magnus reports on rage3d that FSAA is still disabled in GPL :( Very bad news. We need to bombard their driver feedback email http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/index.asp rms

Catalyst 3.1s? WTF?!?!? A couple of weeks ago ATI had just released Cat 3.9s...which were to make up for the unloved 3.8s, which weren't as good as the 3.7s. Is ATI stuck in reverse, or is it just me? "Klinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WThEb.2507$[email hidden]... > The latest release of the Catalyst drivers are now available on ATI'ssite.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> According to the release notes, there's a known problem with Nascar 2003, > here's the snippet: > > Known Issues > > The following section provides a brief description of known issues > associated with the latest version of CATALYSTT. These include the > following: > <snip> > Playing the game Nascar 2003 with the display resolution set to 1280x1024 > 32bpp results in display corruption being seen. This issue will be

resolved

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in an upcoming CATALSYT release. Further information on this issue can be > found at: www.ati.com/support/infobase/AAAI.html > > (The link doesn't work for me at the moment.) > > ...Klinn > > >

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:15:08 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Catalyst 3.1s? WTF?!?!? They are 3.10. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Sure, everybody's knows 3.10 comes after 3.9; do the math! Since when did binary succumb to the Dewey Decimal System? "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:15:08 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Catalyst 3.1s? WTF?!?!? > > They are 3.10. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:56:32 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sure, everybody's knows 3.10 comes after 3.9; do the math! Since when did >binary succumb to the Dewey Decimal System? >And since when did version numbers become standard decimals? My IE version is 6.0.2800.1106. Analyse that. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

I tested and found no corruption at any resolution. Must be my super computer. "Klinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WThEb.2507$[email hidden]... The latest release of the Catalyst drivers are now available on ATI's site. According to the release notes, there's a known problem with Nascar 2003, here's the snippet: Known Issues The following section provides a brief description of known issues associated with the latest version of CATALYSTT. These include the following: <snip> Playing the game Nascar 2003 with the display resolution set to 1280x1024 32bpp results in display corruption being seen. This issue will be resolved in an upcoming CATALSYT release. Further information on this issue can be found at: www.ati.com/support/infobase/AAAI.html (The link doesn't work for me at the moment.) ...Klinn

Larry wrote: > Great. That's exactly what I run... You shouldn't be running 1280x1024 anyway for the reason Mitch explains, but there are several other driver versions which don't have a problem at all, like the 3.7 (which are the ones I'm using), and they're all still available for download from ATI. Achim

Steve Smith wrote: > Catalyst 3.1s? WTF?!?!? A couple of weeks ago ATI had just released Cat > 3.9s...which were to make up for the unloved 3.8s, which weren't as good as > the 3.7s. Is ATI stuck in reverse, or is it just me? A pretty strange numbering scheme, isn't it :) but there is no prob at all in GPL with AA - it works perfectly well for me using the 3.7 CAT. Achim

Tiny Lund wrote: > I tested and found no corruption at any resolution. Must be my super > computer. I've tested them in Win2000 and don't have any corruption either, they work as smooth as a charm. In WinME I still use the 3.7, and those as well have no probs for me at any resolution. The 3.9 also work flawlessly for me btw, in both OSes. Achim

I take yer point. "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:56:32 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Sure, everybody's knows 3.10 comes after 3.9; do the math! Since whendid

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >binary succumb to the Dewey Decimal System? > > > And since when did version numbers become standard decimals? My IE > version is 6.0.2800.1106. Analyse that. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Hell, I got it ALL turned on now. Horsepower, Baby :) BTW... My previous post was a humerous accounting of my typical luck :) -Larry "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fe1e344$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > I just _knew_ this ATI driver stuff was gonna bite me in the ass. It's > why > > I waited so long. Now that I went ahead and did it... CHOMP! > > > > -Larry > > Just curious, but have you tried dropping the res and upping the FSAA &

AF? > I was running 1280x1024x32 (no FSAA/AF) with my GF3, but found I got a > better image and frame rate running 1024x768 and 4x FSAA and AF. I am on > the low end of the CPU scale with only a XP2100 so you might even be ableto > run a higher res as well with a faster CPU. > > MadDAWG > >

You know, I've heard about this 1280X1024 argument in the past, but I honestly don't see the issue. It looks just fine to me. Not saying it _isn't_ an issue, it's just never bothered me for some reason :) 1280X960 is a widescreen format IIRC, so I have no doubt that would look weird. -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h2lEb.72589$[email hidden]... > Ive never run 1280X1024 for the simple fact that 1280X960 is thenon-scaled > res for a 4X3 aspect monitor. I ran 1280X960 for awhile but like 1152X864 > 6X AA 16X AF a little better. > > Personally I rarely ever run ATI native drivers. Things are much niceronce

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Omega gives em a run through. > > Nvidia NEVER has driver issues hehe, I have some land for sale, interested > :) > > Mitch > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:36kEb.35993$hf1.15252@lakeread06... > > Great. That's exactly what I run... > > > > I just _knew_ this ATI driver stuff was gonna bite me in the ass. It's > why > > I waited so long. Now that I went ahead and did it... CHOMP! > > > > -Larry > > > >

It had me going for a while, too. ATI is just using a sequential numbering format. Frankly, I think it makes sense. 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 etc... -Larry "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:M8mEb.39274$[email hidden]... > Catalyst 3.1s? WTF?!?!? A couple of weeks ago ATI had just released Cat > 3.9s...which were to make up for the unloved 3.8s, which weren't as goodas > the 3.7s. Is ATI stuck in reverse, or is it just me?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:56:32 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom: >Sure, everybody's knows 3.10 comes after 3.9; do the math! Since when did >binary succumb to the Dewey Decimal System? > And, 3.09 comes BEFORE 3.10. 3.10 is the same as 3.1. 1 is the last significant digit. Everyone else does it correctly; why can't ATI ? <Gibs> When you kill 6 people in Unreal Tournament it is "MonsterKill", In Quake3 it is "Excellent", in Counter-Strike it is "Kicked by console"

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:49:07 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>You know, I've heard about this 1280X1024 argument in the past, but I >honestly don't see the issue. It looks just fine to me. > >Not saying it _isn't_ an issue, it's just never bothered me for some reason >:) > >1280X960 is a widescreen format IIRC, so I have no doubt that would look >weird.

No, no and no. :) 1280x960 is a standard 4:3 resolution like 800x600 or 1024x768. Just do the simple math. It's 1280x1024 that looks weird and I don't know why so many people use it unless they have a 17" TFT monitor.

I think after 3.9 I would have just gone to 4.0. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5NNEb.37806$hf1.26947@lakeread06... > It had me going for a while, too. > > ATI is just using a sequential numbering format. Frankly, I think itmakes

Quoted text (16 lines)

> sense. > > 3.7 > 3.8 > 3.9 > 3.10 > 3.11 > 3.12 > > etc... > > -Larry > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:M8mEb.39274$[email hidden]... > > Catalyst 3.1s? WTF?!?!? A couple of weeks ago ATI had just released

Cat > > 3.9s...which were to make up for the unloved 3.8s, which weren't as good > as > > the 3.7s. Is ATI stuck in reverse, or is it just me? > >

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:35:27 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I think after 3.9 I would have just gone to 4.0. >But 3.10 is not a major driver release. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

> And, 3.09 comes BEFORE 3.10. > 3.10 is the same as 3.1. 1 is the last significant digit. > > Everyone else does it correctly; why can't ATI ? > I presume you're not serious! In programing terms the versions are incremented so it goes 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, etc. 3.1 is not the same as 3.10!

In that case...why bother? ATI seems to have stepped on their own...erm, petard w. every new release since the 3.7 Catalysts. "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:35:27 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I think after 3.9 I would have just gone to 4.0. > > > But 3.10 is not a major driver release. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Steve Smith" wrote in message ... > I think after 3.9 I would have just gone to 4.0. From what I've read on ATI sites, I believe they use the first digit to represent the year: '3.x' = a 2003 Catalyst, '4.x' will be a 2004 Catalyst. I've only just started using ATI cards again, so I may have this wrong. I assume they didn't want to release it as '3.95' or some such since it wouldn't sound like a significant upgrade. ...Klinn

Like I said, looks fine to me :) -Larry "Sgt. Lance" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:49:07 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >You know, I've heard about this 1280X1024 argument in the past, but I > >honestly don't see the issue. It looks just fine to me. > > > >Not saying it _isn't_ an issue, it's just never bothered me for somereason

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >:) > > > >1280X960 is a widescreen format IIRC, so I have no doubt that would look > >weird. > > No, no and no. :) > > 1280x960 is a standard 4:3 resolution like 800x600 or 1024x768. Just > do the simple math. > > It's 1280x1024 that looks weird and I don't know why so many people > use it unless they have a 17" TFT monitor.

ATI is using their version number as more of a 'Build' number. That's what is throwing folks off. -Larry "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HQ1Fb.7256$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > And, 3.09 comes BEFORE 3.10. > > 3.10 is the same as 3.1. 1 is the last significant digit. > > > > Everyone else does it correctly; why can't ATI ? > > > > I presume you're not serious! In programing terms the versions are > incremented so it goes 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, etc. 3.1 is not the same as > 3.10! > >

It makes sense the way they do it. If they release 12 Catalysts' a year it wouldn't take long to get to version 24.0. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:luDFb.43176$hf1.10092@lakeread06... ATI is using their version number as more of a 'Build' number. That's what is throwing folks off. -Larry "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HQ1Fb.7256$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > And, 3.09 comes BEFORE 3.10. > > 3.10 is the same as 3.1. 1 is the last significant digit. > > > > Everyone else does it correctly; why can't ATI ? > > > > I presume you're not serious! In programing terms the versions are > incremented so it goes 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, etc. 3.1 is not the same as > 3.10! > >

In any event, the issue appears to be moot. Omega sez on his site that the 3.10 Cats will be the last...at least for Win9x/ME. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2DhFb.41987$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> In that case...why bother? ATI seems to have stepped on their own...erm, > petard w. every new release since the 3.7 Catalysts. > > "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:35:27 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >I think after 3.9 I would have just gone to 4.0. > > > > > But 3.10 is not a major driver release. > > -- > > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > > Check groups.google.com before asking a question. > >