Cheat driver
Tor Bjørn
cards.
It has now been reveald how to turn this feature off remotely by online
servers...but how do you enable it? I just wanted to check what all this
fuss was about... I can get the menu to appeare, but I can't select
See-through though.... Is it a registry hack?
Tor
Martin Eriksson
Must be very confusing.
"Tor Bjørn" <tbm...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:soNR6.516$3c6....@juliett.dax.net...
Cary L. Brown
Modes... not "CHEAT." I wanted this feature for non-gaming reasons and have
had it denied due to pathetic outcry of a small but very loud group of online
gamers who can't see to the real world from beyond their own hobby...
I believe that there is a readme file in the driver set, and that should
explain how to do this... if not, simply do a web search and you'll find
hundreds of links to it.
Stephen Powell
<3B17B9EC...@attglobal.net>, it was rumoured that
cary...@attglobal.net spewed forth this...
(I of course, believe none of it)
> "Tor Bjørn" wrote:
>
> > Those hacked drivers 11.xx let you enable see-throug wall effect with Asus
> > cards.
> > It has now been reveald how to turn this feature off remotely by online
> > servers...but how do you enable it? I just wanted to check what all this
> > fuss was about... I can get the menu to appeare, but I can't select
> > See-through though.... Is it a registry hack?
>
> First off, PLEASE refer to it by the proper name... Alternate Visibility
> Modes... not "CHEAT." I wanted this feature for non-gaming reasons and have
> had it denied due to pathetic outcry of a small but very loud group of online
> gamers who can't see to the real world from beyond their own hobby...
>
> I believe that there is a readme file in the driver set, and that should
> explain how to do this... if not, simply do a web search and you'll find
> hundreds of links to it.
All referring to the drivers as "Cheat" drivers. Which I suppose gives
you a clue as to their primary use...
--
SteveP
http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this
Justin Mahn
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B17B9EC...@attglobal.net...
> First off, PLEASE refer to it by the proper name... Alternate Visibility
> Modes... not "CHEAT." I wanted this feature for non-gaming reasons and
have
> had it denied due to pathetic outcry of a small but very loud group of
online
> gamers who can't see to the real world from beyond their own hobby...
Care to explain a legitamite use for these 'Alternate Visibility Modes'?
Seems to me they merely corrupt the intent of the games they're used in. If
games like Unreal Tournament wanted you to see through walls, they'd bloody
well program them that way!
Biblio Techa
mode (wire frame), when infact every CAD/CAM program has a wire frame mode
built into software and all nvidia cards are able to accelerate wireframe.
BT
p.s. anyway there is a msg from about a week ago where this guy started
blabing the same crap
"Justin Mahn" <gab...@tcainternet.com> wrote in message
news:thflns4...@corp.supernews.com...
Rob C
Ohhhhhhh, gonna get flamed!
It's a reg. hack.
Cheers,
Rob C
Stephen Powell
<rfRR6.2582$Be4.4...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>, it was rumoured that
bte...@myballs.com spewed forth this...
(I of course, believe none of it)
> mode (wire frame), when infact every CAD/CAM program has a wire frame mode
> built into software and all nvidia cards are able to accelerate wireframe.
Thats not really fair. I read his explanation from before as the
transparent textures might be useful in visualising depth in CAD. Which
I can see (I have a m8 who does quite a bit of pro work with AutoCAD
2000).
However, its the games players that have driven the prices of such
powerful cards so low, so just to dismiss their opinions is a
bit...folish.
(Incidentally the AutoCAD using friend agrees, but then, he also plays
games)
Cary L. Brown
goes. Those of you who read the original thread, please don't feel the need to
join in unless you really want to dredge all this up again. I'm just TICKED OFF
about this attitude. <RANT MODE - ON>
NOT EVERYONE USES THEIR COMPUTER ONLY FOR GAMES.
NOT EVERYONE WHO USES THEIR COMPUTER FOR GAMES USES IT FOR ONLINE GAMING
Get that?
I have a reasonably high-end system, 512MB of PC133, Athlon 800 (hey, it was
tops just a few months ago!), and 124GB of total disk space. Why, you ask?
Certainly not to play "Quake4 - Kill Yo Mama." I WORK with my computer!
Remarkable, huh? Yes, Justin, there are uses for computers besides "fragging
yer homies" online. Maybe that's all YOU use your for, but anyone smart enough
to use the internet OUGHT to be smart enough to be able to imagine other uses
for their computer!
Transparency modes have been a part of high-end, professional-level graphics
cards for a long time now, but they haven't been available on cards that cost
under a couple of grand... and frankly, I can't afford a $6,000 video card, even
though this IS what puts food on my table and a roof over my head. I use my
computer for games from time to time, and communication, certainly, but I also
do DESIGN WORK on my computer.
I'm not alone in this. There are at least as many people out there who use
their computers for PRODUCTIVE purposes as who spend their mom and dad's money
to buy the best card to "frag their homies."
Having the ability to take my models and set them transparent and still spin and
move them in real-time is a GODSEND. Yes, you can do that in software... and
yes, you can also run "Unreal Tournament" in software... but for the same
reasons, you DON'T WANT TO.
I am so UNBELIEVABLY SICK of those of you who refuse to believe that anyone uses
their computer for anything but what you do. LOOK BEYOND YOUR OWN LITTLE WORLD
and see the rest of the planet... please?
<RANT MODE - OFF>
For the record, despite the tone of my venting above, I don't believe that "all
online gamers are losers" or whatever. But I think that anyone who cannot
imagine other uses for a computer than their own preferred (and, yes, in real
terms, useless) uses really does have a problem with perspective.
This feature was implemented in order to provide access to some of the
professional-quality features we CAD users want and need. Unfortunately, some
idiot in the ASUS marketing department decided to try selling it as a cheat...
targetting that same tiny subgroup of computer users, and as a result stirred up
the anger of the same small group he was trying to appeal to in the first
place. Not the first time that marketing went astray from what the design
intent was and sabotaged a good idea...
There is, and always has been, a way for game servers to identify the driver
revision used. ASUS even published the method of doing so... there was never
any real "danger" of "online gaming being DESTROYED!!!!"
ASUS isn't losing here. The online gaming community never stood to lose.
The only losers here are those of us who have REAL uses for our video hardware,
who've gotten SCREWED (for the time being at least) out of a necessary and
useful feature.
Thanks, "gamers," for screwing me over. :-(
David Munday
games, so you can use them can't you????
David
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B17B9EC...@attglobal.net...
Reign of Fire
comes first to us. You want the features of a professional card? Go buy one.
Can't afford one? Deal and quit bitching
--
Bitch, you gonna be playing games through a straw!
"I'm rubber, you're glue
what you say bounces off me and just makes
you look like a fucking idiot."
-Webmaster of wasarrested.com
I drink, therefore I am
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B180D16...@attglobal.net...
Cary L. Brown
> This guy is a loser who says that his CAD programs are useful with the cheat
> mode (wire frame), when infact every CAD/CAM program has a wire frame mode
> built into software and all nvidia cards are able to accelerate wireframe.
Gee, I'm so hurt. <sniff sniff> Since you consider me a "loser," why don't you
share a bit about yourself, so that we can all know how much of a "winner" you
are? I mean, c'mon... since you're clearly so much superior, why don't you
share a bit of your superiority with the class? Let us all know what makes you
so much better... I'd really like to know what's going on in your mind
Guess what, Biblio? Your games also have a software mode. Why don't you give
up running hardware acceleration of them and run only in software? Could it be
because of the performance hit? Ya think?
Also, if you'd read a single word I've ever said, I never once talked about
wanting WIREFRAME. I want TRANSPARENCY. This is something that my old HP
Visualize, and before that my Intergraph Wildcat, both had built into hardware.
But nothing at the consumer level has had this 'til now.
Why transparency? It's not hard to understand at all, unless you don't WANT to
understand, I suppose. Wireframe is USELESS for seeing fit/interference issues.
Imagine, if you will, an automobile engine assembly. Now, think of it as being
modelled, not in the computer but PHYSICALLY, in these three manners.
1) Make it as an opaque solid model. That's useful for seeing the external
details but doesn't tell you anything about what's inside.
2) Make it as a wireframe, a bunch of little wire bits soldered together. You
can't see any surfaces, you can't see where surfaces intersect or overlap.
3) Make it as a solid model made of colored lucite (or some other transparent
material). You can see EVERYTHING about how the parts fit and function.
That third feature is what these drivers offered. That's what I wanted, and
what I'm sure I'll still end up getting sooner or later.
Sadly, we professionals, or in your view, we "losers," are held captive by
"winners" like you. Or, is that spelled "whiners?"
> p.s. anyway there is a msg from about a week ago where this guy started
> blabing the same crap
You disagree with what I say, so it's "crap." i've got a great idea... wanna
play along?
You tell me about your experience with professional design software and
hardware, and I'll tell you about mine. You can then attempt to PROVE your
point.
I suspect, however, that you'll choose, instead to call me names and call my
claims "crap" because it's easier for you and doesn't require any logic,
thought, or proof. Not to mention that I sincerely doubt that you have any
real-life experience anyway...
RMS
> Thanks, "gamers," for screwing me over. :-(
You're very welcome!
<My rant to replace your rant.>
Gamers are a minority... A loud but small minority... You really are full of
$&it!
I'm confident that there are at least 1,000 gamers, using Nvidia Geforce
chipsets for games, for every single CAD user, that has a Geforce chipset video
card. Most of the people in this newsgroup are gamers. Get over it. We won, and
you lost. Personally we really don't give a crap, if you go roll up in the
corner and cry yourself to sleep. In case you haven't noticed, the driver issue
was just a game to us too.
<My rant to replace your rant ended.>
They are "cheater" drivers and they are gone :)
bye, Rick
RMS
bye, Rick
"David Munday" <daim...@ntl.nospam> wrote in message
news:i%TR6.6231$RD3....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Cary L. Brown
> 99.9999% of the people who buy GF based cards are gamers, and hence that comes
> first to us. You want the features of a professional card? Go buy one.
> Can't afford one? Deal and quit bitching
Wow, I'm impressed... 99.9999%?
So, suppose that 1,000,000 of these cards are manufactured. Only one user isn't
dedicated to online gaming? Hmmm... wow, I'm one in a million according to
you!
It's actually not a true statement that the numbers are how you put them. Yes,
the most fanatical purchasers are undoubtely gamers, but I'd hazard a more
reasonable guess that maybe 1/3 of all computer users play anything more than
"solitaire" or, if they're really daring "Hoyle" cardgames, on their computer.
If all you see is your friends, well.. go to Best Buy or CompUSA or wherever and
see who's shopping.. now, try to imagine each of those people playing Quake
Arena. Scary thought, isn't it?
Among computer game users who ARE game players, I'd have to say that at best,
maybe 10% bother with online games at all. Now, in college dorms or highschool
computer labs this might be a bit low, but overall, I'd be really surprised if
that number wasn't actually HIGH.
Out of all the people I know, professionally or personally, I know a total of
ONE person who's really into online gaming. I know dozens who play
single-player. I know more than that who consider "video games" to be childish
and a waste of time. There are a LOT of different perspectives in the world.
The trick to dealing with the world in a reasonable fashion is recognizing that
not everyone sees the world the same way you do.
Yes, I recognize that gaming is "important" to some people, and I see this as a
much more positive thing than, say, spending your nights at the casino popping
your paycheck into slot machines for instance. There is nothing fundamentally
wrong with it, and yes, I'm sure that it's possible to make friends and so forth
doing this. (Personally, I'd still hope that most people would prefer getting
out of the basement and spending time in the real world!)
The problem with this "online gaming community" is so CLEARLY demonstrated by
the statement made by Reign about 99.9999% of all computer users being just like
"us," as he said. It's not true, not even close to being true, and shows a
clear lack of perspective.
David Munday
"RMS" <rsav...@Kiss.my.grits.spammer.home.com> wrote in message
news:TOUR6.69724$r7.98...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
Cary L. Brown
> Exactly what I was hinting at.. He must want it for games....
<sigh>
I do play games in my spare time. But I have zero interest in playing
online games.
So, yes, I do want drivers that can run the games I want to play on my
time off and also let me do my work during the day.
Oh, wait... I forgot... according to Microsoft, I should only use my
computer for running Office, and I should buy an X-Box for playing
games... whoops. My idea of having one machine that meets all my needs
isn't what I'm supposed to want, right? And it sounds like you guys are
agreeing with this philosophy?
So, do you intend to dump your PC for an X-Box?
I say it again... I know only one person who plays online games. I know
dozens who play games, just not online ones. I know dozens more who
don't play any games whatsoever. Just because all the people YOU know
are online gamers doesn't mean that all, or even MOST, people are.
David Munday
as you say. Were available before and you could probably still get them now.
So if you don't play on-line games and you just want the function to use CAD
etc then you still can but you won't get a newer version of the driver.. So
what's your problem?? Unless your pissed because you won't be able to use
them playing online?????
David
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B181EE8...@attglobal.net...
David Munday
card that is design for game playing doesn't do transparency in CAD
programs. If you read most of the posts about the Geforce card loads of
people complain about the 2D performance and quality so personally I'd use a
different card for CAD.
David
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B181EE8...@attglobal.net...
+KaRkUs+
wrote:
>This guy is a loser who says that his CAD programs are useful with the cheat
>mode (wire frame), when infact every CAD/CAM program has a wire frame mode
>built into software and all nvidia cards are able to accelerate wireframe.
>
> BT
>
>p.s. anyway there is a msg from about a week ago where this guy started
>blabing the same crap
Er, think about it from a developers point of view and it makes sense.
You want to see how they construct the geometry for the various
levels.Think of it as reverse engineering.
I can see that as being usefull since you can't import levels into cad
and look at the wireframe constuction. I could be wrong.
KaRkUs.
Stephen Powell
<3B18197...@attglobal.net>, it was rumoured that
cary...@attglobal.net spewed forth this...
(I of course, believe none of it)
Ok, lets cut to the chase.
On the back of your retail Asus box, does it mention anything about CAD?
Or, does it (as I suspect), make the most of the cards gaming abilities?
Do you see, say, exciting representations of flanges in wireframe, or
perhaps a fully textured plane, nor screenshots from the latest FPS?
You would complain about drivers that damaged CAD (i.e. unstable, missing
wireframes etc), as you would be perfectly intitled to do. All thats
happened here is that the gaming community as a whole (*including*
developers) have complained that these drivers are extreamly likely to
seriously damage online gaming. This is an emerging field, not the
largest by any means, but I would hazard a guess that its
sheer accessability means that it is more significant in terms of
numbers, to pro CAD users.
After all, not only are consoles now shipping online multiplayer ready
(surely a sign that online multiplayer gaming is here), but we are seeing
games targetted purely to that sector (see Tribes 1/2, Quake3Arena,
UnrealTournament, HalfLife-CounterStrike edition). There will be more
(Just look at these games sales figures to work out why).
CAD however remains a niche market, and is *always* likely to. Thats why
cards targetted to it, having the features you desire, cost so much.
Likewise the CAD software. They just dont sell well enough in bulk.
This is ultimately a consumer level card. That a consumer level card now
has the power to handle reasonably complex CAD application is largely
thanks to the driving force of gamers.
This feature will not accelerate anything over a software alternative.
The driver takes instructions, and instead of blindly obeying them,
progresses down an alternative pathway. This *adds* overhead. A better
way to provide this facility is directly in the software that requires
it. That way it *wont* cross into other areas where it's not
wanted/needed. Plus actually telling the drivers wha you really want the
first time (and not relying on interpretation) will be faster.
Your comments about most gamers playing only solitare is nonsensical.
These users will have no desire to upgrade or even buy a high end PC
equipped with such a card. The S3 Virge their PC comes equipped with will
satisfy their card gaming needs, and these people are unlikely to even
realise that the PC is an architecture where bits and pices can be
exchanged at will.
That you see gaming as a lowly use of a computer is therefore somewhat
ironical, for without gameing you simply wouldnt have the horsepower you
need for CAD applications within such a reasonable cost. That said, I
personally have no need for CAD, much as you appear to have no need of
recreational gaming, and therefore I view your concerns in the same light
you view mine.
Asus were forced to choose between the bread and butter group that keeps
them alive (the gamers, and indeed the online gamers - its becomming
harder to differentiate the two groups), and the caviar group (nice but
rare). Time will tell if they have chosen correctly.
Dont feel too down though, history shows that it's only a matter of time
before another card turns up with this feature. Megabyte tried it with
their Voodoo2s, Asus next (and again). Time is on your side.
Unless of course online gaming becomes *really* big business.
Stephen Powell
<3B181EE8...@attglobal.net>, it was rumoured that
>
> > Exactly what I was hinting at.. He must want it for games....
>
> <sigh>
>
<snip>
> I say it again... I know only one person who plays online games. I know
> dozens who play games, just not online ones. I know dozens more who
> don't play any games whatsoever. Just because all the people YOU know
> are online gamers doesn't mean that all, or even MOST, people are.
And, suprise suprise, I know one person that uses CAD professionally,
and a great many that play online games (their combined purchases in the
online gaming industry, games and hardware, easily dwarfs the ammount
this individual spends on CAD hardware/software).
Stephen Powell
<u85ghtcjd5iu9kv35...@4ax.com>, it was rumoured that
bb...@newsguy.com spewed forth this...
(I of course, believe none of it)
Well, if it's Quake3 maps you want...
/devmap <map name>
/r_showtris 1
Coded *in* the software, cant be used to cheat. Just how it should be
IMHO.
Cary L. Brown
(1) The alternate vis mode for transparency is useful for Pro/Engineer.
(2) The up-to-date drivers will be necessary for gaming.. ALL gaming, not just
online play.
(3) I do NOT play online games. I find them tedious, boring, and generally
lacking in anything that I want. I've been saying this not just for weeks or
months, but YEARS, and I said it long before the whole "cheat driver?" debate
came up, right in this newsgroup. Ask around... there are a number of people
here who will probably remember this, both from here and from a number of other
groups I've participated in over the years.
What I said is very clear. What I've always said is very consistent. If you
can't understand it, you obviously have a comprehension problem. If you
understand it but cannot believe it, you obviously have a perspective problem.
To you, online gaming is important. To ME, online gaming is IRRELEVANT. It
seems that you're not quite grasping this fact. Why not?
David Munday wrote:
> Ah you missed my point.. the drivers with the "Alternate Visibility Modes" as
> you say. Were available before and you could probably still get them now.
> So if you don't play on-line games and you just want the function to use CAD
> etc then you still can but you won't get a newer version of the driver.. So
> what's your problem?? Unless your pissed because you won't be able to use them
> playing online?????
So, apparently your life revolves around playing games online, and as a result
this is the only perspective you can imagine. I'm really sorry that you can't
see beyond your own limited perspective... the ability to see other points of
view is invaluable in life. You really need to at least make the effort to
develop this ability, trust me.
Cary L. Brown
them... some is better than none though, right?
Stephen Powell wrote:
> This is an emerging field, not the largest by any means, but I would hazard a guess
> that its sheer accessability means that it is more significant in terms of numbers,
> to pro CAD users.
An entirely valid point... no doubt that there are more people who are casual
end-users than there are professional level users, whether we're talking game
developers or any other developer (including mechanical engineers) who need these
features.
Interestingly, if my theory that hardware-accelerate ray-traced rendering is the next
major leap in graphics technology comes to pass (and I think it's pretty likely),
this entire point will become totally moot... raytracing, by nature, allows any form
of visibility you want, all controlled parametrically. We'll see what happens in two
years when the first cards to support this come out (a bit of prophesy on my part, but
development efforts I've followed support my assessment of this timetable).
> After all, not only are consoles now shipping online multiplayer ready (surely a
> sign that online multiplayer gaming is here), but we are seeing games targetted
> purely to that sector (see Tribes 1/2, Quake3Arena, UnrealTournament,
> HalfLife-CounterStrike edition). There will be more (Just look at these games sales
> figures to work out why).
The console issue is a whole 'nother can of worms... I'm convinced that the console
concept will be a flash in the pan, but it'll be one that, I hope, will have a strong
positive effect on PC games of the future. The console is effectively nothing more
than a single-use PC, the X-Box in particular, right? The advantage of this is that
the "ship it then patch it" concept won't sell to the masses like it's sold to the
dedicated PC user for the past few years. Some PC software company will realize
(GASP!) that this same business model is a (GASP!) GOOD IDEA to follow for PC games as
well, and then everyone else will abandon the "paid BETA test" concept which Microsoft
has foisted on us all and which everyone else has bought into lately.
That said, consoles (aka dedicated single-function computers) will never beat PCs (aka
expandable, multi-purpose computers). Buying a console is like buying a car that is
only capable of driving you to the movie theater, and still needing another separate
dedicated car to drive you to the grocery store... having a single car that can go
anywhere you want makes infinitely more sense.
> CAD however remains a niche market, and is *always* likely to. Thats why cards
> targetted to it, having the features you desire, cost so much. Likewise the CAD
> software. They just dont sell well enough in bulk.
True, to a point. Four years ago a base installation of Pro/Engineer, without the
basic expansion modules (Pro/Feature, Pro/Surface, Pro/Detail, etc) cost over
$28,000. Today, the Pro/E "Core" installation includes most of these fundamental
modules as well as the core functionality and costs just over $6,000. That's how I
was able to afford my own seat. Now, the Pro/Mechanica (finite element analysis),
Pro/Moldfill (die-casting/injection-molding simulation), Pro/Sheetmetal, and
Pro/Manufacturing (machining toolpath generation) modules that I needed cost more that
twice what the base installation cost me, and that's not considering the annual
service fee of a couple grand, but it's still within the reach of more of us than ever
before. And the sales are going WAY up, very fast indeed.
There will never be more development users than consumer users, true, but the numbers
are increasing and nVidia has made it very clear that they want to be the leader in
the low-end of this market segment... surely you've all heard of the Quadro, after
all?
> This is ultimately a consumer level card. That a consumer level card now has the
> power to handle reasonably complex CAD application is largely
> thanks to the driving force of gamers.
No debate there. The consumer 3D market was created by 3DFX, and the first widely
available consumer-level 3D application was Quake, after all... this was the foot in
the door and it's still likely to one of the most significant aspects for the
foreseeable future. That is NOT in dispute.
> This feature will not accelerate anything over a software alternative.
Not true, as I'm led to understand what they did. See below...
> The driver takes instructions, and instead of blindly obeying them, progresses down
> an alternative pathway. This *adds* overhead.
The GF3 chip, in hardware, has this capability... one of the benefits of the new
architecture. ANY GeForce 3 card can do this, if it's getting the right
instructions...not just the Asus card, then.
> A better way to provide this facility is directly in the software that requires
> it. That way it *wont* cross into other areas where it's not wanted/needed.
Okay, then... a better way to provide features in some game would be to do it in
software, too... using the same logic.
There are big problems with this approach, though... see the early release builds of
the Unreal engine for well-documented examples of this.
Oh, and by the way, mentioning Unreal...
For a reference to non-game applications, look up http://www.unrealty.com. Unrealty
is a virtual tour package, recently released and still getting implemented, which is
used to give walkthroughs and virtual tours of as-yet-unbuilt architecture. Think
Sierra Home Design, using the Unreal engine, and you get the direction this is moving.
This is just one example of where there will be mainstream, non-gaming 3D computer
applications in the (not very distant) future. There will be plenty more... gaming
just paved the way, that's all.
> Plus actually telling the drivers wha you really want the first time (and not
> relying on interpretation) will be faster.
This is the whole point of the programmable shader technology of the GF3, though...
and why (as I understand it) this feature was made available on the GF3 only. No
"interpretation" is needed, once the basic program is sent to the hardware. According
to what I've seen, this feature was developed using the programmable vertexing feature
of the GF3 chip.
> Your comments about most gamers playing only solitare is nonsensical. These users
> will have no desire to upgrade or even buy a high end PC equipped with such a card.
> The S3 Virge their PC comes equipped with will satisfy their card gaming needs, and
> these people are unlikely to even realise that the PC is an architecture where bits
> and pices can be exchanged at will.
It's not nonsensical. But your statement (a slight misquote - I said USERS, not
GAMERS) belies bias again. The point I was making there was - MOST USERS AREN'T
GAMERS.
Yet, anyone buying a new computer from one of the major outlets, especially someone
who is not terribly tech-savvy, is going to buy what's offered, and what they're told
is "the best." And most computer sellers will attempt to sell the "best" (read-most
pricey) configuration they can get someone to buy.
I know the point you're making with your "S3 Virge" comment (and know that you're
being facetious, since the Virge is long gone, of course) but look at most
off-the-shelf computers at most retailers... TNT2s are very common, ATI Rages are
also common, as the "low-end" cards.
As for the people not realizing how that things can be upgraded... why do you think
that Best Buy does such a boom business on computer upgrades when all you need to do
this right is a screwdriver, the ability to read, a bit of patience, and preferably a
grounding wrist-strap? What you say, though perhaps a little bit of an exageration,
makes sense... but that doesn't make it true!
> That you see gaming as a lowly use of a computer is therefore somewhat ironical, for
> without gameing you simply wouldnt have the horsepower you need for CAD applications
> within such a reasonable cost.
Now, hold on... BIAS ALERT here. I NEVER SAID that I "view gaming as a lowly use."
In fact, I've been very clear that I use my computer during my "off-hours" for
gaming... though I don't play online (I like the "immersion in a storyline" that you
can only get from a great single-player game... say, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Thief, the
Wing Commander or X-Wing series, etc).
I find online gaming tedious, pointless, and lacking in fun, exactly for that
reason... there is no storyline, no plot, nothing of that sort, to be immersed IN.
Just mindless bloodshed, or "real life simulation" where you have the same troubles as
in reality (see Ultima Online, for example... who needs to guard their homes both in
real life AND on the server?). That's why I have zero interest in playing online
games. Give me an online game that give me this level of IMMERSION, and ensure that
everyone else playing will agree to play their parts to the same level... and to stop
when I want to stop, and start when I want to start, too... and I'll reconsider
online gaming. But not until then... and I don't foresee that point ever coming.
The technology may get there, but human nature won't.
> That said, I personally have no need for CAD, much as you appear to have no need of
> recreational gaming, and therefore I view your concerns in the same light you view
> mine.
It's fine that you have no need for CAD... though, the relationship between
professional CAD and game-design is rapidly converging, just as the relationship
between game-graphics and professional graphics is similarly converging. CAD is
simply computer-simulation of something that doesn't (yet) exist... the main
difference is the goal (for gaming, it's to advance a storyline or otherwise provide
recreation, while for CAD it's to create and prove out a concept for production in the
real world).
It's NOT fine that you, once again, show that you haven't read what I've written, but
rather are projecting your own feelings onto what I've said and therefore are
disregarding the parts of what I've said that don't fit with how you WANT to see
things. I have never said that "I have no need for recreational gaming." I never
implied that... and I've been quite clear about the fact that I do play games
(single-person only)... see the recent thread on Deus Ex for example.
I have said that I have no personal interest in ONLINE gaming, and I've said
frequently that the rabid-online-gamers seem to take themselves and their play more
than a little bit TOO SERIOUSLY. I mean, c'mon... talking about a "cheat driver"
(sic) as something earthshattering, while ignoring dramatic real-world events (how
many of you know about the Chinese amphibious-assault rehearsals going on off the
coast of Taiwan right now?), is a sign of skewed priorities.
As you've no doubt heard before... it's only a game.
> Asus were forced to choose between the bread and butter group that keeps them alive
> (the gamers, and indeed the online gamers - its becomming
> harder to differentiate the two groups), and the caviar group (nice but rare). Time
> will tell if they have chosen correctly.
Fair statement... although I really am far far from convinced that "online gaming" is
going to "take over" as we keep hearing. I've been hearing this for years... that
"single player is dead." And yet, while UT and Q3 have won significant niche
marketshares, they and their ilk have not killed off the single-player experience as
has been predicted so often. There's a simple reason for that... see my thought on
single-player versus multi-player above... MP is simply not capable of the level of
immersion that SP is.
> Dont feel too down though, history shows that it's only a matter of time before
> another card turns up with this feature. Megabyte tried it with their Voodoo2s,
> Asus next (and again). Time is on your side.
Actually, what I expect is that some third-party company will release drivers that
will run on ANY GF3 card and allow this. (No reason that this can't be done, as it's
the GF3 chip that enables the feature, not the specific card.) This is inevitable...
the genie is already out of the bottle, and all that's been done here is that the
bottle has been smashed after the genie is gone!
The internet will be flooded with "hacked" driver sets based on every major card's
driver set, every revision, etc... but with this feature added in. And in this case,
the people doing it WILL be doing it for cheating, I suspect. NVidia won't put a stop
to it (why would they? It can only help their bottom line!). And the hackers will
defeat every detection scheme that comes about.
Just a prediction... based upon my understanding of human nature. People know it can
be done, and they can see HOW it's done... the next step is painfully obvious!
> Unless of course online gaming becomes *really* big business.
Well, short of the advances I suggested above (where I told why I'm not into online
gaming myself... points that everyone I know agrees with, with the exception of those
of you I "know" from here), I can't see this happening. It's just not entertaining
enough - you NEED plot and character development, not just random "simulated reality"
events, to capture and hold someone's interest. Bloodshed, or simulations of
commerce, or whatever, are far from enough...
Cary L. Brown
> And, suprise suprise, I know one person that uses CAD professionally, and a
> great many that play online games (their combined purchases in the online
> gaming industry, games and hardware, easily dwarfs the ammount this
> individual spends on CAD hardware/software).
<it's SURPRISE, btw...>
I have no problem believing your point. In fact, it goes right along with my
own... that there are DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Yes, you (and many of the
people who frequent this group) have this as your experience. I recognize
this as being a valid situation... what my point was is that I STRONGLY
CONTEST the claims made by people in that subcategory of users that they
represent ALL (or, to quote, "99.9999%") of computer users.
I am part of a niche. So are online gamers. I suspect, if you really look
closely, that there are ten pr twelve online gamers for every design-oriented
person such as myself. I suspect that there are a hundred or more
non-online-gamers for every one of me... and several hundred non-gaming
computer users.
My point? Not that I represent the majority, but that online gamers don't
represent the majority either. The majority doesn't care EITHER WAY. Both
groups are minorities in the grand scheme of things. Many online gamers seem
unwilling to recognize that fact, however.
That said, I'd be really surprised if, looking at the potential markets,
online gamers spend more than, say, 10 or 12 times what CAD users do, only
because online gamers outnumber CAD users by about that number. If that
qualifies as "dwarfing" to you, then I suppose you'd be right from your
perspective.
Martin Eriksson
program, as they are the ones that should implement see-through
(transparency is already allowed by the video card drivers, not just
"forced" which is an ugly hack anyway).
And if you want updated drivers in games, install dual operating systems,
and use one for all your games (which then has the updated driver).
I run Windows2000 and Win98 and Linux (hrm.. one of them is a "bit" pirated
though). I develop in 2000 & Linux, and uses 98 for games that doesn't work
in 2000 (old DOS games mainly, but I play these a lot).
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B17B9EC...@attglobal.net...
David Munday
times that you don't play on-line games and you mainly use your PC for work.
So unless you really need the extra 1 or 2 frames per second then use the
old drivers. Oh and where have I said I actually play on-line games?
Personally I use the Creative 6.50 official drivers for my GTS 2 which are
quite old compared to the hacked ASUS ones but I get good performance so why
do you NEED the updated drivers? That's the only bit of your story which
doesn't make sense.
David
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B18736F...@attglobal.net...
Stephen Powell
<3B18824D...@attglobal.net>, it was rumoured that
> them... some is better than none though, right?
>
> Stephen Powell wrote:
>
> > This is an emerging field, not the largest by any means, but I would hazard a guess
> > that its sheer accessability means that it is more significant in terms of numbers,
> > to pro CAD users.
>
> An entirely valid point... no doubt that there are more people who are casual
> end-users than there are professional level users, whether we're talking game
> developers or any other developer (including mechanical engineers) who need these
> features.
>
> Interestingly, if my theory that hardware-accelerate ray-traced rendering is the next
> major leap in graphics technology comes to pass (and I think it's pretty likely),
> this entire point will become totally moot... raytracing, by nature, allows any form
> of visibility you want, all controlled parametrically. We'll see what happens in two
> years when the first cards to support this come out (a bit of prophesy on my part, but
> development efforts I've followed support my assessment of this timetable).
The intermediate step is tile based rendering, and that will pretty much
eliminate this (unless the end user is willing to forgo all speed
increases offered by TBR).
>
> > After all, not only are consoles now shipping online multiplayer ready (surely a
> > sign that online multiplayer gaming is here), but we are seeing games targetted
> > purely to that sector (see Tribes 1/2, Quake3Arena, UnrealTournament,
> > HalfLife-CounterStrike edition). There will be more (Just look at these games sales
> > figures to work out why).
>
> The console issue is a whole 'nother can of worms... I'm convinced that the console
> concept will be a flash in the pan, but it'll be one that, I hope, will have a strong
> positive effect on PC games of the future. The console is effectively nothing more
> than a single-use PC, the X-Box in particular, right? The advantage of this is that
> the "ship it then patch it" concept won't sell to the masses like it's sold to the
> dedicated PC user for the past few years. Some PC software company will realize
> (GASP!) that this same business model is a (GASP!) GOOD IDEA to follow for PC games as
> well, and then everyone else will abandon the "paid BETA test" concept which Microsoft
> has foisted on us all and which everyone else has bought into lately.
>
> That said, consoles (aka dedicated single-function computers) will never beat PCs (aka
> expandable, multi-purpose computers). Buying a console is like buying a car that is
> only capable of driving you to the movie theater, and still needing another separate
> dedicated car to drive you to the grocery store... having a single car that can go
> anywhere you want makes infinitely more sense.
Heres an interesting question though. When does a console stop being a
console? The Dreamcast and PS2 (and probably X-box) AFAIK have USB ports
that allow the addition of a mouse, keyboard, probably all things USB.
Hard drive add-ons are promised, and so particularly with the X-Box
hardware, at what point do you suddenly end up with a PC?
> > CAD however remains a niche market, and is *always* likely to. Thats why cards
> > targetted to it, having the features you desire, cost so much. Likewise the CAD
> > software. They just dont sell well enough in bulk.
>
> True, to a point. Four years ago a base installation of Pro/Engineer, without the
> basic expansion modules (Pro/Feature, Pro/Surface, Pro/Detail, etc) cost over
> $28,000. Today, the Pro/E "Core" installation includes most of these fundamental
> modules as well as the core functionality and costs just over $6,000. That's how I
> was able to afford my own seat. Now, the Pro/Mechanica (finite element analysis),
> Pro/Moldfill (die-casting/injection-molding simulation), Pro/Sheetmetal, and
> Pro/Manufacturing (machining toolpath generation) modules that I needed cost more that
> twice what the base installation cost me, and that's not considering the annual
> service fee of a couple grand, but it's still within the reach of more of us than ever
> before. And the sales are going WAY up, very fast indeed.
>
> There will never be more development users than consumer users, true, but the numbers
> are increasing and nVidia has made it very clear that they want to be the leader in
> the low-end of this market segment... surely you've all heard of the Quadro, after
> all?
Yep, heard of the Quadro. A card (or rather chip) targetted to low end
CAD users and the like. Maybe we should have this feature locked down to
these cards. Check the BIOS, check the ChipID etc. Sure you can mod
other cards to pretend Quadros (including flashing with an appropriate
BIOS), but this is long winded, and dangerous enough, to put off the
cheats.
> > This is ultimately a consumer level card. That a consumer level card now has the
> > power to handle reasonably complex CAD application is largely
> > thanks to the driving force of gamers.
>
> No debate there. The consumer 3D market was created by 3DFX, and the first widely
> available consumer-level 3D application was Quake, after all... this was the foot in
> the door and it's still likely to one of the most significant aspects for the
> foreseeable future. That is NOT in dispute.
>
> > This feature will not accelerate anything over a software alternative.
>
> Not true, as I'm led to understand what they did. See below...
I've read below, but I'll answer here ;-)
We seem to disagree about exactly what this driver does, so I'll run
through my understanding (most of it you will already understand, but
it's here for clarity).
Firstly, what this driver does is not limited to the Geforce3 cards.
Infact, with the unified architecture, theres nothing really to stop it
working on a TNT1. (I've personally witnessed the last version of the
Asus driver working on a Geforce2MX).
Traditionally 3d cards work via Immediate Mode rendering. Objects are
rendered from the back to the front, with each sucessive object able to
obscure the next. If a transparent texture is applied to an object, then
the previous object, obscured by this one will remain visible, through
the new object.
So, for example, your viewpoint has you placed looking at a solid wall.
There is a corridoor behind it, running parralell with the wall.
Immediately infront of the wall, between 'you' and the wall is a
transparent sphere.
Normally, when the driver does what it is told, the coridoor will be
drawn first, obscured by the wall, and then the ball will be drawn
overtop of all this, but with a level of transparancy.
In transparancy mode, these drivers dont do anything clever, or
wonderful, or special. Any texture tagged as solid (i.e. not
transparent) is made transparent. This is the level of interpretation
that is actually likely to hit performance slightly.
This, as stated will work across the board. Megabyte had "X-Ray" drivers
for the Voodoo2 cards a few years ago that did exactly the same trick.
They too quickly backstepped.
The wireframe mode is a bit more tricky, but again I doubt it's doing
anything Geforce3 specific, or clever. I suspect it takes the vertex
points the application passes it, and merely draws a wire frame.
Considering the programme is being passed superfluious information, it
would probably be much faster to simply give it enough information to
construct a wire frame, if thats what you want it to do. Again, in the
last driver from Asus that had this See-Through technology(TM), worked
just fine on a Geforce2MX.
> > The driver takes instructions, and instead of blindly obeying them, progresses down
> > an alternative pathway. This *adds* overhead.
>
> The GF3 chip, in hardware, has this capability... one of the benefits of the new
> architecture. ANY GeForce 3 card can do this, if it's getting the right
> instructions...not just the Asus card, then.
My point is, *all* immediate mode renderers have this capability. Theres
not anything special about the GeForce3 in this respect. The only
slightly interesting thing is that it might, side by side with say a
Geforce2, reveal how strong the Z-occlusion/compression is in the
Geforce3.
> > A better way to provide this facility is directly in the software that requires
> > it. That way it *wont* cross into other areas where it's not wanted/needed.
>
> Okay, then... a better way to provide features in some game would be to do it in
> software, too... using the same logic.
Yes, you are entirely correct.
If you need or want a wireframe mode in Quake3, pull down the console,
type
/devmap <mapname>
/r_showtris 1
Now the map of your choice is overlayed with a wireframe of what is
actually being drawn. If you develop maps for the Quake3 engined games,
the tools are already there for you to gague the ammount of overdraw.
> There are big problems with this approach, though... see the early release builds of
> the Unreal engine for well-documented examples of this.
I'd prefer some links if you have them. Google+Unreal engine+Overdraw is
going to leave me flailing around in the dark.
> Oh, and by the way, mentioning Unreal...
>
> For a reference to non-game applications, look up http://www.unrealty.com. Unrealty
> is a virtual tour package, recently released and still getting implemented, which is
> used to give walkthroughs and virtual tours of as-yet-unbuilt architecture. Think
> Sierra Home Design, using the Unreal engine, and you get the direction this is moving.
Seen it before, it was...interesting. If you are asking which I think is
going to be bigger financially and more important - a consumer viewing
their next house on a computer, or online gaming, I'm afraid I'm going to
have to go with online gaming. Plus, it's not as in Unreality is unique.
Walk throughs of this type have been available for some time. Unreality
merely takes an already available 3Dengine, and uses it for a hither to
unseen aplications.
Besides, whenever anyone begins designing game levels (for the FPS
genera) they always seem to make their own house...
> This is just one example of where there will be mainstream, non-gaming 3D computer
> applications in the (not very distant) future. There will be plenty more... gaming
> just paved the way, that's all.
Somehow though, I doubt any of these applications will ever surpass
gaming as the 'killer' 3D app.
> > Plus actually telling the drivers wha you really want the first time (and not
> > relying on interpretation) will be faster.
>
> This is the whole point of the programmable shader technology of the GF3, though...
> and why (as I understand it) this feature was made available on the GF3 only. No
> "interpretation" is needed, once the basic program is sent to the hardware. According
> to what I've seen, this feature was developed using the programmable vertexing feature
> of the GF3 chip.
See above - these drivers arnt doing a thing Geforce3 specific.
> > Your comments about most gamers playing only solitare is nonsensical. These users
> > will have no desire to upgrade or even buy a high end PC equipped with such a card.
> > The S3 Virge their PC comes equipped with will satisfy their card gaming needs, and
> > these people are unlikely to even realise that the PC is an architecture where bits
> > and pices can be exchanged at will.
>
> It's not nonsensical. But your statement (a slight misquote - I said USERS, not
> GAMERS) belies bias again. The point I was making there was - MOST USERS AREN'T
> GAMERS.
Er, sorry, where in that quote did I say gamers? Oh I mentioned card
gaming, but that was only after you did.
As for your continued assertion that MOST USERS AREN'T GAMERS. Well, you
might be correct. But you have no figures, I have no figures, so we can
only guess. Clearly we move in different circles, but everyone I know
who has a PC (and yes - EVERYONE), also at least dabbles in gaming,
usually FPS. This includes the 60yr old bloke who wanted his PC *purely*
to write a book, the father who bought his PC for writing invoices for
his roofing business (his sons as well as he have enjoyed quite a few
Quake2 games - and as we live next door to each other, it was also
multiplayer, with the aid of a few cables I had lying around).
> Yet, anyone buying a new computer from one of the major outlets, especially someone
> who is not terribly tech-savvy, is going to buy what's offered, and what they're told
> is "the best." And most computer sellers will attempt to sell the "best" (read-most
> pricey) configuration they can get someone to buy.
>
> I know the point you're making with your "S3 Virge" comment (and know that you're
> being facetious, since the Virge is long gone, of course)
Not facetious really, perhaps stretching a point though.
> but look at most
> off-the-shelf computers at most retailers... TNT2s are very common, ATI Rages are
> also common, as the "low-end" cards.
And they are beginning, nay, looking very low end now. As far as
playing todays games go, well they cant. Solitares fun though. (But I
prefer multiplayer hearts)
> As for the people not realizing how that things can be upgraded... why do you think
> that Best Buy does such a boom business on computer upgrades when all you need to do
> this right is a screwdriver, the ability to read, a bit of patience, and preferably a
> grounding wrist-strap? What you say, though perhaps a little bit of an exageration,
> makes sense... but that doesn't make it true!
Those are for people who *do* realise they can be upgraded, but arn't
confident enough to do it themselves.
> > That you see gaming as a lowly use of a computer is therefore somewhat ironical, for
> > without gameing you simply wouldnt have the horsepower you need for CAD applications
> > within such a reasonable cost.
>
> Now, hold on... BIAS ALERT here. I NEVER SAID that I "view gaming as a lowly use."
Maybe, but it really is the impression you give across in every post on
tis subject. Sort of a "Me big bad CAD user, you gamer should bow to
me." Attitude. Thats why you mostly seem to get flamed on this issue
unfairly. All IMHO of course.
> In fact, I've been very clear that I use my computer during my "off-hours" for
> gaming... though I don't play online (I like the "immersion in a storyline" that you
> can only get from a great single-player game... say, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Thief, the
> Wing Commander or X-Wing series, etc).
There are other online multiplayer experiances that offer immersion.
MMPOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Games) are really taking off. It's
only a matter of time before a persistant worl first person game appears
(it may have a shooting eliment). Possibly the next Ultima or something.
The immersion element of playing against intelegent humans will always,
for me, beat out relatively simplistic AI.
> I find online gaming tedious, pointless, and lacking in fun, exactly for that
> reason... there is no storyline, no plot, nothing of that sort, to be immersed IN.
Except the competition between you and your fellow man.
> Just mindless bloodshed, or "real life simulation" where you have the same troubles as
> in reality (see Ultima Online, for example... who needs to guard their homes both in
> real life AND on the server?).
Who indeed, but then, who needs to walk around in a 3d world when they
can go outside... Or maybe fire a gun, when they can pop along to the
nearest firing range.
I think, and please dont take this personally, that you dont *allow*
yourself to become emmersed in a game. I mean, I watch some pretty silly
TV shows, that if I think about them, are just too stupid to be
enjoyable. So I suspend my disbelief, settle down and switch off the
part of my brain that says "Hey, she just jumped over two buildings -
thats not real", and instead enjoy it.
> That's why I have zero interest in playing online
> games. Give me an online game that give me this level of IMMERSION, and ensure that
> everyone else playing will agree to play their parts to the same level... and to stop
> when I want to stop, and start when I want to start, too... and I'll reconsider
> online gaming. But not until then... and I don't foresee that point ever coming.
> The technology may get there, but human nature won't.
Well thats part of the fun of such an environment. Not everything can go
your way and you will have to adapt a bit. It's just a bit more
interaction. I suppose we are just different.
> > That said, I personally have no need for CAD, much as you appear to have no need of
> > recreational gaming, and therefore I view your concerns in the same light you view
> > mine.
>
> It's fine that you have no need for CAD... though, the relationship between
> professional CAD and game-design is rapidly converging, just as the relationship
> between game-graphics and professional graphics is similarly converging. CAD is
> simply computer-simulation of something that doesn't (yet) exist... the main
> difference is the goal (for gaming, it's to advance a storyline or otherwise provide
> recreation, while for CAD it's to create and prove out a concept for production in the
> real world).
>
> It's NOT fine that you, once again, show that you haven't read what I've written,
Oh please, I read, and was left once again with the distinct feeling that
this was the usual "Me big bad CAD, you gamer bow to my superiority".
Thats the impression you give across. With that in mind, if I've
misinterpreted anything, well, my bad. But read your own post back, try
and think in the same way, and then claim that I havn't read anything.
> but
> rather are projecting your own feelings onto what I've said and therefore are
> disregarding the parts of what I've said that don't fit with how you WANT to see
> things.
Once again though, there will always be an element of interpretation.
Right now you are interpreting this post and probably assuming I'm a
mindless gamer who just likes to "blowd stuff up". You will p[robably be
looking to dismiss my views and opinions as irrelevant and unimportant on
the basis of this. Thats fine by me, if I cant get across my opinions in
a way that makes you think, well, I have to accept the large part of the
blame for any misunderstandings that arise.
> I have never said that "I have no need for recreational gaming." I never
> implied that... and I've been quite clear about the fact that I do play games
> (single-person only)... see the recent thread on Deus Ex for example.
But you do seem to assume that just because *you* dont like multiplayer
gaming, everyone else should agree with you, and dismiss it and it's
needs as purile and unimportant.
> I have said that I have no personal interest in ONLINE gaming, and I've said
> frequently that the rabid-online-gamers seem to take themselves and their play more
> than a little bit TOO SERIOUSLY. I mean, c'mon... talking about a "cheat driver"
> (sic) as something earthshattering, while ignoring dramatic real-world events (how
> many of you know about the Chinese amphibious-assault rehearsals going on off the
> coast of Taiwan right now?), is a sign of skewed priorities.
And where do your demands for these SeeThrough Technologies (TM) fit in
with these practice assults?
It's about context. Pick any issue in the world, and someone will find
something thats more important. And here, in
alt.comp.peripherals.video.nvidia, SeeThrough/Cheat drivers have more
context than practice assults. Wnat to talk about those? Go find a more
appropriate group.
> As you've no doubt heard before... it's only a game.
And a lucrative industry.
> > Asus were forced to choose between the bread and butter group that keeps them alive
> > (the gamers, and indeed the online gamers - its becomming
> > harder to differentiate the two groups), and the caviar group (nice but rare). Time
> > will tell if they have chosen correctly.
>
> Fair statement... although I really am far far from convinced that "online gaming" is
> going to "take over" as we keep hearing. I've been hearing this for years... that
> "single player is dead." And yet, while UT and Q3 have won significant niche
> marketshares, they and their ilk have not killed off the single-player experience as
> has been predicted so often. There's a simple reason for that... see my thought on
> single-player versus multi-player above... MP is simply not capable of the level of
> immersion that SP is.
Sorry, but the intellegence of people vs the typical "duck for cover" AI
bot is always more immersive for me. And theres certainly no reason why
plots cant work in online gaming. FWIW I suspect online gamers outnumber
the CAD users that will benifit from this. I suspect the online gamers
spend more on hardware and software, and therefore in a consumer level
card targetted at gamers, their opinions will carry more weight.
I have no numbers to support this, these are suspicions based on my own
experiances. Yourse, no doubt, will differ substantially from mine.
> > Dont feel too down though, history shows that it's only a matter of time before
> > another card turns up with this feature. Megabyte tried it with their Voodoo2s,
> > Asus next (and again). Time is on your side.
>
> Actually, what I expect is that some third-party company will release drivers that
> will run on ANY GF3 card and allow this. (No reason that this can't be done, as it's
> the GF3 chip that enables the feature, not the specific card.)
Debunked above. The Geforce3 is just another example of immediate mode
rendering, which is open to this type of exploit.
> This is inevitable...
> the genie is already out of the bottle, and all that's been done here is that the
> bottle has been smashed after the genie is gone!
Actually I think the aim is to starve the genie. The cheats will only
stick with these old see through drivers for so long.
> The internet will be flooded with "hacked" driver sets based on every major card's
> driver set, every revision, etc... but with this feature added in. And in this case,
> the people doing it WILL be doing it for cheating, I suspect. NVidia won't put a stop
> to it (why would they? It can only help their bottom line!).
nVidia wont do anything - they didnt make the drivers, Asus did. And
now, Asus have moved - by promising, once again, not to do it anymore.
The reason they backed off is that it became clear it probably *would*
hurt their bottom line.
> And the hackers will
> defeat every detection scheme that comes about.
Yes, yes they will. But the facination will wear off. The drivers will
fall into obscurity. I dont think anyones using the MegaByte X-Ray
drivers anymore.
> Just a prediction... based upon my understanding of human nature. People know it can
> be done, and they can see HOW it's done... the next step is painfully obvious!
I understand your reasoning entirely, and agree ;) I'd just factor in
boredom and the need to have the newest drivers...
> > Unless of course online gaming becomes *really* big business.
>
> Well, short of the advances I suggested above (where I told why I'm not into online
> gaming myself... points that everyone I know agrees with, with the exception of those
> of you I "know" from here), I can't see this happening. It's just not entertaining
> enough - you NEED plot and character development, not just random "simulated reality"
> events, to capture and hold someone's interest. Bloodshed, or simulations of
> commerce, or whatever, are far from enough...
For you. But remember, there are a significant number of others who
participate in this and enjoy themselves immensly. One day there may
even be a multiplayer game you enjoy, if you'll let yourself.
RMS
This discussion and bating session will go on forever because everybody is
essentially correct.
1) Several of us in this thread are only concerned with on-line gaming so we
want the drivers gone to prevent a whole new level of cheating, a correct and
valid position.
2) You and a few others I've talked to in other threads in this group want the
drivers for CAD and don't like gamers trying to make them go away, a correct and
valid position.
I, and any other gamer that calmly thinks about it can see your reasoning. Will
we ever agree, give in and support you, NEVER. Not that we are inherintly
assholes, but because so much is at stake. Here is where the core of the problem
is. You do not unerstand what a threat these drivers are to the on-line gaming
community. It is precisely the fact that you do not play on-line games, that you
do not accept that these see-through drivers have the potential to wipe out
on-line gaming.
I also get the impression that you think using a computer for gaming is not
important because it does not generate income. For me a gaming machine is
crucial. I am a soldier at a military electronics school, I spend nine hours a
day teaching electronics, doing paper work, crunching reports on a computer,
dealing out discipline, and putting up with garbage from the top. On-line gaming
is my Valium. The ultimate relaxing and enjoyment tool.
It appears that there will never be a concensus between you and the gamers here,
so lets just live with it.
bye, Rick
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B18843B...@attglobal.net...
+KaRkUs+
<cary...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>The problem with this "online gaming community" is so CLEARLY demonstrated by
>the statement made by Reign about 99.9999% of all computer users being just like
>"us," as he said. It's not true, not even close to being true, and shows a
>clear lack of perspective.
Cary the GVX1 Pro is 605 US now. R4 rasterizer and 2 nd gen TnL
engine.
64 megs of on board ram and those excellent 3dlabs drivers.
Check it out.
KaRkUs.
Cary L. Brown
> Just something I thought of... why don't you contact the makers of your CAD
> program, as they are the ones that should implement see-through (transparency
> is already allowed by the video card drivers, not just "forced" which is an
> ugly hack anyway).
Actually, I did that as well... and who knows, they may implement that in next
year's major revision. It's unlikely that they'll do another major release this
year, however, and this would qualify as a major revision I think. The nice
thing about the driver ability was the fact that I could turn it on without any
modifications to the part data or to the program itself.
> And if you want updated drivers in games, install dual operating systems, and
> use one for all your games (which then has the updated driver).
I have a second machine that is a multi-boot system (a minimal install of
Win98SE, plug BeOS 5.1 Professional and Redhat Linux 7.1). What you suggest is
a real possibility, but it seems a lot of effort, totally reorganizing my entire
machine... that's a LOT of data to move around, and since they'd both be
effectively the same OS, well... :-/
> I run Windows2000 and Win98 and Linux (hrm.. one of them is a "bit" pirated
> though). I develop in 2000 & Linux, and uses 98 for games that doesn't work in
> 2000 (old DOS games mainly, but I play these a lot).
The Linux is probably not ... ahem... pirated, since you can get this for free.
Win98 is reasonably inexpensive once you know how to get around the "upgrade"
issue... (all you need is an empty file named win.ini in a directory called
windows on your otherwise clear disk). So, I'm guessing it's the Win2K,
"borrowed" from work? :-)
Cary L. Brown
you assume that this is all there is. Closed-mindedness is a BAD thing...
instead of interpreting everything throught your own perspective (as someone who
apparently is very much into online games), try actually thinking and paying
attention, OK?
Let me make this VERY VERY clear... I'll try to avoid big words, so you can
understand.
I don't play ONLINE GAMES.
I DO play single-player games. I've "commented loads of times" about that.
You need up-to-date drivers for these games.
David Munday wrote:
> Why would "up-to-date drivers" be necessary.. You have commented loads of
> times that you don't play on-line games and you mainly use your PC for work.
You're not paying attention. I said that I use my computer for work and for
games, just not online games (which, by virtue of lack of plot, etc, bore me to
tears).
> So unless you really need the extra 1 or 2 frames per second then use the old
> drivers.
OK, unless you really need the extra FPS, why don't YOU use old drivers?
Because the newer drivers are newer for a REASON, to fix problems which have
been identified through usage. Why should I give up bug fixes and so forth?
> Oh and where have I said I actually play on-line games?
You haven't, but your attitude implies this. Are you saying that you DON'T play
online games, or that you rarely play them? If you're saying that I'm wrong,
say it outright... When someone is so clearly dedicated to a particular
perspective on things, it's usually a sign that they HOLD the opinions they
espouse personally, after all.
> Personally I use the Creative 6.50 official drivers for my GTS 2 which are
> quite old compared to the hacked ASUS ones but I get good performance so why
> do you NEED the updated drivers?
Hmmm... could it be because the GF3 is a new chip and new driver revisions will
be implemented to SOLVE PROBLEMS? Yes, you have a GF2, a good card but only a
minor evolutionary step the GF256 and carried over most of the existing
architecture of the 256. The GF3, compared to those two chip series, is like
comparing the GF series tothe TNT series. You own hardware that was essentially
mature when you obtained it. The GF3 is a NEW PRODUCT, and there will be issues
that need resolved, though BIOS and driver updates.
> That's the only bit of your story which doesn't make sense.
Only if you assume that a newly released product will be perfect as released.
History has shown that this is NEVER the case.
Cary L. Brown
First off... it's nice to have a CIVIL discussion, rather than a flame-fest... :-)
Stephen Powell wrote:
> The intermediate step is tile based rendering, and that will pretty much eliminate this
> (unless the end user is willing to forgo all speed increases offered by TBR).
I've been reading a bit on tile-based-rendering, and there is some debate about whether it's
really going to make a huge impact. As I understand, the Kyro cards use this, right?
You're right, if TBR becomes the standard, that altered-vis-modes will be pointless. But
TBR doesn't have a dramatic effect on visual appearance, only speed, right? (I'm not an
expert on TBR, so please correct me if I'm missing something here.) What people want is not
framerates over 1000fps, they want photorealistic imagery. I'm not sure how tile-based
rendering improves visual fidelity. T&L does that by allowing more complex scenes, and in
theory TBR can allow a bit more complexity as well, but the images will LOOK the same, true?
This is why I'm convinced that the first guys to release a consumer level card that supports
hardware-accelerated ray-tracing capability, especially if they play it right (and this is
all "dark rooms and secrets" at the moment, no one is being forthcoming about what,
specifically, they're doing to achieve this although a LOT of people are working on it!)
will almost overnight gain near-total-market-ownership. Have you ever seen raytraced
imagery? It's very impressive... but it gets done on a frame-by-frame basis, it's not fast
enough to serve as real-time, and things like bumpmapping would need to be completely
reworked to use in a raytracing engine.
> Heres an interesting question though. When does a console stop being a console? The
> Dreamcast and PS2 (and probably X-box) AFAIK have USB ports that allow the addition of a
> mouse, keyboard, probably all things USB. Hard drive add-ons are promised, and so
> particularly with the X-Box
> hardware, at what point do you suddenly end up with a PC?
Your point is spot-on. Remember a couple of years ago when Microsoft tried to take over all
driver development, effectively taking ownership of all hardware in the process? That
failed, but the goal remains the same. Microsoft's long-term goal is for the user to rent a
computer from them, with that computer being completely MS and completely under MS control.
Terrifying thought, don't you think? I just think that they jumped the gun with
implementing the "OS-for-rent" concept (see Windows XP) and this is going to be the moment
of truth for them... do they end up owning EVERYTHING computer-oriented, or do they take a
major nosedive? (FYI, I think that the decision by Sony on whether or not to buy BeOS is
going to be a huge aspect of this as well.. BeOS is a technically superior operating system,
far better than Windows and far easier to use than Linux, but it's been hobbled by
MS-coersion-fueled lack of driver support and, similarly, a lack of good software - both
things that Sony can fix easily!)
> Yep, heard of the Quadro. A card (or rather chip) targetted to low end CAD users and the
> like. Maybe we should have this feature locked down to these cards. Check the BIOS, check
> the ChipID etc. Sure you can mod other cards to pretend Quadros (including flashing with
> an appropriate BIOS), but this is long winded, and dangerous enough, to put off the
> cheats.
This is an idea I like... a lot. It would solve all the problems... hopefully, when/if
nVidia releases a Quadro-version of the GF3, they'll have listened to this and will do what
you just suggested!
Since few gamers would buy a Quadro, it would (mostly) eliminate the cheat aspect, but would
still give the capability to both be productive and have some fun to those of us who believe
it the "one-computer-does-it-all" concept... ;-)
> Firstly, what this driver does is not limited to the Geforce3 cards. Infact, with the
> unified architecture, theres nothing really to stop it working on a TNT1. (I've personally
> witnessed the last version of the Asus driver working on a Geforce2MX).
I'd be interested to know if it, in fact, DOES work on a TNT... my understanding of the
feature has been that it relies on pixel-shaders... something only present on the GF2 and
GF3... and my inference from what I've seen of it was that it was using the
programmable-shader-capability of the GF3 (though that is only an inference on my part, not
based on any hard evidence I have).
> In transparancy mode, these drivers dont do anything clever, or wonderful, or special.
> Any texture tagged as solid (i.e. not transparent) is made transparent. This is the level
> of interpretation that is actually likely to hit performance slightly.
You're referring to alpha-blending, the standard transparency-rendering mode. I don't think
that this is what we're talking about though...
This is where we are somewhat in disagreement, though either of us COULD be wrong. My
understanding has been that this used the programmable shader feature of the card and as a
result should result in effectively NO performance loss...
Bottom line, without going into excessive detail, is that I think we're thinking two
different things. I've seen this feature in action and it seems to me to be more than just
an alpha-trick. But only someone who's intimately familiar with the chip innards and the
driver code as well could say for sure, so I'll just say that neither or our opinions will
matter here... the universe is how it is, whether either or us agree or not! :-)
> This, as stated will work across the board. Megabyte had "X-Ray" drivers for the Voodoo2
> cards a few years ago that did exactly the same trick.
> They too quickly backstepped.
Never heard about this one... but I never had a V2 until just last year (I needed GLide
support for some older games like Independence War, but didn't want to be limited to a
Voodoo-series card for my main functions).
> The wireframe mode is a bit more tricky, but again I doubt it's doing anything Geforce3
> specific, or clever. I suspect it takes the vertex points the application passes it, and
> merely draws a wire frame. Considering the programme is being passed superfluious
> information, it would probably be much faster to simply give it enough information to
> construct a wire frame, if thats what you want it to do. Again, in the last driver from
> Asus that had this See-Through technology(TM), worked just fine on a Geforce2MX.
Yep, in fact, if you run some of the GF demos from nVidia, you can view the scenes as
points, wireframes, solids, or finished renders (with all texturing implemented). The
Quadros run this a bit faster, but as you already know, all a quadro really is is a GF chip
with a few on-die elements activated... you can turn a GF into a Quadro by soldering on a
few different components on your PCB and implementing the new BIOS (though, also as you
said, most people wouldn't be foolish enough to try it).
> My point is, *all* immediate mode renderers have this capability. Theres not anything
> special about the GeForce3 in this respect. The only slightly interesting thing is that
> it might, side by side with say a Geforce2, reveal how strong the Z-occlusion/compression
> is in the Geforce3.
I'll be convinced of this, if someone can show me this feature working on some
non-GF2/GF3-based card. I'm not saying your wrong, but I need to be convinced.
> Yes, you are entirely correct.
>
> If you need or want a wireframe mode in Quake3, pull down the console,
> type
>
> /devmap <mapname>
> /r_showtris 1
>
> Now the map of your choice is overlayed with a wireframe of what is actually being drawn.
> If you develop maps for the Quake3 engined games, the tools are already there for you to
> gague the ammount of overdraw.
Yep... so, if people want to "cheat" now, they already can... right? It just has a cost in
terms of performance...
> I'd prefer some links if you have them. Google+Unreal engine+Overdraw is going to leave
> me flailing around in the dark.
Sorry, I remember this from years ago... didn't keep the links, newgroup postings, articles,
etc...
> Seen it before, it was...interesting. If you are asking which I think is going to be
> bigger financially and more important - a consumer viewing their next house on a computer,
> or online gaming, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with online gaming. Plus, it's not
> as in Unreality is unique. Walk throughs of this type have been available for some time.
> Unreality merely takes an already available 3Dengine, and uses it for a hither to unseen
> aplications.
Unrealty versus ALL gaming... yes, you're right. My point was, all non-gaming versus all
gaming... Unrealty is just one example of how 3D-acceleration is moving outside the gaming
venues into more mainstream stuff. I have an OpenGL desktop program which is kind of
cool... 3D-navigable...
Online shopping where you can manipulate the objects... that will become very mainstream. I
suspect that will become the real "mainstream" 3D application, even more than gaming, maybe.
> Besides, whenever anyone begins designing game levels (for the FPS genera) they always
> seem to make their own house...
I've not done much level-design... played with things a bit once, but realized that it was
more work than i wanted to have to deal with... but I did my old workplace offices.
> Somehow though, I doubt any of these applications will ever surpass gaming as the 'killer'
> 3D app.
Well, gaming will always be there... but saying this is like saying that audio only has
applications in games (something that people used to say a few years back as well). The
point is, 3D is not JUST for gaming anymore, it's just a feature that will be used
across-the-board, for any and most likely ALL types of programs. Just like audio is now...
I mean, does MS Money REALLY need music, voiceovers, sound effects, etc? No, but since they
can add it, why not?
> > > Your comments about most gamers playing only solitare is nonsensical. These users
> > > will have no desire to upgrade or even buy a high end PC equipped with such a card.
> > > The S3 Virge their PC comes equipped with will satisfy their card gaming needs, and
> > > these people are unlikely to even realise that the PC is an architecture where bits
> > > and pices can be exchanged at will.
> >
> > It's not nonsensical. But your statement (a slight misquote - I said USERS, not
> > GAMERS) belies bias again. The point I was making there was - MOST USERS AREN'T
> > GAMERS.
>
> Er, sorry, where in that quote did I say gamers? Oh I mentioned card gaming, but that was
> only after you did.
Actually, you mentioned it in the section above... which I left for refernce. I said "most
users playing only solitaire." Your response changed that to "most gamers playing only
solitaire," which is not what I said originally.
> As for your continued assertion that MOST USERS AREN'T GAMERS. Well, you might be
> correct. But you have no figures, I have no figures, so we can only guess. Clearly we
> move in different circles, but everyone I know who has a PC (and yes - EVERYONE), also at
> least dabbles in gaming, usually FPS. This includes the 60yr old bloke who wanted his PC
> *purely* to write a book, the father who bought his PC for writing invoices for his
> roofing business (his sons as well as he have enjoyed quite a few Quake2 games - and as we
> live next door to each other, it was also multiplayer, with the aid of a few cables I had
> lying around).
Actually, this (again) is a matter of a misperception. You're right to mention the
differing circles we move in, but I've never said that most people I know don't play ANY
games... or even FPS's. (It's actually true, but that was not my point.) What I've been
saying, at the root, is that almost no one I know plays ONLINE games, and my social circle
is not all that limited... :-)
As an example... my mom's husband is an old railroad guy, and I'm going to install MS Train
Simulator on my mom's machine for him to mess around with. He'd never be caught dead
"deathmatching" or playing "capture the flag" but this program will let him do something he
no longer has the opportunity to do, and I'm sure he'll enjoy it. That's the "dabbling" in
gaming you mention, right?
As you get older and yes, your social circles change, the importance of gameplaying becomes
far less in your life... not necessarily a good thing, but it's a truism nevertheless. I'm
still relatively young (35, older than most but not all the other people in this group), but
I'm old enough to have moved beyond the "playing games is my LIFE, DUDE" attitudes held by
so many people in this sort of forum today. :-/
> > As for the people not realizing how that things can be upgraded... why do you think that
> Best Buy does such a boom business on computer upgrades when all you need to do this right
> is a screwdriver, the ability to read, a bit of patience, and preferably a grounding
> wrist-strap? What you say, though perhaps a little bit of an exageration, makes sense...
> but that doesn't make it true!
>
> Those are for people who *do* realise they can be upgraded, but arn't confident enough to
> do it themselves.
Which, I suspect, is the vast majority of computer-owners. The basic concept is not
difficult to grasp, certainly no more than the idea of adding mudflaps to your truck or
whatever... though the advantages may be equally dubious, that doesn't mean that people
don't do it.
> > Now, hold on... BIAS ALERT here. I NEVER SAID that I "view gaming as a lowly use."
>
> Maybe, but it really is the impression you give across in every post on tis subject. Sort
> of a "Me big bad CAD user, you gamer should bow to me." Attitude. Thats why you mostly
> seem to get flamed on this issue unfairly. All IMHO of course.
No, see, this is the whole problem. I've been told repeatedly that MY NEEDS ARE
UNIMPORTANT, that the needs of the gamers are more important... ALL important, in fact...
and that I, in effect, can go @#%& myself.
My response has been that gamers aren't the ONLY market segment, nor the only IMPORTANT
market segment. I'm responding to people who have said, straight out, that my needs and
wants DON'T COUNT, that ONLY the online-gamer market segment has ANY relevance. These
people are the ones who've been saying what you seem to think I'm saying... re-read the
threads, try to see it from a neutral perspective, and see if you don't agree.
I've also said, regularly, that I play games... just not online games. I don't slam all
online players, only those who seem to be convinced that their online game playing is the
most important thing in the world. Those people, much like the hyper-fanboy trekkies in
the old SNL Shatner sketch, really do need to "get a life." :-)
> There are other online multiplayer experiances that offer immersion. MMPOG (Massively
> Multiplayer Online Games) are really taking off. It's only a matter of time before a
> persistant worl first person game appears (it may have a shooting eliment). Possibly the
> next Ultima or something. The immersion element of playing against intelegent humans will
> always, for me, beat out relatively simplistic AI.
AI is getting better all the time, but it's true that playing against real people is more...
real.. .and always will be. That said, I cannot be immersed in a STORYLINE if there is no
storyline to be immersed in. I actually tried a couple of these things... and realized
that the only way to enjoy them is to devote more of your time to those games than to
reality, to effectively let them supplant reality.
Once again... I don't play games to have a life in some alternate reality. I don't play
them because I enjoy shooting people without getting arrested for doing so (and yes, I know
not all games are that way, though UT and Q3 certainly are) I play them to be the hero in a
story.. to "fight the forces of evil, and triumph."
That's something that you can't do in any online game yet released. (OK, maybe I play Q3
against Saddam Hussein or something?) Sorry, it just has no relevance to me... and never
will without that compelling storytelling.
> > I find online gaming tedious, pointless, and lacking in fun, exactly for that reason...
> there is no storyline, no plot, nothing of that sort, to be immersed IN.
>
> Except the competition between you and your fellow man.
Which is so much a part of day-to-day life, right? The issue is, nothing, and I mean
NOTHING, gets accomplished in this particular competition. No gains, no losses... nothing.
There is no impact on REALITY from this competition... and there's no compelling reason for
me to play, therefore.
> Who indeed, but then, who needs to walk around in a 3d world when they can go outside...
> Or maybe fire a gun, when they can pop along to the nearest firing range.
Yes, exactly my point! I can do those things... but I can't fly an F-18 into combat over
Saudia Arabia in an air campaign, I can't destroy the Death Star, I can't travel to Zen and
discover the real story behind the G-Man who's been manipulating the events in my world, or
find out in some deep lab who I, J.C. Denton, really am. These are the things that I play
games for... to be the lead character in a STORY.
Someday, my life might really get that interesting, and I might even survive it! But the
odds are, the only way for me to experience this sort of thing will be to do it in a
simulation...
> I think, and please dont take this personally, that you dont *allow* yourself to become
> emmersed in a game. I mean, I watch some pretty silly TV shows, that if I think about
> them, are just too stupid to be enjoyable. So I suspend my disbelief, settle down and
> switch off the part of my brain that says "Hey, she just jumped over two buildings - thats
> not real", and instead enjoy it.
You're wrong... I DO become immersed in the sorts of games I've mentioned. To the point,
on several occasions, where I went to work the next day without having slept at all because
I just NEEDED to figure out how to unite the Triads in Hong Kong... :-)
> Well thats part of the fun of such an environment. Not everything can go your way and you
> will have to adapt a bit. It's just a bit more interaction. I suppose we are just
> different.
Fair enough... to me, I'd much prefer playing cooperative play as part of a storyline. I
TRIED that with Diablo, but the lack of teamwork was annoying... people didn't "play by the
rules," people on my own "team" would kill me to get my stuff, etc, etc... not something
that someone would do in real life, where their lives depend on you as well as you depend on
them.
Then, I'd have to go and you simply cannot tell your teammates to leave when you want to
leave and come back when you want to come back. While it may be practical for a bunch of
college kids or HS kids to keep the same basic schedules, as you get older you find that you
have more demands on your time and less freedom as to what you do when. This becomes not
only impractical but actually IMPOSSIBLE. Real life won't wait on a game...
> Oh please, I read, and was left once again with the distinct feeling that this was the
> usual "Me big bad CAD, you gamer bow to my superiority". Thats the impression you give
> across. With that in mind, if I've misinterpreted anything, well, my bad. But read your
> own post back, try and think in the same way, and then claim that I havn't read anything.
I've merely reacted to the statements that "only gaming matters" by so many of the people in
this argument. You see that, but it's not there. The only way for me to react to being
told that my needs are irrelevant would be to (1) say "yes, you're right, I'll go shoot
myself in the head now," or (2) say "you're wrong, your statements that only gamers matter
are wrong, and here's why."
That's what I've done. And yes, I've gotten some pretty sad responses from those same
people who said, from the beginning, that only THEIR needs count. You seem to be on the
edge there... you're thinking, but you're still dedicated to the "online gaming is MOST
important" perspective, and being an avid online gamer yourself there's a certain level of
personal attachment to your argument that is, like with many people in here I suspect,
coloring your perceptions.
Let me make this completely clear, for the record. Hopefully, I won't have to repeat it
again - I am not saying that my needs are MORE important, I'm saying that my needs are JUST
AS important, and I'm disputing the claims made by so many of the online-game-devotees that
ONLY their needs matter.
Hopefully, this clarifies. This is not a modification of my perspective or what I've been
saying, only the clearest restatement of what I've been saying from day ONE in this
discussion.
> Right now you are interpreting this post and probably assuming I'm a mindless gamer who
> just likes to "blowd stuff up". You will p[robably be looking to dismiss my views and
> opinions as irrelevant and unimportant on the basis of this. Thats fine by me, if I cant
> get across my opinions in a way that makes you think, well, I have to accept the large
> part of the blame for any misunderstandings that arise.
See, that's the whole problem here... you assume, wrongly, that I'm looking down on you
because you play games. That's not true. I don't look down on you, mainly because you
(while having some odd perceptions of things, IMHO) are trying to communicate, debate,
DISCUSS, the topic, instead of just telling me that I and my needs and wants are irrelevant,
as many of the "rabid online gamers" have been.
I DO look down on some people here, I'll be honest about that... but not because they play
games of any particular type. If I look down on someone, it's because they don't think, and
can't look outside their own limited frames of reference. And yes, if someone REALLY thinks
that online gaming is the most important thing in their world, I have to say that I DO think
that they're pathetic! But that doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys these things is
lumped into that category...
It's like Star Trek, to reuse the analogy. There are plenty of people who enjoy the show,
from all walks of life, and all levels of involvement. Some barely know it, think that the
guy with the pointy ears is Doctor Spock, etc, etc. There are some who treat it as a hobby,
have models, books, whatever... not much different from someone who has a favorite sports
team or whatever. Then, there are the freaks - those who memorize Yeoman Rand's cabin
number, or the combination on Kirk's cabin safe, or whatever... the people who need to "GET
A LIFE."
Clearly, there are some people who think that online gaming is far far more important than
it really is. And they're the ones who I have slammed a bit here and there. If you enjoy
this, fine... but just keep it in perspective... it's only a game, just like "it's just a
TV show." ;-)
> But you do seem to assume that just because *you* dont like multiplayer gaming, everyone
> else should agree with you, and dismiss it and it's needs as purile and unimportant.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!
There are two statements here, I'll reiterate.
(1) I, personally, don't enjoy online gaming, nor does anyone I know (with one minor
exception). This point is used to dispute the claims that "online gaming is the only
important thing, and all computer issues revolve around online gaming" which have been made
in various forms by various people here.
(2) I have also said that if you enjoy it, great, more power to you... provided that you
remember that it's only a game, that it's not real life. Online gaming really is
unimportant... but so are novels, movies, TV, sports cars, etc, etc. Being unimportant
doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to exist, only that it isn't IMPORTANT.. and very few
recreational activities really are, after all.
There's nothing wrong with online gaming... but there's something VERY wrong with saying
that "ONLINE GAMING IS ALL THAT MATTERS, DUDE! SCREW EVERYTHING ELSE!!!"
That's the thing that is purile.
> >I mean, c'mon... talking about a "cheat driver"
> > (sic) as something earthshattering, while ignoring dramatic real-world events (how
> > many of you know about the Chinese amphibious-assault rehearsals going on off the
> > coast of Taiwan right now?), is a sign of skewed priorities.
>
> And where do your demands for these SeeThrough Technologies (TM) fit in with these
> practice assults?
It doesn't... however, it DOES fit into my need to put food on my table, a roof over my
head, etc, etc. It's a tool that I have a real-world, practical use for.
My point was to give an example of something important, and relate that to gaming... to
demonstrate how gaming is, relatively speaking, a trivial matter, yet seems to be judged to
be of all-consuming-importance by some people. My point was that these people are getting
mobilized, charging ahead as if on some holy Jihad, over a FRIGGIN GAME, while probably not
even being aware of real-world events that they SHOULD be concerned with. Get it?
> It's about context. Pick any issue in the world, and someone will find something thats
> more important. And here, in alt.comp.peripherals.video.nvidia, SeeThrough/Cheat drivers
> have more context than practice assults. Wnat to talk about those? Go find a more
> appropriate group.
A bit snide, unnecessarily so, but your point is correct. It does not, however, relate to
MY point. I was not suggesting talking about that other issue.
My point was, as stated before, to illustrate that the people who are convinced that the
world will end if ASUS releases drivers with a particular function have a skewed sense of
perspective.
> > As you've no doubt heard before... it's only a game.
> And a lucrative industry.
Lucrative is a relative term... lucrative compared to Halibut Soup Stores? You betcha...
Lucrative compared to GM? Hell no...
And if you really look at where the money in gaming has been for the however-many number of
years, you'll find that Quake3, Unreal Tournament, Everquest, etc, etc... have made a decent
amount of money, but but not by ANY argument a huge amount of money. It would be
interesting to compare the revenues from just one successful movie to the COMPLETE revenues
for all computer games over a year... this is part of the reason that the gaming industry
is floundering right now... overhead has increased due to corporate buyouts of game-makers,
demands for ever-increasing (10% per quarter!!!) revenues, etc, have almost killed the
software industry. Just look at Sierra for a really sad example of this. :-(
> Sorry, but the intellegence of people vs the typical "duck for cover" AI bot is always
> more immersive for me.
You're thinking ONLY in terms of one genre of game! STOP THAT!!! :-)
If what you want to do is run around on a map and shoot people, you're right... although
the AI is improving on an almost daily basis, and soon this will be a pointless comparison!
> And theres certainly no reason why plots cant work in online gaming.
Have you EVER seen a plot-based game of the sort you suggest? Can you suggest how you'd
make it work? No one has been able to do this yet... the B-17 Flying Fortress game was
going to be the first decent try at this, but they removed the multiplayer support due to
massive problems with it. No one has ever done what you suggest... and as far as I'm aware,
no one has suggested a way to do it that can work!
If you have a workable idea, go propose it to someone and get rich... and then send me a
check! :-)
> FWIW I suspect online gamers outnumber the CAD users that will benifit from this. I
> suspect the online gamers spend more on hardware and software, and therefore in a consumer
> level card targetted at gamers, their opinions will carry more weight.
As I've already said, this is not in dispute. But saying that people who speak Mandarin in
Detroit outnumber people who speak Tagalog in Detroit is a meaningless comparison... because
neither is the majority. (FYI, English is first, with Arabic (Farsi) being a disturbingly
close second...)
> I have no numbers to support this, these are suspicions based on my own experiances.
> Yourse, no doubt, will differ substantially from mine.
It's not EITHER/OR, though... my point is not that there are more CAD users than online
gamers. My point is, and has always been, that online gamers, like CAD users, are a niche
market, not the ENTIRE market.
> Debunked above. The Geforce3 is just another example of immediate mode rendering, which
> is open to this type of exploit.
Not debunked, exactly... while what you say COULD be accurate, I need proof before I accept
it. Anyone who can make this run on some other card would be adequate to count as proof for
me. Note, I did not just "call you a liar" or whatever, I just said that you haven't
convinced me yet... at the same time, I haven't convinced you either. Without proof, both
of our suppositions remain exactly that - neither is impossible, so they move past the
hypothesis stage to be considered theories, but neither one is proven, therefore neither one
can be considered fact. Scientific method, ya know...
> Actually I think the aim is to starve the genie. The cheats will only stick with these
> old see through drivers for so long.
But the method of doing it is known now... and, at the very least, some kid with a
decompiler will figure out exactly how it's done and patch that code into a hacked driver
set. It's been done before... and if there IS a demand (ie, if the fears of people
cheating were actually legitimate), supply WILL come along to meet it.
> nVidia wont do anything - they didnt make the drivers, Asus did. And now, Asus have moved
> - by promising, once again, not to do it anymore. The reason they backed off is that it
> became clear it probably *would* hurt their bottom line.
My point was that it will no longer be confined to ASUS, it'll be done across-the-board,
probably based on the Detonator drivers This is even MORE likely if your assessment of how
it was done turns out to be true, by the way!
> But the facination will wear off. The drivers will fall into obscurity. I dont think
> anyones using the MegaByte X-Ray drivers anymore.
Yeah, I agree, actually... because I doubt that the demand for "cheat" ability is really all
that real in the first place. Hence my amazement at the fears that having this would
"destroy online gaming" by some many people here... especially considering that the X-rays
you mention didn't destroy it before!
Most people, IF they get anything from "online competition," get the pleasure and personal
satisfaction from knowing that they bested someone in fair competition. Cheating would take
that away, after all...
> But remember, there are a significant number of others who participate in this and enjoy
> themselves immensly. One day there may even be a multiplayer game you enjoy, if you'll
> let yourself.
I've never said otherwise... and I don't begrudge people wanting to have a good time doing
something that they enjoy, provided that they ... <broken record mode - ON> ... KEEP IT ALL
IN PERSPECTIVE.
We'll see if someone comes up with a way to have a serious, plot-driven story in a game that
I can still conform to MY SCHEDULE, and have it be multiplayer online... if that ever
happens, you could be proven correct.
Cary L. Brown
> Carly:
FYI, it's Cary, not Carly... no offense taken... :-)
> You do not unerstand what a threat these drivers are to the on-line gaming
> community. It is precisely the fact that you do not play on-line games, that you
> do not accept that these see-through drivers have the potential to wipe out
> on-line gaming.
Stephen mentioned the MetaByte "X-Ray" drivers in his post... as he describes them,
they could do the same thing. Online gaming is still here... I understand your
point, I just think that it's a little bit alarmist. But I'll let that go, OK?
> I also get the impression that you think using a computer for gaming is not
> important because it does not generate income. For me a gaming machine is
> crucial. I am a soldier at a military electronics school, I spend nine hours a day
> teaching electronics, doing paper work, crunching reports on a computer,
> dealing out discipline, and putting up with garbage from the top. On-line gaming
> is my Valium. The ultimate relaxing and enjoyment tool.
Quite the contrary, I use my computer for gaming... and it's an OUTSTANDING
stress-releaser, believe me, I know! I also use it to generate my income,
though...
Hey, you're not at Fort Huachuca are you? I spent the better part of a year out
there... (I served as an intelligence officer before my knee got shredded back in
beautiful sunny Iraq...)
> It appears that there will never be a concensus between you and the gamers here,
> so lets just live with it.
Works for me... but don't leave with the idea that I'm not a gamer... just not an
ONLINE gamer.
RMS
Forces, Air element to be precise.
The one thing I noticed in this entire thread, and correct me if I'm wrong but I
think you pointed this out before. If some Asus PR moron hadn't hyped up the
cheating aspect to start out with, we'd all have been a lot better off (That
really made some of us resent Asus.).
bye, Rick
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B195339...@attglobal.net...
Stephen Powell
<3B19517E...@attglobal.net>, it was rumoured that
>
> First off... it's nice to have a CIVIL discussion, rather than a flame-fest... :-)
>
> Stephen Powell wrote:
>
> > The intermediate step is tile based rendering, and that will pretty much eliminate this
> > (unless the end user is willing to forgo all speed increases offered by TBR).
>
> I've been reading a bit on tile-based-rendering, and there is some debate about whether it's
> really going to make a huge impact. As I understand, the Kyro cards use this, right?
Yes they do.
> You're right, if TBR becomes the standard, that altered-vis-modes will be pointless. But
> TBR doesn't have a dramatic effect on visual appearance, only speed, right? (I'm not an
> expert on TBR, so please correct me if I'm missing something here.)
Well speed is an important factor in realism. Current immediate mode
renderers are hitting a memory bandwdth wall, where the ammount of polys
etc is being restricted by scene complexity. If you have a scene that
requires a lot of overdraw, or multiple passes, to produce an effect,
Immediate mode renderers have problems. The memory bandwidth is eaten
up. Tile based rendering relieves quite a bit of this bottleneck.
Theres no point having the triangle set up power to draw hundreds of
polys when, if you do, you hit a prohibative memory bottleneck. See the
Geforce2MX for an example of this. If you could couple the GPU core to
good, 128-bit DDR, then it probably wouldnt be far off a GTS. As is the
memory bottleneck throtles it.
> What people want is not
> framerates over 1000fps, they want photorealistic imagery. I'm not sure how tile-based
> rendering improves visual fidelity.
The increase in pure speed allows greater scene complexity. The next
Kyro chip supposidly also has T&L. I cant wait :) Finally scenes will
neither be limited to memory bottlenecks, or triangle setup.
> T&L does that by allowing more complex scenes, and in
> theory TBR can allow a bit more complexity as well, but the images will LOOK the same, true?
Well, they are both based on, hmm, I forget the term. Not raytracing,
but raster? (Not radiosity, I know thats what some people will be
thinking ;) )
Anyway, 3DStudioMax works in a way similar to current rendering
technologies at it's core. It certainly dosent use raytracing to make
its realistic images (infact it uses a relatively slow pure software
method, but I *believe* it's methods are closer to current graphics card
technologies and techniques than raytracing.)
> This is why I'm convinced that the first guys to release a consumer level card that supports
> hardware-accelerated ray-tracing capability, especially if they play it right (and this is
> all "dark rooms and secrets" at the moment, no one is being forthcoming about what,
> specifically, they're doing to achieve this although a LOT of people are working on it!)
> will almost overnight gain near-total-market-ownership. Have you ever seen raytraced
> imagery?
Have I seen it? I do it :) www.povray.org
That said the ultra realistic stuff you see in the cinemas isnt
raytraced. It has more incommon with standard rendering.
> It's very impressive... but it gets done on a frame-by-frame basis, it's not fast
> enough to serve as real-time, and things like bumpmapping would need to be completely
> reworked to use in a raytracing engine.
The trouble is, anyone who debues a realtime raytracing card is going to
have to compete on visual and performance terms with the best traditional
technologies at the time. Thats a *lot* of catching up. 3dfx had a very
nice looking antialiasing technique, unfortunately it was just too slow
to be a killer feature for many.
If you want to see some realtime raytracing, have a quick search for the
heaven7 demo.
<snip interesting, but straying OT bit about consoles vs PCs>
> > Yep, heard of the Quadro. A card (or rather chip) targetted to low end CAD users and the
> > like. Maybe we should have this feature locked down to these cards. Check the BIOS, check
> > the ChipID etc. Sure you can mod other cards to pretend Quadros (including flashing with
> > an appropriate BIOS), but this is long winded, and dangerous enough, to put off the
> > cheats.
>
> This is an idea I like... a lot. It would solve all the problems... hopefully, when/if
> nVidia releases a Quadro-version of the GF3, they'll have listened to this and will do what
> you just suggested!
>
> Since few gamers would buy a Quadro, it would (mostly) eliminate the cheat aspect, but would
> still give the capability to both be productive and have some fun to those of us who believe
> it the "one-computer-does-it-all" concept... ;-)
Ahh, common ground where we can all exist, and go back to messing about
with beta leaked drivers. How it should be.
> > Firstly, what this driver does is not limited to the Geforce3 cards. Infact, with the
> > unified architecture, theres nothing really to stop it working on a TNT1. (I've personally
> > witnessed the last version of the Asus driver working on a Geforce2MX).
>
> I'd be interested to know if it, in fact, DOES work on a TNT... my understanding of the
> feature has been that it relies on pixel-shaders... something only present on the GF2 and
> GF3... and my inference from what I've seen of it was that it was using the
> programmable-shader-capability of the GF3 (though that is only an inference on my part, not
> based on any hard evidence I have).
I'll see what I can do. It'll have to be done via the old hacked Asus
drivers (5.xx series IIRC), but we have a machine with a TNT2Ultra in
(which incidentally, when it overheats, does something very much like the
Asus wireframe mode for a few minutes ;) -then it hangs of course...)
> > In transparancy mode, these drivers dont do anything clever, or wonderful, or special.
> > Any texture tagged as solid (i.e. not transparent) is made transparent. This is the level
> > of interpretation that is actually likely to hit performance slightly.
>
> You're referring to alpha-blending, the standard transparency-rendering mode. I don't think
> that this is what we're talking about though...
Thats the one (couldnt think of the word). AFAIK all the driver does is
apply transparency to everything. Then, with the back-to-front
rendering, everything the card draws is visible.
> This is where we are somewhat in disagreement, though either of us COULD be wrong. My
> understanding has been that this used the programmable shader feature of the card and as a
> result should result in effectively NO performance loss...
Theres no performance loss in rendering really. The card is still
drawing exactly the same ammount of data. As I see it though, there may
be marginal performance loss at driver level, when the driver is forced
to interpret superfluious data. It will be marginal, but it will be
faster just telling the drivers what you want them to do, and have the
drivers obey that.
> Bottom line, without going into excessive detail, is that I think we're thinking two
> different things. I've seen this feature in action and it seems to me to be more than just
> an alpha-trick.
The thing is, I've seen it too, and all it looked like to me was an alpha
trick.
> But only someone who's intimately familiar with the chip innards and the
> driver code as well could say for sure, so I'll just say that neither or our opinions will
> matter here... the universe is how it is, whether either or us agree or not! :-)
:-) Tis so true though.
> > This, as stated will work across the board. Megabyte had "X-Ray" drivers for the Voodoo2
> > cards a few years ago that did exactly the same trick.
> > They too quickly backstepped.
>
> Never heard about this one... but I never had a V2 until just last year (I needed GLide
> support for some older games like Independence War, but didn't want to be limited to a
> Voodoo-series card for my main functions).
Ok, one of my points here was "Look, it was done on a Voodoo2 - it's not
clever, and doesnt rely on anything special".
> > The wireframe mode is a bit more tricky, but again I doubt it's doing anything Geforce3
> > specific, or clever. I suspect it takes the vertex points the application passes it, and
> > merely draws a wire frame. Considering the programme is being passed superfluious
> > information, it would probably be much faster to simply give it enough information to
> > construct a wire frame, if thats what you want it to do. Again, in the last driver from
> > Asus that had this See-Through technology(TM), worked just fine on a Geforce2MX.
>
> Yep, in fact, if you run some of the GF demos from nVidia, you can view the scenes as
> points, wireframes, solids, or finished renders (with all texturing implemented). The
> Quadros run this a bit faster, but as you already know, all a quadro really is is a GF chip
> with a few on-die elements activated... you can turn a GF into a Quadro by soldering on a
> few different components on your PCB and implementing the new BIOS (though, also as you
> said, most people wouldn't be foolish enough to try it).
See, but in this case it's software coded. When you are in wireframe
mode, all thats being sent is the wireframe data. This is my point
really. Where it has a place, it's best done in the software that needs
it.
> > My point is, *all* immediate mode renderers have this capability. Theres not anything
> > special about the GeForce3 in this respect. The only slightly interesting thing is that
> > it might, side by side with say a Geforce2, reveal how strong the Z-occlusion/compression
> > is in the Geforce3.
>
> I'll be convinced of this, if someone can show me this feature working on some
> non-GF2/GF3-based card. I'm not saying your wrong, but I need to be convinced.
As I say, I'll see what I can do. My last exams on Tuesday, so look for
a link say, next week when the hangovers gone.
> > Yes, you are entirely correct.
> >
> > If you need or want a wireframe mode in Quake3, pull down the console,
> > type
> >
> > /devmap <mapname>
> > /r_showtris 1
> >
> > Now the map of your choice is overlayed with a wireframe of what is actually being drawn.
> > If you develop maps for the Quake3 engined games, the tools are already there for you to
> > gague the ammount of overdraw.
>
> Yep... so, if people want to "cheat" now, they already can... right? It just has a cost in
> terms of performance...
No. /devmap is for developers. /r_showtris 1 will not work in the
normal 'game' mode. It can be enabled at server level, but when you
connect to the server theres a big "CHEATS ARE ENABLED" warning on the
loading screen. Developers for the Quake3 engined games gain nothing from
these drivers. This might not be true for other game engines, or other
apps, but here is an example where what these drivers do was deemed
useful. And the feature was added at software level, with adequate
protection to boot.
> > I'd prefer some links if you have them. Google+Unreal engine+Overdraw is going to leave
> > me flailing around in the dark.
>
> Sorry, I remember this from years ago... didn't keep the links, newgroup postings, articles,
> etc...
Damn, I'll have a look around anyway. Can you be a bit more specific so
I can narrow my search parameters?
> > Seen it before, it was...interesting. If you are asking which I think is going to be
> > bigger financially and more important - a consumer viewing their next house on a computer,
> > or online gaming, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with online gaming. Plus, it's not
> > as in Unreality is unique. Walk throughs of this type have been available for some time.
> > Unreality merely takes an already available 3Dengine, and uses it for a hither to unseen
> > aplications.
>
> Unrealty versus ALL gaming... yes, you're right. My point was, all non-gaming versus all
> gaming... Unrealty is just one example of how 3D-acceleration is moving outside the gaming
> venues into more mainstream stuff. I have an OpenGL desktop program which is kind of
> cool... 3D-navigable...
I think I tried that. Never really got on with it. In this aspect I
guess I'm stuck in 2D. :)
> Online shopping where you can manipulate the objects... that will become very mainstream. I
> suspect that will become the real "mainstream" 3D application, even more than gaming, maybe.
What I cant really see is how these sort of drivers are benificial to
these applications. If you are providing a simulation of someones house,
surely the last thing thats useful is "And this is what it would look
like with transparent walls..."
> > Besides, whenever anyone begins designing game levels (for the FPS genera) they always
> > seem to make their own house...
>
> I've not done much level-design... played with things a bit once, but realized that it was
> more work than i wanted to have to deal with... but I did my old workplace offices.
I've played. I made my house.
The hallway was too small for me to walk through.
> > Somehow though, I doubt any of these applications will ever surpass gaming as the 'killer'
> > 3D app.
>
> Well, gaming will always be there... but saying this is like saying that audio only has
> applications in games (something that people used to say a few years back as well). The
> point is, 3D is not JUST for gaming anymore, it's just a feature that will be used
> across-the-board, for any and most likely ALL types of programs. Just like audio is now...
> I mean, does MS Money REALLY need music, voiceovers, sound effects, etc? No, but since they
> can add it, why not?
This is true, but we are straying. These drivers will have no impact on
these areas. What we do have however, is a driver that can be benificial
in some areas (e.g. CAD), and can be utterly devistating in another.
> > > > Your comments about most gamers playing only solitare is nonsensical. These users
> > > > will have no desire to upgrade or even buy a high end PC equipped with such a card.
> > > > The S3 Virge their PC comes equipped with will satisfy their card gaming needs, and
> > > > these people are unlikely to even realise that the PC is an architecture where bits
> > > > and pices can be exchanged at will.
> > >
> > > It's not nonsensical. But your statement (a slight misquote - I said USERS, not
> > > GAMERS) belies bias again. The point I was making there was - MOST USERS AREN'T
> > > GAMERS.
> >
> > Er, sorry, where in that quote did I say gamers? Oh I mentioned card gaming, but that was
> > only after you did.
>
> Actually, you mentioned it in the section above... which I left for refernce. I said "most
> users playing only solitaire." Your response changed that to "most gamers playing only
> solitaire," which is not what I said originally.
Oops, my bad. Consider myself horse whipped (I really should read what I
write more I suppose)
> > As for your continued assertion that MOST USERS AREN'T GAMERS. Well, you might be
> > correct. But you have no figures, I have no figures, so we can only guess. Clearly we
> > move in different circles, but everyone I know who has a PC (and yes - EVERYONE), also at
> > least dabbles in gaming, usually FPS. This includes the 60yr old bloke who wanted his PC
> > *purely* to write a book, the father who bought his PC for writing invoices for his
> > roofing business (his sons as well as he have enjoyed quite a few Quake2 games - and as we
> > live next door to each other, it was also multiplayer, with the aid of a few cables I had
> > lying around).
>
> Actually, this (again) is a matter of a misperception. You're right to mention the
> differing circles we move in, but I've never said that most people I know don't play ANY
> games... or even FPS's. (It's actually true, but that was not my point.) What I've been
> saying, at the root, is that almost no one I know plays ONLINE games, and my social circle
> is not all that limited... :-)
Well mines not either. Yes I'm in university (for a few more days at
least anyway), and there are a lot of people here who play these games.
However, and this is a big however, my social circle is not limited to
this. I come from a little area in mid Wales, right out in the middle of
no where alomost, and I know a lot of people from differing backgrounds,
of differing ages etc. As I say (well I havn't but will now), I
personally am just at ease chatting with the 60+ folks in my local pub,
as I am with the 18yr olds (when that is, I'm not busy repairing the
damage they did to their computer last night). And those that have
computers invariably play quite a few games, and where it appeals, play
them online. At least in my social circle(s) online gaming is not
uncommon. (Ah just realised this means nothing without my own age -21
going on 22)
> As an example... my mom's husband is an old railroad guy, and I'm going to install MS Train
> Simulator on my mom's machine for him to mess around with. He'd never be caught dead
> "deathmatching" or playing "capture the flag" but this program will let him do something he
> no longer has the opportunity to do, and I'm sure he'll enjoy it. That's the "dabbling" in
> gaming you mention, right?
>
> As you get older and yes, your social circles change, the importance of gameplaying becomes
> far less in your life... not necessarily a good thing, but it's a truism nevertheless. I'm
> still relatively young (35, older than most but not all the other people in this group), but
> I'm old enough to have moved beyond the "playing games is my LIFE, DUDE" attitudes held by
> so many people in this sort of forum today. :-/
Maybe, and I would have to worry about someone who stated that, BUT,
playing games can be a very important aspect of their life. Through
these games people do meet and forge friendships. This is probably why
opinions get so polarised on this subject. These give a good sturdy kick
in the nuts to the eliment of trust. If you cant trust people when
playing a game, how can you trust them in friendship. Gaming is really
best as a social occupation, just ask the old ladies down at your local
bingo hall (and then ask them of their opinion of those who insist on
calling house when they plainly arnt even close to getting house -
believe me, what we see here is tame).
> > > As for the people not realizing how that things can be upgraded... why do you think that
> > Best Buy does such a boom business on computer upgrades when all you need to do this right
> > is a screwdriver, the ability to read, a bit of patience, and preferably a grounding
> > wrist-strap? What you say, though perhaps a little bit of an exageration, makes sense...
> > but that doesn't make it true!
> >
> > Those are for people who *do* realise they can be upgraded, but arn't confident enough to
> > do it themselves.
>
> Which, I suspect, is the vast majority of computer-owners. The basic concept is not
> difficult to grasp, certainly no more than the idea of adding mudflaps to your truck or
> whatever... though the advantages may be equally dubious, that doesn't mean that people
> don't do it.
I don't know. I'm quite often asked to recomend systems, and I'm always
asked how long it will be good for. There is genuine suprise when I say
"Well, when this bit gets too slow, you can always rip it out and replace
it".
> > > Now, hold on... BIAS ALERT here. I NEVER SAID that I "view gaming as a lowly use."
> >
> > Maybe, but it really is the impression you give across in every post on tis subject. Sort
> > of a "Me big bad CAD user, you gamer should bow to me." Attitude. Thats why you mostly
> > seem to get flamed on this issue unfairly. All IMHO of course.
>
> No, see, this is the whole problem. I've been told repeatedly that MY NEEDS ARE
> UNIMPORTANT, that the needs of the gamers are more important... ALL important, in fact...
> and that I, in effect, can go @#%& myself.
Ah well, those unwilling to think and debate really arnt worth wasting
time on ;)
> My response has been that gamers aren't the ONLY market segment, nor the only IMPORTANT
> market segment. I'm responding to people who have said, straight out, that my needs and
> wants DON'T COUNT, that ONLY the online-gamer market segment has ANY relevance. These
> people are the ones who've been saying what you seem to think I'm saying... re-read the
> threads, try to see it from a neutral perspective, and see if you don't agree.
I'll go back and read in a bit, but I do see where you are comming from a
bit more clearly now. What I'm saying is at consumer level, Online
gaming is more lucrative to Asus than CAD, thats why they have listened
(and I think why these drivers ever popped up in the first place - after
all, no one ever used a Voodoo2 for CAD). Saying it was removed because
of a loud minority seems to be a bit, well superior. Ultimately it was
removed because Asus felt they would suffer more in sales than they could
gain.
> I've also said, regularly, that I play games... just not online games. I don't slam all
> online players, only those who seem to be convinced that their online game playing is the
> most important thing in the world. Those people, much like the hyper-fanboy trekkies in
> the old SNL Shatner sketch, really do need to "get a life." :-)
:-)
> > There are other online multiplayer experiances that offer immersion. MMPOG (Massively
> > Multiplayer Online Games) are really taking off. It's only a matter of time before a
> > persistant worl first person game appears (it may have a shooting eliment). Possibly the
> > next Ultima or something. The immersion element of playing against intelegent humans will
> > always, for me, beat out relatively simplistic AI.
>
> AI is getting better all the time, but it's true that playing against real people is more...
> real.. .and always will be. That said, I cannot be immersed in a STORYLINE if there is no
> storyline to be immersed in. I actually tried a couple of these things... and realized
> that the only way to enjoy them is to devote more of your time to those games than to
> reality, to effectively let them supplant reality.
Hmm. Ok, I'll try an analogy here. I used to go to a gym a few years
ago. They had these computerised rowing machines which had score boards
for speed in a certain time. During the 'race' you compete against a
computer controlled opponent (which cheats BTW...). Getting to the top
of the score board was relatively easy, the tricky thing was keeping
there because my friend would come in and knock me off the top spot so
often.
These games, up to now, havnt been so much about immersion due to plot,
they have been about pure competition. And competition itself can be
immersing.
> Once again... I don't play games to have a life in some alternate reality. I don't play
> them because I enjoy shooting people without getting arrested for doing so (and yes, I know
> not all games are that way, though UT and Q3 certainly are) I play them to be the hero in a
> story.. to "fight the forces of evil, and triumph."
This is maybe the key. Thresh (a top Quake2 player) is a hero to many.
Really :), and to me its not alot different to running the hundred meters
in under 10 seconds. The man has a talent, and has tuned and honed his
strategy and playing skills. Hes pitted himself against the best, and
come out on top. When you first top a score board in QuakeX, you really
do feel like a tiny hero. Thats where the addiction lies in these games
I think.
> That's something that you can't do in any online game yet released. (OK, maybe I play Q3
> against Saddam Hussein or something?) Sorry, it just has no relevance to me... and never
> will without that compelling storytelling.
The trouble perhaps is, with a compelling storytale, coupled with playing
against others online. Well, that really would be life sapping ;-)
> > > I find online gaming tedious, pointless, and lacking in fun, exactly for that reason...
> > there is no storyline, no plot, nothing of that sort, to be immersed IN.
> >
> > Except the competition between you and your fellow man.
>
> Which is so much a part of day-to-day life, right? The issue is, nothing, and I mean
> NOTHING, gets accomplished in this particular competition. No gains, no losses... nothing.
> There is no impact on REALITY from this competition... and there's no compelling reason for
> me to play, therefore.
Thresh has done quite well for himself. Won quite a bit of money,
founded and sold off a sucessful website for quite a bit of money. All
off the back of a couple of Quake2 matches.
Honestly though, for me, its the competition that is compelling.
> > Who indeed, but then, who needs to walk around in a 3d world when they can go outside...
> > Or maybe fire a gun, when they can pop along to the nearest firing range.
>
> Yes, exactly my point! I can do those things... but I can't fly an F-18 into combat over
> Saudia Arabia in an air campaign, I can't destroy the Death Star, I can't travel to Zen and
> discover the real story behind the G-Man who's been manipulating the events in my world, or
> find out in some deep lab who I, J.C. Denton, really am. These are the things that I play
> games for... to be the lead character in a STORY.
Hmm, but then again you cant rocket jump over someone, switch to the
gauntlet, and nab them quickly from behind with a satisfying
"HUMILIATION!" call either.
This is it really isnt it. You like the fantasy, while I like the
competition.
> Someday, my life might really get that interesting, and I might even survive it! But the
> odds are, the only way for me to experience this sort of thing will be to do it in a
> simulation...
Well there will always be a place for simulation (personally I'm waiting
for Elite massively multiplayer - but it will probably sap my life when
it appears ;) )
> > I think, and please dont take this personally, that you dont *allow* yourself to become
> > emmersed in a game. I mean, I watch some pretty silly TV shows, that if I think about
> > them, are just too stupid to be enjoyable. So I suspend my disbelief, settle down and
> > switch off the part of my brain that says "Hey, she just jumped over two buildings - thats
> > not real", and instead enjoy it.
>
> You're wrong... I DO become immersed in the sorts of games I've mentioned. To the point,
> on several occasions, where I went to work the next day without having slept at all because
> I just NEEDED to figure out how to unite the Triads in Hong Kong... :-)
Ah, OK, I'm wrong :) It happens. Quite often really.
> > Well thats part of the fun of such an environment. Not everything can go your way and you
> > will have to adapt a bit. It's just a bit more interaction. I suppose we are just
> > different.
>
> Fair enough... to me, I'd much prefer playing cooperative play as part of a storyline. I
> TRIED that with Diablo, but the lack of teamwork was annoying... people didn't "play by the
> rules," people on my own "team" would kill me to get my stuff, etc, etc... not something
> that someone would do in real life, where their lives depend on you as well as you depend on
> them.
Actually this is a common complaint in first person shooter capture the
flag games. CTF is a game reliant on team work, and in normal free
servers, some people just dont get it. However, watching and/or
participating in a clanned CTF game can be truely awe inspiring.
Organisation, teamplay etc can all come together. And some of the
movements and strategy can be awe inspiring.
> Then, I'd have to go and you simply cannot tell your teammates to leave when you want to
> leave and come back when you want to come back. While it may be practical for a bunch of
> college kids or HS kids to keep the same basic schedules, as you get older you find that you
> have more demands on your time and less freedom as to what you do when. This becomes not
> only impractical but actually IMPOSSIBLE. Real life won't wait on a game...
The availability of broadband is changing this somewhat. You can nearly
always pop online and find playable populated servers. If you want to
play with regular people, typically you end up clanned, playing in
organised leagues etc.
You are right, real life wont wait on a game, but plenty of people manage
to turn up to play soccer/football in the sunday leagues. If it's
important to you, you make time.
> > Oh please, I read, and was left once again with the distinct feeling that this was the
> > usual "Me big bad CAD, you gamer bow to my superiority". Thats the impression you give
> > across. With that in mind, if I've misinterpreted anything, well, my bad. But read your
> > own post back, try and think in the same way, and then claim that I havn't read anything.
>
> I've merely reacted to the statements that "only gaming matters" by so many of the people in
> this argument. You see that, but it's not there. The only way for me to react to being
> told that my needs are irrelevant would be to (1) say "yes, you're right, I'll go shoot
> myself in the head now," or (2) say "you're wrong, your statements that only gamers matter
> are wrong, and here's why."
Ok, things have been polarised. It's not black and white, its more of a
gray. What I have always tried to do is listen, and concede points where
there are points to be made.
CAD has legitimate uses for these drivers. The features of use however,
I feel are best done specifically coded for in the CAD software. This
way, where they arnt needed (or wanted) they will not be available.
> That's what I've done. And yes, I've gotten some pretty sad responses from those same
> people who said, from the beginning, that only THEIR needs count. You seem to be on the
> edge there... you're thinking, but you're still dedicated to the "online gaming is MOST
> important" perspective, and being an avid online gamer yourself there's a certain level of
> personal attachment to your argument that is, like with many people in here I suspect,
> coloring your perceptions.
I try to listen and decide for myself. I dont feel this feature has any
place in a consumer level card. I even question it's usefulness in Pro
cards, though clearly, until the software engineers realise the
usefulness of this, a driver level hack will have some place.
I mean, we gamers still have to force Antialiasing at driver level,
rather than select in game.
> Let me make this completely clear, for the record. Hopefully, I won't have to repeat it
> again - I am not saying that my needs are MORE important, I'm saying that my needs are JUST
> AS important, and I'm disputing the claims made by so many of the online-game-devotees that
> ONLY their needs matter.
And what I'm saying is that if you want Pro features, maybe a consumer
card is not the best place to look. Asus have to bend to where they
believe the money is. For them, CAD just doesnt count. Not at the
moment anyway.
When they had the vote, they presented a brief list of fors and against.
They were all game related, there were no CAD points mentioned (which I
was actually very suprised at). That to me says it all.
> Hopefully, this clarifies. This is not a modification of my perspective or what I've been
> saying, only the clearest restatement of what I've been saying from day ONE in this
> discussion.
Clarification accepted and understood. :)
>
> > Right now you are interpreting this post and probably assuming I'm a mindless gamer who
> > just likes to "blowd stuff up". You will p[robably be looking to dismiss my views and
> > opinions as irrelevant and unimportant on the basis of this. Thats fine by me, if I cant
> > get across my opinions in a way that makes you think, well, I have to accept the large
> > part of the blame for any misunderstandings that arise.
>
> See, that's the whole problem here... you assume, wrongly, that I'm looking down on you
> because you play games. That's not true. I don't look down on you, mainly because you
> (while having some odd perceptions of things, IMHO) are trying to communicate, debate,
> DISCUSS, the topic, instead of just telling me that I and my needs and wants are irrelevant,
> as many of the "rabid online gamers" have been.
See, thats the thing though. You have in all honesty given me the
impression that you do look down on the online gaming community. I think
it was the 'no life' statements from the first discussion. From there on
in I've had to put things into this context. And sometimes that ends up
twisting statements away from their original meaning I guess.
> I DO look down on some people here,
Can I mention Zod here? Please...?
> I'll be honest about that... but not because they play
> games of any particular type. If I look down on someone, it's because they don't think, and
> can't look outside their own limited frames of reference. And yes, if someone REALLY thinks
> that online gaming is the most important thing in their world, I have to say that I DO think
> that they're pathetic! But that doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys these things is
> lumped into that category...
However, it may be more important to them than CAD, and thats where they
argue. If they really cant see any reason, then yes, they arnt thinking,
and from thereon in, it's just not worth the response time.
> It's like Star Trek, to reuse the analogy. There are plenty of people who enjoy the show,
> from all walks of life, and all levels of involvement. Some barely know it, think that the
> guy with the pointy ears is Doctor Spock, etc, etc. There are some who treat it as a hobby,
> have models, books, whatever... not much different from someone who has a favorite sports
> team or whatever. Then, there are the freaks - those who memorize Yeoman Rand's cabin
> number, or the combination on Kirk's cabin safe, or whatever... the people who need to "GET
> A LIFE."
>
> Clearly, there are some people who think that online gaming is far far more important than
> it really is. And they're the ones who I have slammed a bit here and there. If you enjoy
> this, fine... but just keep it in perspective... it's only a game, just like "it's just a
> TV show." ;-)
Accepted, but then again, to me CADs, just, well CAD.
> > But you do seem to assume that just because *you* dont like multiplayer gaming, everyone
> > else should agree with you, and dismiss it and it's needs as purile and unimportant.
>
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!
>
> There are two statements here, I'll reiterate.
>
> (1) I, personally, don't enjoy online gaming, nor does anyone I know (with one minor
> exception). This point is used to dispute the claims that "online gaming is the only
> important thing, and all computer issues revolve around online gaming" which have been made
> in various forms by various people here.
>
> (2) I have also said that if you enjoy it, great, more power to you... provided that you
> remember that it's only a game, that it's not real life. Online gaming really is
> unimportant... but so are novels, movies, TV, sports cars, etc, etc. Being unimportant
> doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to exist, only that it isn't IMPORTANT.. and very few
> recreational activities really are, after all.
Ok, it's not important in the grand scheme of things, but it has a right
to exist. And these drivers really are a very real (or at least feared)
threat to it's existance. Thats why there has been such an outcry.
> There's nothing wrong with online gaming... but there's something VERY wrong with saying
> that "ONLINE GAMING IS ALL THAT MATTERS, DUDE! SCREW EVERYTHING ELSE!!!"
>
> That's the thing that is purile.
>
>
> > >I mean, c'mon... talking about a "cheat driver"
> > > (sic) as something earthshattering, while ignoring dramatic real-world events (how
> > > many of you know about the Chinese amphibious-assault rehearsals going on off the
> > > coast of Taiwan right now?), is a sign of skewed priorities.
> >
> > And where do your demands for these SeeThrough Technologies (TM) fit in with these
> > practice assults?
>
> It doesn't... however, it DOES fit into my need to put food on my table, a roof over my
> head, etc, etc. It's a tool that I have a real-world, practical use for.
Ok, dynamite is very useful for demolition experts. It has a place. I
dont think my next door neighbour has any need for it to be available to
him though.
> My point was to give an example of something important, and relate that to gaming... to
> demonstrate how gaming is, relatively speaking, a trivial matter, yet seems to be judged to
> be of all-consuming-importance by some people. My point was that these people are getting
> mobilized, charging ahead as if on some holy Jihad, over a FRIGGIN GAME, while probably not
> even being aware of real-world events that they SHOULD be concerned with. Get it?
Yes it's just a game, but I'm saying it's importance depend on where you
stand. I'm quite sure John Carmack feels strongly gaming is very
important. He has to buy petrol for his two Ferraris you know.
Take any subject, and someone else will be able to trivialise it. It
doesnt mean that subject is any less important though.
> > It's about context. Pick any issue in the world, and someone will find something thats
> > more important. And here, in alt.comp.peripherals.video.nvidia, SeeThrough/Cheat drivers
> > have more context than practice assults. Wnat to talk about those? Go find a more
> > appropriate group.
>
> A bit snide, unnecessarily so, but your point is correct. It does not, however, relate to
> MY point. I was not suggesting talking about that other issue.
>
> My point was, as stated before, to illustrate that the people who are convinced that the
> world will end if ASUS releases drivers with a particular function have a skewed sense of
> perspective.
No it wont end. But a small part of their world may. So it's hardly
suprising (to me atleast) the ferosity that they use to defend it.
> > > As you've no doubt heard before... it's only a game.
> > And a lucrative industry.
>
> Lucrative is a relative term... lucrative compared to Halibut Soup Stores? You betcha...
> Lucrative compared to GM? Hell no...
>
> And if you really look at where the money in gaming has been for the however-many number of
> years, you'll find that Quake3, Unreal Tournament, Everquest, etc, etc... have made a decent
> amount of money, but but not by ANY argument a huge amount of money. It would be
> interesting to compare the revenues from just one successful movie to the COMPLETE revenues
> for all computer games over a year... this is part of the reason that the gaming industry
> is floundering right now... overhead has increased due to corporate buyouts of game-makers,
> demands for ever-increasing (10% per quarter!!!) revenues, etc, have almost killed the
> software industry. Just look at Sierra for a really sad example of this. :-(
>
> > Sorry, but the intellegence of people vs the typical "duck for cover" AI bot is always
> > more immersive for me.
>
> You're thinking ONLY in terms of one genre of game! STOP THAT!!! :-)
Sorry :)
> If what you want to do is run around on a map and shoot people, you're right... although
> the AI is improving on an almost daily basis, and soon this will be a pointless comparison!
Ok. I play quite a few strategy games aswell. Theres nothing quite as
humiliating as being defeated by a human opponent with a seemingly
simple, foolhardy move. Humans are unpredictable. In Dungeon Keeper2
for example, playing the bot AI is no real challange. It behaves within
a set of rules that doesnt really take long to figure out.
Now, playing against a human opponent is unpredictable. You think youve
got them sussed, and then they attack early, completely out of character,
and you find yourself unprepared.
> > And theres certainly no reason why plots cant work in online gaming.
>
> Have you EVER seen a plot-based game of the sort you suggest? Can you suggest how you'd
> make it work? No one has been able to do this yet... the B-17 Flying Fortress game was
> going to be the first decent try at this, but they removed the multiplayer support due to
> massive problems with it. No one has ever done what you suggest... and as far as I'm aware,
> no one has suggested a way to do it that can work!
>
> If you have a workable idea, go propose it to someone and get rich... and then send me a
> check! :-)
I'm working on it, really :)
Honestly though, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesnt mean it
cant be done. Maybe a massively multiplayer WW2 game. Let some people
have control of overall battle strategy (ala RISK type of decisions), let
others fly, drive tanks etc, and actually determine the outcome of a
battle.
That of course will be horribly complex to manage, but it could be done
given time and effort. Of that I'm sure.
> > FWIW I suspect online gamers outnumber the CAD users that will benifit from this. I
> > suspect the online gamers spend more on hardware and software, and therefore in a consumer
> > level card targetted at gamers, their opinions will carry more weight.
>
> As I've already said, this is not in dispute. But saying that people who speak Mandarin in
> Detroit outnumber people who speak Tagalog in Detroit is a meaningless comparison... because
> neither is the majority. (FYI, English is first, with Arabic (Farsi) being a disturbingly
> close second...)
No, but this is an issue that has polarised the two groups, and
ultimately the minority that outnumbers the other minority (with the
majority not caring) is likely to get the better deal.
> > I have no numbers to support this, these are suspicions based on my own experiances.
> > Yourse, no doubt, will differ substantially from mine.
>
> It's not EITHER/OR, though... my point is not that there are more CAD users than online
> gamers. My point is, and has always been, that online gamers, like CAD users, are a niche
> market, not the ENTIRE market.
Right, but how do you deal with a problem in which the two minorities
have radically different ideas, aims and objectives?
> > Debunked above. The Geforce3 is just another example of immediate mode rendering, which
> > is open to this type of exploit.
>
> Not debunked, exactly... while what you say COULD be accurate, I need proof before I accept
> it. Anyone who can make this run on some other card would be adequate to count as proof for
> me. Note, I did not just "call you a liar" or whatever, I just said that you haven't
> convinced me yet... at the same time, I haven't convinced you either. Without proof, both
> of our suppositions remain exactly that - neither is impossible, so they move past the
> hypothesis stage to be considered theories, but neither one is proven, therefore neither one
> can be considered fact. Scientific method, ya know...
Ok, I'll work on it. Though exactly how I'll be able to prove that a
TNT2 produces the results is another matter. Its that element of trust
these drivers have destroyed.
> > Actually I think the aim is to starve the genie. The cheats will only stick with these
> > old see through drivers for so long.
>
> But the method of doing it is known now... and, at the very least, some kid with a
> decompiler will figure out exactly how it's done and patch that code into a hacked driver
> set. It's been done before... and if there IS a demand (ie, if the fears of people
> cheating were actually legitimate), supply WILL come along to meet it.
No doubt. As you say, these features are available on pro cards. The
aim here is to minimise the availability (cost is the prohibative factor
of pro cards). Having a cheat thats hard to find is one thing. Having a
card that arrives with drivers with a big red button that says "Press
HERE to cheat" is another. And thats the fear of the online gaming
community.
> > nVidia wont do anything - they didnt make the drivers, Asus did. And now, Asus have moved
> > - by promising, once again, not to do it anymore. The reason they backed off is that it
> > became clear it probably *would* hurt their bottom line.
>
> My point was that it will no longer be confined to ASUS, it'll be done across-the-board,
> probably based on the Detonator drivers This is even MORE likely if your assessment of how
> it was done turns out to be true, by the way!
Well the 5.xx Asus drivers with this modification were almost immediately
hacked for use on other nVidia cards. Just this week someone popped into
uk.games.computer.quake3 asking for the "ATI Rage Fury MAXX cheat see
through drivers". And this is where the paranoia creeps in.
> > But the facination will wear off. The drivers will fall into obscurity. I dont think
> > anyones using the MegaByte X-Ray drivers anymore.
>
> Yeah, I agree, actually... because I doubt that the demand for "cheat" ability is really all
> that real in the first place. Hence my amazement at the fears that having this would
> "destroy online gaming" by some many people here... especially considering that the X-rays
> you mention didn't destroy it before!
It was quickly back tracked on, and dissapeared into history. Had it
remained available, it would have become mainstream, and I propose, would
have stifled the trust necessary for online gaming to sucseed.
> Most people, IF they get anything from "online competition," get the pleasure and personal
> satisfaction from knowing that they bested someone in fair competition. Cheating would take
> that away, after all...
Youd be suprised. Over on uk.games.computer.quake3, someone recently
lamented how he'd introduced a couple of new peole to Quake3, and how
they had enjoyed it. However, within a week of introducing them, these
drivers appeared. He was then asked by them to get these drivers for
them. He asked them why they wanted them, saying the best way to enjoy
the game is to practice, they said they just wernt good enough at quake3.
The online gaming community views this sort of thing and says, "well
there you have it, these drivers are corrupting". We'd just rather not
have them around. You could argue they'd cheat anyway, but there is the
eliment of availability and ease of use. The "big red cheat button" is
more tempting than the "hunt around for an obscure hack" option.
> > But remember, there are a significant number of others who participate in this and enjoy
> > themselves immensly. One day there may even be a multiplayer game you enjoy, if you'll
> > let yourself.
>
> I've never said otherwise... and I don't begrudge people wanting to have a good time doing
> something that they enjoy, provided that they ... <broken record mode - ON> ... KEEP IT ALL
> IN PERSPECTIVE.
>
> We'll see if someone comes up with a way to have a serious, plot-driven story in a game that
> I can still conform to MY SCHEDULE, and have it be multiplayer online... if that ever
> happens, you could be proven correct.
Well I hope someone does come up with such a game. And when you find
yourself immersed in it, I hope you arnt confronted with the widespread
use of a hack that spoils your enjoyment. It's really not nice, no
matter how unimportant the game is in any grand scheme.
Cary L. Brown
> The one thing I noticed in this entire thread, and correct me if I'm wrong but I
> think you pointed this out before. If some Asus PR moron hadn't hyped up the
> cheating aspect to start out with, we'd all have been a lot better off (That
> really made some of us resent Asus.).
I've come to truly resent PR-weenies... I'll give you an example of why.
While working at Emerson Electric a while back, I and my design team developed a
groundbreaking servomotor design... the highest power-per-unit-volume of any motor
ever made. We developed it, and we named it - the EVENT. We came up with this
because (1) NT was the developmental "code name" so we wanted to keep that in there
somehow if possible, (2) the definition of an event is the moment where things
change... implying that this would "change everything" in motors, and (3) It just
sounds cool to technical people, who comprise the market segment who would actually
be buying this. The name stood for "Emerson Very Efficient New Technology," so it
was a meaningful name.
But the marketing guy who got assigned to the project decided that he didn't like
this... and he was a professional-wrestling fan. So, without consultation, he did
his own little package and put it out in the market without telling anyone he'd done
this. His name? "NT NITRO." He came up with a logo of a little stick of exploding
dynamite.
The motor still sells pretty well, on it's technical merits alone thankfully, but
I've heard people making fun of that name and logo at trade shows. The jokes
usually revolve around either the thing being unsafe and exploding, or just general
comments about it being designed/sold/whatever by WWF-types...
Mr. Marketing asshole actually got pissed off after this all happened, suggesting
that the engineers on the team were somehow TELLING people to make fun of the
name/logo to him, that the customers weren't doing this on their own.
Of course, this guy is still at the company, and even got a promotion... while most
of the engineers that made this (and several other teams as well) have since moved
on to other situations. Life is so #(*& unfair sometimes... ;-)
Cary L. Brown
> Have I seen it? I do it :) www.povray.org
I've got POV on both my Linux and Wintel machines... I've been trying to make a few models,
primarily sci-fi-ish sort of things... but it's like pulling teeth, all text-based... and I'm an
engineer, so this comes semi-naturally to me!
Do you have a page with any of your renders? I'd be interested to see 'em if you've got 'em. ;-)
> That said the ultra realistic stuff you see in the cinemas isnt raytraced. It has more incommon
> with standard rendering.
Some of it is raytraced, but you're right, most isn't. The main reason is that things that you do
with... er, we'll just say conventional... rendering is very well-defined, and the tools are all
there. Doing the same things in a raytracing environment requires a whole 'nother toolkit, and a
lot more computational power to boot. I don't think anyone has ever, going back to my example,
come up with a bumpmapping technique which works in raytracing... all the details must be
physically modelled. But I think that someone WILL come up with a method for doing this, if they
haven't already and just have it hidden away from prying eyes.
> The trouble is, anyone who debues a realtime raytracing card is going to have to compete on
> visual and performance terms with the best traditional
> technologies at the time. Thats a *lot* of catching up. 3dfx had a very nice looking
> antialiasing technique, unfortunately it was just too slow to be a killer feature for many.
You're right. 3dfx overextended themselves, strayed from their strengths before they were really
able to (and frankly, they probably shouldn't have done that anyway), and as a result had their
resources cut thin. Driver development went down the tubes, where it had once been excellent.
And hardware suffered the same fate, though later in the process. Dates were missed, and 3dfx
became desperate... they needed something impressive, and they came up with it... but it was
impressive due to brute-force (anyone besides me remember the first demonstrator for the V4/V5
design, aka " the brick?"), not improved design.
> If you want to see some realtime raytracing, have a quick search for the heaven7 demo.
I'll do that, but... what exactly IS it?
> > Online shopping where you can manipulate the objects... that will become very mainstream. I
> suspect that will become the real "mainstream" 3D application, even more than gaming, maybe.
>
> What I cant really see is how these sort of drivers are benificial to these applications. If
> you are providing a simulation of someones house, surely the last thing thats useful is "And
> this is what it would look like with transparent walls..."
I was only pointing out how 3d applies to stuff besides gaming. I wasn't referring to particular
aspects of it...
> I'll go back and read in a bit, but I do see where you are comming from a bit more clearly now.
> What I'm saying is at consumer level, Online gaming is more lucrative to Asus than CAD, thats
> why they have listened (and I think why these drivers ever popped up in the first place - after
> all, no one ever used a Voodoo2 for CAD). Saying it was removed because of a loud minority
> seems to be a bit, well superior. Ultimately it was removed because Asus felt they would suffer
> more in sales than they could gain.
Ah, I see... the implication you (and maybe a few others) were reading in was "online-gamers are a
minority, therefore CAD users are the majority and online-gamers' concerns are irrelevant."
Of course, I hope it's clear now that this isn't what I was saying... more like "online-gamers are
a minority, and so are CAD users, so both should be treated equally fairly."
> > > Who indeed, but then, who needs to walk around in a 3d world when they can go outside...
> > > Or maybe fire a gun, when they can pop along to the nearest firing range.
> >
> > Yes, exactly my point! I can do those things... but I can't fly an F-18 into combat over
> > Saudia Arabia in an air campaign, I can't destroy the Death Star, I can't travel to Zen and
> > discover the real story behind the G-Man who's been manipulating the events in my world, or
> > find out in some deep lab who I, J.C. Denton, really am. These are the things that I play
> > games for... to be the lead character in a STORY.
>
> Hmm, but then again you cant rocket jump over someone, switch to the gauntlet, and nab them
> quickly from behind with a satisfying "HUMILIATION!" call either.
>
> This is it really isnt it. You like the fantasy, while I like the competition.
Yeah, I guess that's it. I have to deal with more than enough competition in real life, I don't
need that on my computer! ;-)
> Honestly though, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesnt mean it cant be done. Maybe a
> massively multiplayer WW2 game. Let some people have control of overall battle strategy (ala
> RISK type of decisions), let others fly, drive tanks etc, and actually determine the outcome of
> a battle. That of course will be horribly complex to manage, but it could be done given time
> and effort. Of that I'm sure.
Okay, let's look at this... suppose that you're the general, and you have a major offensive going
on... running a column of tanks through Ardennes (sp?), let's say. Suddenly, half of your tankers
have to leave because the "very special episode of Friends where the girls all get naked and
jello-wrestle" is coming on... and you lose the battle as a result. (And the other half get
discharged because failure to watch this show effectively violates the "don't ask/don't tell"
policy!)
How do you compensate for that?
RMS
bye, Rick
"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B19BC48...@attglobal.net...
Stephen Powell
<3B19C8FA...@attglobal.net>, it was rumoured that
>
> > Have I seen it? I do it :) www.povray.org
>
> I've got POV on both my Linux and Wintel machines... I've been trying to make a few models,
> primarily sci-fi-ish sort of things... but it's like pulling teeth, all text-based... and I'm an
> engineer, so this comes semi-naturally to me!
Pulling teeth?
> Do you have a page with any of your renders? I'd be interested to see 'em if you've got 'em. ;-)
Hmm, the only one I have online is: (and it's quite old, a year or 2 ago
now)
http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~eggz/Images/lenselamp10.jpg
Its quite a simplistic render, but the file was constructed so that all
the joints were flexible and could be rotated. If are making your models
in a package like MoRay http://www.stmuc.com/moray/ , then the effect is
called inverse kinematics.
> > That said the ultra realistic stuff you see in the cinemas isnt raytraced. It has more incommon
> > with standard rendering.
>
> Some of it is raytraced, but you're right, most isn't. The main reason is that things that you do
> with... er, we'll just say conventional... rendering is very well-defined, and the tools are all
> there. Doing the same things in a raytracing environment requires a whole 'nother toolkit, and a
> lot more computational power to boot. I don't think anyone has ever, going back to my example,
> come up with a bumpmapping technique which works in raytracing... all the details must be
> physically modelled. But I think that someone WILL come up with a method for doing this, if they
> haven't already and just have it hidden away from prying eyes.
PovRay has a bumpmap command. It alters the normals of the surface. The
effect is *very* much like the conventional rendering technique. i.e. it
looks bumpy, unless you get close, and then you see it's very flat.
<snip 3dfxs Pretty but slow AA and their demise>
> > If you want to see some realtime raytracing, have a quick search for the heaven7 demo.
>
> I'll do that, but... what exactly IS it?
Its a little non-interactive demo. You may have heard of Tranzmit. If
you have you'll instantly know what I'm talking about. Anyway, it's real
time raytracing done on the CPU. Consequently dont expect to be able to
run it at 1600x1200 even if you do have a Geforce3.
> > > Online shopping where you can manipulate the objects... that will become very mainstream. I
> > suspect that will become the real "mainstream" 3D application, even more than gaming, maybe.
> >
> > What I cant really see is how these sort of drivers are benificial to these applications. If
> > you are providing a simulation of someones house, surely the last thing thats useful is "And
> > this is what it would look like with transparent walls..."
>
> I was only pointing out how 3d applies to stuff besides gaming. I wasn't referring to particular
> aspects of it...
Ah right, I was just beginning to think we were straying from the topic
at hand.
> > I'll go back and read in a bit, but I do see where you are comming from a bit more clearly now.
> > What I'm saying is at consumer level, Online gaming is more lucrative to Asus than CAD, thats
> > why they have listened (and I think why these drivers ever popped up in the first place - after
> > all, no one ever used a Voodoo2 for CAD). Saying it was removed because of a loud minority
> > seems to be a bit, well superior. Ultimately it was removed because Asus felt they would suffer
> > more in sales than they could gain.
>
> Ah, I see... the implication you (and maybe a few others) were reading in was "online-gamers are a
> minority, therefore CAD users are the majority and online-gamers' concerns are irrelevant."
>
> Of course, I hope it's clear now that this isn't what I was saying... more like "online-gamers are
> a minority, and so are CAD users, so both should be treated equally fairly."
And what I've been saying is that I believe online gamers outnumber the
CAD users of these cards, and therefore their demands will be more
important. However, your experiance seems to differ greatly from mine,
so I guess it's stale mate there :)
> > > > Who indeed, but then, who needs to walk around in a 3d world when they can go outside...
> > > > Or maybe fire a gun, when they can pop along to the nearest firing range.
> > >
> > > Yes, exactly my point! I can do those things... but I can't fly an F-18 into combat over
> > > Saudia Arabia in an air campaign, I can't destroy the Death Star, I can't travel to Zen and
> > > discover the real story behind the G-Man who's been manipulating the events in my world, or
> > > find out in some deep lab who I, J.C. Denton, really am. These are the things that I play
> > > games for... to be the lead character in a STORY.
> >
> > Hmm, but then again you cant rocket jump over someone, switch to the gauntlet, and nab them
> > quickly from behind with a satisfying "HUMILIATION!" call either.
> >
> > This is it really isnt it. You like the fantasy, while I like the competition.
>
> Yeah, I guess that's it. I have to deal with more than enough competition in real life, I don't
> need that on my computer! ;-)
What always confuses me is the stock-brokers who love Dope-Wars. I mean,
it's not as if you dont do enough trading during the day is it?
> > Honestly though, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesnt mean it cant be done. Maybe a
> > massively multiplayer WW2 game. Let some people have control of overall battle strategy (ala
> > RISK type of decisions), let others fly, drive tanks etc, and actually determine the outcome of
> > a battle. That of course will be horribly complex to manage, but it could be done given time
> > and effort. Of that I'm sure.
>
> Okay, let's look at this... suppose that you're the general, and you have a major offensive going
> on... running a column of tanks through Ardennes (sp?), let's say. Suddenly, half of your tankers
> have to leave because the "very special episode of Friends where the girls all get naked and
> jello-wrestle" is coming on... and you lose the battle as a result. (And the other half get
> discharged because failure to watch this show effectively violates the "don't ask/don't tell"
> policy!)
>
> How do you compensate for that?
Well in games like Mankind, computer AI takes over. What you rely on is
that roughly equal numbers from all sides dissapear to watch friends.
--
Eggz
Tor Bjørn
gave up ;-)
And BTW, I think Cary has a point, so stop bothering him ;-)
Tor
"fudgstu" <fudgst...@bigfoot.com> skrev i melding
news:eeblhtssdpo087q5s...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:11:36 GMT, "Tor Bjørn" <tbm...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
> >Those hacked drivers 11.xx let you enable see-throug wall effect with
Asus
> >cards.
> >It has now been reveald how to turn this feature off remotely by online
> >servers...but how do you enable it? I just wanted to check what all this
> >fuss was about... I can get the menu to appeare, but I can't select
> >See-through though.... Is it a registry hack?
> >
> >Tor
> >
> Well, I'll prob get flamed for this but this was posted back on 5/13,
> d/l Asus driver(I still have the 11.01 driver if you need it) for your
> card(hope you have Asus card) and then;
>
> Make the following registry changes:
> [HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\DISPLAY\0000\UI]
> "DisableD3dWireframe"=dword:00000000
> "DisableD3dTransparent"=dword:00000000
> "DisableOglWireframe"=dword:00000000
> "DisableOglTransparent"=dword:00000000
> "ASUSShell"=dword:00000001
>
> Right click on the Asus control menu on the bottom right, choose
> advanced,
> click on the OpenGL tab, make sure 'Enable OSD' is checked, click on
> the
> advanced button, make sure that 'enable wireframe option' and 'enable
> transparent textures' are checked. Click on OK.
>
> Now, while in the game, you can do Ctrl-Alt-T to toggle transparency
> and
> Ctrl-Alt-W to toggle wireframe.
>
> There ya go!
>
> I did enable and tried online with CS, it was really no big deal, I
> still was killed just as much but it was kinda fun for a while. : )
> Now tho I am currently using the Nvidia 12.40 drivers. Just wanted to
> see what the big hoopla was about. If online gamers wouldn't make
> such a big deal outta this kind of stuff it would eventually go away.
> It's not like we are getting paid to play online games or getting paid
> for being ranked.....wait or are we supposed to and I am just missing
> out. : )
>
> fudgstu