D3D Support: Sign the Petition!!!
Ken
A standard would be great. Let's hope to God that D3D isn't it though!
Ken
The Game Pad
http://gamepad.org/
kota wrote:
> Are you sick and tired of Win95 game publishers supporting only Glide
> or OpenGL? Consider these points:
>
> +D3D support is available NOW on almost all hardware
> -Glide is proprietary
> -OpenGL isn't widely supported yet
>
> Sign your name here and show your support for Direct3D. We need a
> widely supported STANDARD.
>
> You can make a difference!
> --
> Please remove "nospam" to reply.
fREoN
Ken wrote in message <34C81700...@gamepad.org>...
developers are saying, version6 will be outstanding. Obviously MS likes
OpenGL otherwise they wouldnt be working on it would they?
BUT..
Who ever posted this little survey obviously doesnt know what the hell their
talking about. OpenGL is the most widely supported and used "2D/3D" API.
It has been around for almost 6 years, its nothing new. It doesnt have a
native OS, it runs on anything, unlike D3D which is windows only. OpenGL
apps always produce identical visual (not performance) results on any OpenGL
compliant hardware, regardless of operating system. OpenGL compliant means
OpenGL compliant, not a developer saying "hmmm, I think I will have this D3D
feature supported but leave out this other one" D3D is up in the air when
it comes to supported features on a card. You may ask why does GLQuake2
look different on 3dfx and Riva128 or PowerVR, but thats a driver issue if
the drivers were done (and done right) it would look the same but not always
run the same of course. It is also a fact that even though Direct3D can do
many of the things OpenGL can, it takes less code to do it in OpenGL.
Now the other issues.
No crap, Glide is proprietary. It is also a favorite API of gamers and
developers soooo tough luck! I will never be sick of developers writing
for Glide.
D3D support is available now on _MOST_ hardware. Watch how you use
supported, there is a difference between supported and actually working!
There are far too many cheap ass cards on the market that claim D3D
compatibility but to a newbie gamer that seems like its all he needs to
know. Well did anyone tell the millions of first and second generation s3
ViRGE chipset owners that their card is the JUNK of the 3D cards? But hey
they "support" direct3D right?
I am glad these OpenGL games are coming out, it will open the eyes of all
the junk distributors like s3. No crap card is going to equal the GL
performance of todays champ, 3dfx voodoo. Of course by the time they do,
voodoo2 will already be widely distributed and they (3dfx) will be 3 steps
ahead... AGAIN!
>
>
Eric Whalen
Ok, lets seatle this one right now. D3d, and Open Gl, there isn't much
difference in speed, except that Open gl is easier to program, I give that
a point to Open Gl. D3d runs all all 3d cards...while Open GL drivers
arn't out for all cards. Point D3d....???? Not really. If you think D3d
version of quake would run on your mystique or S3, your dead wrong. Any
card that is fast enough to run quake in Gl, has some form of Open GL
drivers, Alpha, Mini-gl, whatever. Also, Glide gives developers a
standered, knowing the EXACT hardware of the pc the game wiill run on, a
voodoo system. It's like programing for a Console, you don't hace to worry
about weather it does alpha blending, or does mip mapping, cause you know
how it will do it and how it will look. With d3d, there are dozens of 3d
cards, each doing there own thing. Hell, VR cards which have a hellava
time even running most d3d games render COMPLETELY differntly then main
stream cards that use a Z-buffer. So, it isn't an issue of D3d is better
or Open gl is better. It is an issue of, does YOUR card, and purchase
decision a good one. If a game doesn't run on YOUR Virge, and you think it
is could have done it in D3d rather then Open gl...Bitch to your card
manufactures to release Open Gl drivers for your card. But, most likely
your card is just too weak, features/preformance wise to run that game.
It's almost YOUR fault, not the programers, that you bought the WRONG
card. And, maby it was a good card when it came out 1-2 years ago. But do
you bitch that games don't run on you old 486? Or that doom din't run on
you 8080??? IF the card is running too slow, or not at all...Maby it is
time to UPGRADE.
Eric Whalen
Member of the 3dfx Brothood
Kieron Dodds
Ken wrote in message <34C81700...@gamepad.org>...
>A standard would be great. Let's hope to God that D3D isn't it though!
> Ken
>The Game Pad
>http://gamepad.org/
Have no fear. Microsoft has announced (some time ago I might add) that it
and SGI will jointly work on an OpenGL standard across all Windows
platforms. OpenGL *is* going to be the standard.
>
>kota wrote:
>
>> Are you sick and tired of Win95 game publishers supporting only Glide
>> or OpenGL? Consider these points:
>>
>> +D3D support is available NOW on almost all hardware
It's also a bogus API. Hell, ISA is widely supported now, ferget AGP, just
get an ISA vid-card.
>> -Glide is proprietary
And sweet.
>> -OpenGL isn't widely supported yet
But will be very soon.
>> Sign your name here and show your support for Direct3D. We need a
>> widely supported STANDARD.
D3D is dead, sign all you want, id won't develop for it (as evidenced with
Quake/Quake2), neither will many gaming houses.
blues02
Well said.
Marc Lepage
Sorry, it's OpenGL on non-windows platforms and D3D is pretty much only
available on Windows. Some developers prefer not to hop in bed with
Microsoft all the time, especially for an inferior API.
Ken wrote:
>
> A standard would be great. Let's hope to God that D3D isn't it though!
> Ken
> The Game Pad
> http://gamepad.org/
>
> kota wrote:
>
> > Are you sick and tired of Win95 game publishers supporting only Glide
> > or OpenGL? Consider these points:
> >
> > +D3D support is available NOW on almost all hardware
> > -Glide is proprietary
> > -OpenGL isn't widely supported yet
> >
> > Sign your name here and show your support for Direct3D. We need a
> > widely supported STANDARD.
> >
> > You can make a difference!
> > --
> > Please remove "nospam" to reply.
--
SEGV
Burnnn
>Have no fear. Microsoft has announced (some time ago I might add) that it
>and SGI will jointly work on an OpenGL standard across all Windows
>platforms. OpenGL *is* going to be the standard.
They only announced this a month or so ago, and you read it wrong.
Fahrenheit is going to be a new API (in about 3 years) that will be
jointly created with SGI and MS. Even the official SGI company line
is "D3D is for games, OpenGL is for high-end development". Whether
they actually feel this way or not is a moot point.
There is more info on SGI's and MS's websites.
>D3D is dead, sign all you want, id won't develop for it (as evidenced with
>Quake/Quake2), neither will many gaming houses.
D3D is nowhere near dead. With DirectX 5, it has gained more support
than ever.
id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
----------
Burnnn
Burnnn
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:40:28 -0700, "fREoN" <grnn...@nospam.mcn.net>
wrote:
>Who ever posted this little survey obviously doesnt know what the hell their
>talking about. OpenGL is the most widely supported and used "2D/3D" API.
>It has been around for almost 6 years, its nothing new. It doesnt have a
>native OS, it runs on anything, unlike D3D which is windows only.
All true. However, what the original poster was refering two is
consumer-level video cards do not have full OpenGL support.
Therefore, it is not "widely" supported.
And lets be honest, when discussing PC games, the x86 market is the
only one that matters.
> OpenGL
>apps always produce identical visual (not performance) results on any OpenGL
>compliant hardware, regardless of operating system. OpenGL compliant means
>OpenGL compliant, not a developer saying "hmmm, I think I will have this D3D
>feature supported but leave out this other one"
Again, true. But there are almost no full OpenGL drivers out there on
consumer-level hardware. They cannot claim to be OpenGL compliant if
they do not support *every* facet of OpenGL. Even the Voodoo cards
cannot call themselves "OpenGL compliant" at this time.
> D3D is up in the air when
>it comes to supported features on a card.
With OpenGL, the features only have to be supported. You can't tell
if they are supported by the hardware or by software emulation. With
D3D, the developer can tell what features are supported on the card,
but there is no guarantee how these features will behave when more
than one is utilized at the same time.
>D3D support is available now on _MOST_ hardware. Watch how you use
>supported, there is a difference between supported and actually working!
If the card claims DirectX support (and hence, D3D), it has been MS
Certified. Granted, many cards still pass certification with 20 bugs
or more in the drivers, but none the less, they are sanctioned.
>There are far too many cheap ass cards on the market that claim D3D
>compatibility but to a newbie gamer that seems like its all he needs to
>know. Well did anyone tell the millions of first and second generation s3
>ViRGE chipset owners that their card is the JUNK of the 3D cards? But hey
>they "support" direct3D right?
The ViRGE was one of the first consumer level 3D accelerators. When
it came out, it was the cream of the crop (for consumer level). Why
would anyone tell them their card is junk when it was one of the best
at the time? Sure, *now* it's junk... =o)
----------
Burnnn
Kieron Dodds
Burnnn wrote in message <34cd2cf0...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:06:34 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
><kdo...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Have no fear. Microsoft has announced (some time ago I might add) that it
>>and SGI will jointly work on an OpenGL standard across all Windows
>>platforms. OpenGL *is* going to be the standard.
>
>They only announced this a month or so ago, and you read it wrong.
In this industry, a month *is* some time ago.
>Fahrenheit is going to be a new API (in about 3 years) that will be
>jointly created with SGI and MS. Even the official SGI company line
>is "D3D is for games, OpenGL is for high-end development". Whether
>they actually feel this way or not is a moot point.
Aha. And that means you can't write game code for OpenGL? Please. And
unless anyone starts dragging their heels, OpenGL support *should* be part
of Windows 98, with Farenheit following it (although I doubt it will take 3
years to develop).
>There is more info on SGI's and MS's websites.
>
>>D3D is dead, sign all you want, id won't develop for it (as evidenced with
>>Quake/Quake2), neither will many gaming houses.
>
>D3D is nowhere near dead. With DirectX 5, it has gained more support
>than ever.
Hehe... yeah. Okay, here's the thing, D3D is no slower nor faster (in
theory) than OpenGL. However, D3D is a horror to code for, meaning
increased development time. In the games industry, which do you think will
be openly utilized once OpenGL in implemented in non-NT Windows?
>id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
No, but, graphically, they are the leaders in cutting edge technology and
they're not the only developers looking to OpenGL.
>----------
>Burnnn
Nosferatu
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:52:18 -0500, Eric Whalen <wha...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Ok, lets seatle this one right now. D3d, and Open Gl, there isn't much
>difference in speed,
Can you prove this? Unless you've seen Quake running on direct3D
drivers then how would you know?
--
Nos
[This Space Left Intentionally Blank]
Kieron Dodds
Microsoft did a D3D port of Quake (as far as I know *not* available
publicly). The speed difference was about what you would expect for the
type of port they created.
Nosferatu wrote in message <34ce3971...@news.concentric.net>...
Chris Morgan
umfe...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Burnnn) writes:
> id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
Yeah you're right. One of these days I'll even try one of those other
games again. Last one I tried was diablo. Cute I thought, now back to
the real thing.
Chris
--
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com>
"I'm considering throwing myself out of the window. It
wouldn't do me much damage because we're on the ground
floor, but it might make for a bit of variety." - Lizzy Bryant
Vernon Pellerin
D3D may not be dead, but I'm sure that many game programmers wish it was.
Sorry, no signature from me. The D3D concept is good, but then again, so
are the concepts behind communism.
Kroagnon <nope-k...@ais.net> wrote in article
<02ty.23$7H1.2...@news.ais.net>...
>
> Burnnn wrote in message <34cd2cf0...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>
> >>D3D is dead, sign all you want, id won't develop for it (as evidenced
with
> >>Quake/Quake2), neither will many gaming houses.
> >
> >D3D is nowhere near dead. With DirectX 5, it has gained more support
> >than ever.
> >
> >id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
>
> No, but they've become a very influential one. Fortunately, Microsoft
isn't
> blindly followed by developers in the game industry.
>
> Kroagnon
>
> to respond via E-Mail, remove the nope- before my E-Mail address
>
>
>
Gaash Soffer
Kieron Dodds wrote:
>
> Microsoft did a D3D port of Quake (as far as I know *not* available
> publicly). The speed difference was about what you would expect for the
> type of port they created.
>
What would I expect?
--
Please visit my hardware/software web page at
http://members.tripod.com/~FireEYE/index.html
Kieron Dodds
Slightly slower performance that could have been equal performance had the
programmer been given more time to tweak or to redo it entirely in D3D
native.
Gaash Soffer wrote in message <34CAB7F5...@home.com>...
Kieron Dodds
Burnnn wrote in message <34cc86fa...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:28:49 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
><kdo...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>>Fahrenheit is going to be a new API (in about 3 years) that will be
>>>jointly created with SGI and MS. Even the official SGI company line
>>>is "D3D is for games, OpenGL is for high-end development". Whether
>>>they actually feel this way or not is a moot point.
>>
>>Aha. And that means you can't write game code for OpenGL? Please.
>
>That's nowhere close to what I said. Look up "moot" in the
>dictionary.
>
No, but it's what you implied by quoting that statement. While their "true
feelings" on the matter may be moot, the point of whether or not developers
can code to OpenGL faster and easier and use OpenGL to their advantage
because of this is hardly moot.
>> And
>>unless anyone starts dragging their heels, OpenGL support *should* be part
>>of Windows 98
>
>It's a part of Win95 OSR2 *now*.
Wasn't aware that it was already there.
> Without hardware acceleration, it's
>pointless. Try playing Quake 2 in software OpenGL mode.
Agreed, the only stopping block towards OpenGL under non-NT machines is
hardware support.
>>, with Farenheit following it (although I doubt it will take 3
>>years to develop).
>
>SGI and MS have *stated* the API is expected to be released in 2 1/2
>years or so. Whether you doubt that or not is irrelevant. =o)
Well, from the perspective of a programmer, I can't see *how* it could take
that long. Perhaps, if there are legal issues to be ironed out first...
hmm... well, yeah, then again maybe I spoke too soon, this is a MS involved
development we're talking about, not exactly at the forefront of speed
coding.
>>>There is more info on SGI's and MS's websites.
>
>Please examine those before commenting further.
I've already read the press releases, although I didn't study them.
>>Hehe... yeah. Okay, here's the thing, D3D is no slower nor faster (in
>>theory) than OpenGL. However, D3D is a horror to code for, meaning
>>increased development time. In the games industry, which do you think
will
>>be openly utilized once OpenGL in implemented in non-NT Windows?
>
>Take it as it comes. Right now, D3D and Glide are far more popular
>APIs to write for. Later on, we'll see. It depends on too many
>factors, not the least of which is hardware vendor support.
True, but, if you're a hardware vendor, here's the gist of it:
SGI and MS are collabarating on a joint 3D API. Currently, D3D is easier to
implement within the market core OS, Windows 95, however, OpenGL is much
easier to code under and development time is reflected in this. Now, what
are we going to shoot for? What can we read from this? Well, my guess is
that Fahrenheit will be OpenGL at it's base and the next generation of
Windows will be built to accomodate it (and D3D for backward compatability).
Now, if you're a hardware vendor, what specs are you going to look at when
developing a new chipset? Which is more likely to be like the forthcoming
API?
>>>id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
>>
>>No, but, graphically, they are the leaders in cutting edge technology and
>>they're not the only developers looking to OpenGL.
>
>Please name one that isn't using the Quake Engine.
Well, I can name two that aren't and have been in development *forever*. ;)
>----------
>Burnnn
Ga'ash Soffer
I guess so.
I wish all games used 1 API , but alas...
Ga'ash Soffer
Phillip George Geiger wrote:
>
> blues02 (blu...@inlink.com) wrote:
> : Well said.
>
> It would have been said better if a spell checker had been used....
>
> Normally I hesitate to criticize spelling or grammar, but that post
> was so riddled with mispellings and fragmented thoughts it was hard
> for me to follow his line of thought -- except that he is very
> pro-Voodoo.
>
> : > It is an issue of, does YOUR card, and purchase
> : > decision a good one.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Uh-oh, I feel my second rant in a week coming on....
>
> <rant>
>
> This is what the real issue is. I read an article in Computer Shopper
> today that gave the Matrox Mystique the highest honors for graphics
> cards.
>
> I ask the world: Is it any fucking wonder we have people complaining
> about Quake's performance on their system when they followed the advice
> of a (respectable?) computer magazine and ended up with a 4th-rate
> piece of hardware?
>
> It makes me sick. Ziff-Davis is full of sold-out, shit-for-brains,
> Intel-Microsoft-loving, idiot computer analysts and it is a damn
> shame so many people trust their reviews and editorials.
>
> </rant>
>
> --
> Phil Geiger
> gei...@cs.ucdavis.edu
I agree that all the computer magazine benchmarks , reviews are total
bullshit. They give the Rage II+ based cards #1 on the PC magazine top
10 just about every month...give me a break! Even the Rage-Pro is a
peice of shit from what Ive heard...
Kieron Dodds
Thanks for calling that up. It's quite probable that, given a little more
time, that same intern could have gleaned that extra 1fps. Granted, GLQuake
and drivers have gone through revisions since then that have upped
performance a bit, but it's likely that those increases would also have been
seen in D3D driver updates. Could D3D be faster? Probably, when running on
an appropriate card under Win95. However, card/driver support being equal,
performance will, more than likely, be equal.
Jim Husband wrote in message <6ae8au$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:56:37 -0800, Gaash Soffer <rage...@home.com>
>wrote:
>>Kieron Dodds wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft did a D3D port of Quake (as far as I know *not* available
>>> publicly). The speed difference was about what you would expect for the
>>> type of port they created.
>>>
>>
>>What would I expect?
>
> Well, I dredged up a portion of the original... whatever it was:
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>In a stunning demonstration Microsoft showed GLQuake running faster
>using Direct3D than OpenGL. A Microsoft summer intern, with no prior
>experience in Direct3D, had written a wrapper in three weeks which
>intercepts the calls from Quake for OpenGL and converted them to
>Direct3D calls. It was claimed that GLQuake ran 1 f/s slower with
>DirectX 5.0 version of Direct3D than the original GLQuake on a 3Dfx
>card. However, using the nvidia RIVA 128 chip it runs 1 f/s faster. It
>was stated that GLQuake uses 50 of the 360 calls in OpenGL. To a hushed
>crowd the intern was introduced, stood up and received an applause.
>Microsoft claims that developers have the opportunity to run their
>titles " on lots of installed base [compared to the narrow sales of
>titles targeted to specific API’s]." Microsoft also stated that
>developers can now create titles that will run " on a par or faster than
>OpenGL."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Not sure what it actually proved - but I was impressed.
>
>FU's set to:
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video
>comp.graphics.api.opengl
>
>Jim
>
>* Email address is false - "Reply-to:" is correct
Xander Pav
On or about Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:05:20 -0800, Ken <gam...@gamepad.org>
uttered these words which shall stand for all time:
>A standard would be great. Let's hope to God that D3D isn't it though!
I'll sign a petition for a standard as LONG as its not Direct3D.
:-)
Alex Pavloff -- p...@uh.edu -- www.uh.edu/~pav
Why not? Because that would make sense.
Wayne Bell
I don't know about anyone else, but I always have a real nightmare
getting D3D games to work. Glide or GL are no problem at all, but I've
spent hours on end trying to re-install DirectX5 D3D to get a game to
work, only to fail in the end.
You make one tiny mistake installing D3D, and the only way to recover is
to re-install the OS from scratch. Funny, I never had that problem with
Glide or GL or anything else. Good thing I'm not a violent person, or a
few MicroSchlock employees would be bleeding in the gutters...
Eric Whalen
Nosferatu wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:52:18 -0500, Eric Whalen <wha...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ok, lets seatle this one right now. D3d, and Open Gl, there isn't much
> >difference in speed,
>
> Can you prove this? Unless you've seen Quake running on direct3D
> drivers then how would you know?
> --
> Nos
>
> [This Space Left Intentionally Blank]
Riva and the d3d wraper
Kroagnon
Burnnn wrote in message <34cd2cf0...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>>D3D is dead, sign all you want, id won't develop for it (as evidenced with
>>Quake/Quake2), neither will many gaming houses.
>
>D3D is nowhere near dead. With DirectX 5, it has gained more support
>than ever.
>
>id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
No, but they've become a very influential one. Fortunately, Microsoft isn't
Burnnn
>>Fahrenheit is going to be a new API (in about 3 years) that will be
>>jointly created with SGI and MS. Even the official SGI company line
>>is "D3D is for games, OpenGL is for high-end development". Whether
>>they actually feel this way or not is a moot point.
>
>Aha. And that means you can't write game code for OpenGL? Please.
That's nowhere close to what I said. Look up "moot" in the
dictionary.
> And
>unless anyone starts dragging their heels, OpenGL support *should* be part
>of Windows 98
It's a part of Win95 OSR2 *now*. Without hardware acceleration, it's
pointless. Try playing Quake 2 in software OpenGL mode.
>, with Farenheit following it (although I doubt it will take 3
>years to develop).
SGI and MS have *stated* the API is expected to be released in 2 1/2
years or so. Whether you doubt that or not is irrelevant. =o)
>>There is more info on SGI's and MS's websites.
Please examine those before commenting further.
>Hehe... yeah. Okay, here's the thing, D3D is no slower nor faster (in
>theory) than OpenGL. However, D3D is a horror to code for, meaning
>increased development time. In the games industry, which do you think will
>be openly utilized once OpenGL in implemented in non-NT Windows?
Take it as it comes. Right now, D3D and Glide are far more popular
APIs to write for. Later on, we'll see. It depends on too many
factors, not the least of which is hardware vendor support.
>>id isn't the entire PC game software industry.
>
>No, but, graphically, they are the leaders in cutting edge technology and
>they're not the only developers looking to OpenGL.
Please name one that isn't using the Quake Engine.
----------
Burnnn
Robert Jones
Good post, I agree 100%. Too many ignorant people out there buying
the wrong card and crying about no open Gl support. Even worse they
actually want GL dead and D3D to rule because all cards can run it.
Get a clue, get a card that runs open GL because those cards all run
D3D to boot. IMHO it is a no brainer get a 3dfx card or suffer the
wait for the driver blues.
Bob...
>
>
>Ok, lets seatle this one right now. D3d, and Open Gl, there isn't much
Jim Husband
Atomic Skull
In article <34C81700...@gamepad.org>, gam...@gamepad.org says...
>
>A standard would be great. Let's hope to God that D3D isn't it though!
Bill the Cat on D3D: *ack* *ACK* PPTTHHHBBLLL!! *ack*
--
-=Atomic Skull=-
See my 3-D anime character page, www.ns.net/~Argus-1
Phillip George Geiger
It would have been said better if a spell checker had been used....
Normally I hesitate to criticize spelling or grammar, but that post
was so riddled with mispellings and fragmented thoughts it was hard
for me to follow his line of thought -- except that he is very
pro-Voodoo.
: > It is an issue of, does YOUR card, and purchase
: > decision a good one.
Absolutely.
Donovan Hawkins
In article <6aebjk$hl$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Phillip George Geiger <gei...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>This is what the real issue is. I read an article in Computer Shopper
>today that gave the Matrox Mystique the highest honors for graphics
>cards.
>
>I ask the world: Is it any fucking wonder we have people complaining
>about Quake's performance on their system when they followed the advice
>of a (respectable?) computer magazine and ended up with a 4th-rate
>piece of hardware?
Actually, I love my mystique...made duke3d run great. Of course, when the
time came, I would have been an idiot not to have bought my Monster3d! For
2d and DOS games, matrox cards are fine...but the "3D" written on most of
the video cards should be seriously questioned before buying. 3D is todays
buzz-word...not helpful when creating a standard. I certainly wouldn't use
the mystique for running anything 3D; if you want to know which cards can
cut it for 3d, look at what DOS (and other non-d3d, non-ogl) games
support. When you have to write the driver yourself, you tend to be more
selective. Any game can support "Bob's 3D Decellerator" if Bob supplies a
"driver" for d3d or ogl. If the game programmer writes his own, though, he
won't waste his time. Most of the patches for games are 3dfx, not
mystique. That was my first clue!
As for OpenGL vs. Direct3D...let the industry decide. As long as Bill
Gates intends to have both in Windows, game programmers and card
manufacturers can choose freely, and the best will win out eventually. As
for myself, I tend to believe John Carmack in these matters...hello
OpenGL!
--
Donovan Hawkins "The study of physics will always be
Department of Physics and Astronomy safer than biology, for while the
University of California, Irvine hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
haw...@uci.edu biological ones grow exponentially."
Nosferatu
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 02:36:40 GMT, jim...@computer.net (Jim Husband)
wrote:
> Well, I dredged up a portion of the original... whatever it was:
>
> Not sure what it actually proved - but I was impressed.
>
But, D3D doesn't support all of the effects of a native api like
glide. That means lower quality visuals in my sims - there's more to
it than just speed. Light soucing effects like in Longbow2 could not
be done in the present form of D3D.
Clayton
just some info I snipped that may be interesting to those following
this thread... take with grain of salt, so no flames please...
-C
>Microsoft and SGI Team on Future 3D APIs
>(December 17)
>
>In a striking announcement Silicon Graphics Inc. and Microsoft Corp.
>disclosed they have formed a strategic alliance to jointly define,
>develop and deliver new 3D APIs as part of a project code-named
>"Fahrenheit." The Fahrenheit project will create a suite of application
>programming interfaces (APIs) for the Microsoft DirectX multimedia
>architecture on the Windows operating system and the Silicon Graphics
>UNIX-based platform. Fahrenheit will incorporate Microsoft Direct3D and
>DirectDraw APIs with Silicon Graphics complementary technologies such as
>OpenGL, OpenGL Scene Graph and OpenGL Optimizer.
>
>The Fahrenheit project will produce the following three components:
>
>Fahrenheit low-level API will become the primary graphics API for both
>consumer and professional applications on Windows. The Fahrenheit low-
>level API will evolve from Direct3D, DirectDraw and OpenGL while
>providing full backward compatibility with applications and hardware
>device drivers written for Microsoft Direct3D and functional
>compatibility with Silicon Graphics' OpenGL technologies.
>
>Fahrenheit Scene Graph API will provide a higher level of programming
>abstraction for developers creating consumer and professional
>applications on both Windows and Silicon Graphics IRIX operating
>systems.
>This API will evolve from Silicon Graphics' current Scene Graph API. The
>Fahrenheit Scene Graph API provides high-level data structures and
>algorithms that increase overall graphics performance and assist the
>development of sophisticated graphics-rich applications.
>
>Fahrenheit Large Model Visualization (LMV) Extensions will be based on
>the Silicon Graphics OpenGL Optimizer API and complementary DirectModel
>API from Hewlett-Packard Co. and Microsoft. They will operate in
>conjunction with the Scene Graph API. The large model visualization
>extensions add functionality that will allow the interactive
>manipulation
>of large 3-D models such as an entire automobile. The Large Model
>Visualization API adds functionality such as multiresolution
>simplification to the Scene Graph API so developers can easily write
>applications that will interact with extremely large visual databases.
>This technology will also be designed to enhance legacy applications
>with
>new large model visualization capabilities.
>
>The Fahrenheit APIs will be developed in conjunction with software and
>hardware development partners. Microsoft and Silicon Graphics are
>committed to an open design preview process during which input on the
>API
>designs will be solicited from all interested parties. In particular,
>Microsoft and Silicon Graphics will work together with other industry
>leaders - including Intel Corp. - to evolve the Fahrenheit APIs.
>Specifically, Intel will work with Microsoft and Silicon Graphics on the
>Fahrenheit low-level API to ensure maximum support of the Intel Pentium
>II processor.
>
>Microsoft and Silicon Graphics engineers will begin development on
>Fahrenheit APIs and extensions immediately. They will deliver new APIs,
>DDKs and Software Development Kits (SDKs) in phases over the next two
>and
>
>a half years.
>
>Phase One will be the delivery of the Fahrenheit Scene Graph and Large
>Model Visualization (LMV) in the first half of calendar year 1999 for
>Microsoft Windows and Silicon Graphics IRIX. More details will be
>released on the LMV will be released in the springa of 1998.
>
>Phase Two will be the delivery of the Fahrenheit low-level API in the
>first half of calendar year 2000 on Microsoft Windows only. For the
>Windows platform, Microsoft will be the direct source for licensing,
>certifying and distributing the SDKs and DDKs. For the Silicon Graphics
>IRIX platform, Silicon Graphics will be the direct source for licensing,
>certifying and distributing the SDKs and DDKs. This API will be derived
>from D3D and OpenGL and it will contain features not present in either.
>The low level API will also only work on Intel processors. OpenGL 1.1
>will be the last version to have a software only version and with time
>Fahrenheit will assume the roles which OpenGL and D3D have had.
>
>The scene graph API is on top of the low-level API while the Large Model
>Visualization API is a part of the Scene Graph API. It is intended that
>the API will be extensible and all are COM based. Thus, hardware
>companies will be able to add extensions.
>
>Jay Torborg, Director, Graphics and Multimedia, Windows OS Division,
>Microsoft showed a 3D user interface that was described as "...for a
>future
>version of Windows."
>
>
>http://www.sgi.com/fahrenheit/
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/directx/
>
>WAVE Comments
>
>This is a major win for Microsoft. The battle over OpenGL vs. D3D for
>games has passed into history. When Kurt Akeley, Co-founder, Chief
>Engineer of SGI states in the news conference that game developers
>should
>write for D3D in all future games, the OpenGL game developers are left
>on
>their own. However, the impact of this announcement is much larger than
>just a game API, it is about the underlying OS infrastructure for 3D.
>SGI
>is clearly putting major resources behind Windows NT and the price they
>paid to get full Microsoft support is reflected in this agreement. A
>question which has yet to be answered - what did SGI get? On the surface
>it is a role in shaping the future of the 3D API set that will dominate
>the large volume computing platforms. Yet, this is obviously a secondary
>role compared to the position it has played in the past. What remains to
>be seen is how SGI leverages its relationship with Microsoft and its
>technology and market position in the workstation space into the high
>volume Windows NT market. SGI must make significant changes to shift its
>business model to compete in the PC market. One point remains clear, in
>3
>or 4 years OpenGL will be seen as legacy and in that time frame SGI will
>have undergone radical changes.
>
>The 3D GUI shown in the demo has the potential of significantly changing
>the user experience and making 3D an essential component of very PC and
>workstation. Watch Microsoft for more developments here as 3D becomes
>integral to the operating system.
>
Joel Baxter
In article <6ae8au$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Jim Husband <jim...@usa.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:56:37 -0800, Gaash Soffer <rage...@home.com>
>wrote:
>>Kieron Dodds wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft did a D3D port of Quake (as far as I know *not* available
>>> publicly). The speed difference was about what you would expect for the
>>> type of port they created.
>>>
>>
>>What would I expect?
>
>
>In a stunning demonstration Microsoft showed GLQuake running faster
>using Direct3D than OpenGL. A Microsoft summer intern, with no prior
>experience in Direct3D, had written a wrapper in three weeks which
>intercepts the calls from Quake for OpenGL and converted them to
>Direct3D calls.
[ snip ]
If you read the rest of that release VERY carefully, and then also hear from
someone who knows the details of what was actually displayed, then it
seems that the opening sentence of the release was worded deceptively.
More accurately (according to some non-Microsoft reports), it should read
In a stunning demonstration Microsoft showed GLQuake running faster
using Direct3D on system A than OpenGL on system B, where system A is
more powerful than system B.
Which is a whole different barrel of monkeys than what the original wording
implies. Since the main brunt of Carmack & Co.'s flack against Direct3D was
that it was icky to program for (not that it was significantly lacking in
functionality), this press release is disingeuously answering that by saying
"See, look, an intern did it in no time at all with one hand tied behind his
back, and it even runs faster! What kind of idiots are those OpenGL
advocates?"
While in fact it is really no great surprise that you can put a wrapper
around Direct3D to intercept and execute OpenGL calls. It would have been a
surprise if this hacky layered approach actually DID run faster in a fair
comparison, but from what I hear that's not what was done.
"Stunning demonstration" indeed.
--
Joel Baxter jba...@lemur.stanford.edu http://lemur.stanford.edu/~jbaxter/
Kieron Dodds
Yup, and this continues (although lets be fair, DX5 is a great improvement)
in DX5.
Wayne Bell wrote in message ...
enzo
DirectX itself is fairly easy to install, but a number of the components
are flawed and difficult to make work quite right. Under typical business
applications, this tends to not show up, but in games things get pretty
complicated. Direct3D is the very worst culprit, though it's problems
aren't
necessarily a condemnation of DirectX for games overall, and certainly
not for DirectX for typical business apps.
Neil M.
Alain Fontaine <al...@NOSPAMvalain.com> wrote in article
<34cb0f03...@news.innet.be>...
> Dear Sir,
>
> I don't know what computer you have, nor how you are doing your
> DirectX installation, but I simply can't understand why you would have
> this kind of problems. I have installed DirectX on a couple dozen of
> computers already, and it _always_ worked fine. Sometimes I would have
> to update the video drivers manually or so, but generally DirectX
> installs as easily as any other software.
>
> In an attempt to help, why did you have to reinstall your OS ?
>
Dan Brooks
Phillip George Geiger wrote in message <6aebjk$hl$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>blues02 (blu...@inlink.com) wrote:
>This is what the real issue is. I read an article in Computer Shopper
>today that gave the Matrox Mystique the highest honors for graphics
>cards.
>
>I ask the world: Is it any fucking wonder we have people complaining
>about Quake's performance on their system when they followed the advice
>of a (respectable?) computer magazine and ended up with a 4th-rate
>piece of hardware?
It *is* an excellent graphics card. No question about it. It's been out
for quite some time now, but it's dos and Windows performance are superb. I
don't see that Computer Shopper was giving the award as a 3D graphics card.
If so, that would be another story. If not, then you are totally off base
here.
>It makes me sick. Ziff-Davis is full of sold-out, shit-for-brains,
>Intel-Microsoft-loving, idiot computer analysts and it is a damn
>shame so many people trust their reviews and editorials.
Again, if they are not talking 3D then you are the one with shit-for-brains.
No offense. If they are, my apologoies.
Dan
Angus Dorbie
This subject bounced around on the OpenGL group at the time
the Meltdown demo results were published in a 4th Wave article
and ultimately it was uncovered that the Microsoft demo was
completely bogus, it didn't compare apples with apples
although they didn't make this clear at the time. Not that
it was ever much of a test on a single piece of software
and single card.
Since then this D3D minidriver seems to have been
resurrected by Dave Springer to try and rescue Dell
from their temporary lack of Riva128 HW benchmark
for Quake2.
Instead of dredging this up again you may find the reading
more interesting on dejanews.
Cheers,Angus.
Jim Husband wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:56:37 -0800, Gaash Soffer <rage...@home.com>
> wrote:
> >Kieron Dodds wrote:
> >>
> >> Microsoft did a D3D port of Quake (as far as I know *not* available
> >> publicly). The speed difference was about what you would expect for the
> >> type of port they created.
> >>
> >
> >What would I expect?
>
> Well, I dredged up a portion of the original... whatever it was:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In a stunning demonstration Microsoft showed GLQuake running faster
> using Direct3D than OpenGL. A Microsoft summer intern, with no prior
> experience in Direct3D, had written a wrapper in three weeks which
> intercepts the calls from Quake for OpenGL and converted them to
> Direct3D calls. It was claimed that GLQuake ran 1 f/s slower with
> DirectX 5.0 version of Direct3D than the original GLQuake on a 3Dfx
> card. However, using the nvidia RIVA 128 chip it runs 1 f/s faster. It
> was stated that GLQuake uses 50 of the 360 calls in OpenGL. To a hushed
> crowd the intern was introduced, stood up and received an applause.
> Microsoft claims that developers have the opportunity to run their
> titles " on lots of installed base [compared to the narrow sales of
> titles targeted to specific API’s]." Microsoft also stated that
> developers can now create titles that will run " on a par or faster than
> OpenGL."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Not sure what it actually proved - but I was impressed.
>
> FU's set to:
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video
> comp.graphics.api.opengl
>
> Jim
>
> * Email address is false - "Reply-to:" is correct
--
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands
in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he
stands at times of challenge and controversy."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
FrankC
While I have a Monster 3D and am most impressed with Glide games, anyone who
doubts the quality of Direct 3D games needs to play MotoRacer. This game
runs great on my "Word processor" PC (P100 Screamin3D). If done right a
Direct3D game can be great.
Thanks,
FrankC
Warez_007 wrote in message <34CBBD0A...@hotmail.com>...
>losers, decision has already been made for you and mr gates says you
>will like it
Jeff Atwood
I've never had a single problem with DirectX across the 5+ computers I
currently own, including my laptop. I have seen problems with cheap hardware
(off-brand audio cards, low end video cards) but that mostly has to do with
poor/nonexistant driver support, not DirectX.
Jeff
Wayne Bell
In article <6agkio$2h5$1...@nnrp2.crl.com>, jat...@a.crl.com says...
> I've never had a single problem with DirectX across the 5+ computers I
> currently own, including my laptop. I have seen problems with cheap hardware
> (off-brand audio cards, low end video cards) but that mostly has to do with
> poor/nonexistant driver support, not DirectX.
Mostly my problem is with Direct3D. I never could get it to work
reasonably, and when I had to re-install the OS after a HD crash, I
apparently installed the drivers for my Diamond Stealth and Orchid 3dfx
in the wrong order. I tried de-installing the drivers, but win95 would
then "notice" a new hardware device and re-install the old drives
immediately "for me".
My initial DirectX5 install didn't go well either (on a clean OS
install). It couldn't find some files that it thought it needed,
demanding the win95 install CD, then gave up when it couldn't find the
files.
Sure, you install it all perfectly the first time, in the right order for
everything, it should work. If you make even the slightest mistake (such
as installing things in the wrong order, when they aren't supposed to be
order-dependent), you're completely hosed. It is impossible to recover.
Jedi Knight still crashes (with no error message) because (I assume) my
Direct3D configuration is still screwed up (and is impossible to
correct). I was eventually able to get TR2 to run in 3dfx mode, which is
the only reason I didn't re-install the OS yet another time.
Paul Shirley
In article <6ad3i2$e...@suriname.earthlink.net>, Kieron Dodds
<kdo...@email.msn.com> writes
>Have no fear. Microsoft has announced (some time ago I might add) that it
>and SGI will jointly work on an OpenGL standard across all Windows
>platforms. OpenGL *is* going to be the standard.
>
They have *NOT* agreed that.
They have agreed that SGI will keep quiet (publically) about OpenGL for
games, that the new Fahrenhiet API will be 'functionally equivalent' to
OpenGL and directly compatible with D3D.
That means: Fahrenheit will *be* D3D, but as many of us have been
predicting for some time it will steal enough OpenGL that you could
trivially convert OpenGL to it. I guarantuee it will be just as
difficult to add extensions to Fahrenheit as it currently is for D3D, so
OpenGL will still have a technical advantage ;)
That is not good news for OpenGL, although I stand by my position that
learning OpenGL is the same as learning some future (the 2000AD) version
of D3D.
---
Paul Shirley: my email address is 'obvious'ly anti-spammed
Kieron Dodds
Paul Shirley wrote in message ...
>In article <6ad3i2$e...@suriname.earthlink.net>, Kieron Dodds
><kdo...@email.msn.com> writes
>>Have no fear. Microsoft has announced (some time ago I might add) that it
>>and SGI will jointly work on an OpenGL standard across all Windows
>>platforms. OpenGL *is* going to be the standard.
>>
>They have *NOT* agreed that.
Umm... I should have actually said "an OpenGL *based* standard". We
actually agree here.
>They have agreed that SGI will keep quiet (publically) about OpenGL for
>games, that the new Fahrenhiet API will be 'functionally equivalent' to
>OpenGL and directly compatible with D3D.
Exactly what I said.
>That means: Fahrenheit will *be* D3D, but as many of us have been
>predicting for some time it will steal enough OpenGL that you could
>trivially convert OpenGL to it. I guarantuee it will be just as
>difficult to add extensions to Fahrenheit as it currently is for D3D, so
>OpenGL will still have a technical advantage ;)
Yeahm that's the one bad thing. Once MS has it's hooks in, it takes forever
to get anything done. I don't think the API itself will be at fault, but
it's hooks into the OS.
>That is not good news for OpenGL, although I stand by my position that
>learning OpenGL is the same as learning some future (the 2000AD) version
>of D3D.
Agreed. *Not* developing for OpenGL *now* will, IMO, place developers at a
disadvantage later.
Kieron Dodds
Gerry Mon
I've been playing around with an evaluation board based on the next
generation Cirrus Logic Laguna3D chip: CL-GD5465. While it is
not in the same class as the more powerful 3D accelerators out there, it
is surprisingly much better than I expected. Cirrus Logic made massive
improvements to its 3D rendering quality over the previous generation
CL-GD5464 (the Graphics Blaster 3D uses this). DOS speed and 2D Windows
speed was also improved.
On a Pentium 166 MMX, it gets about 23 fps at 640 x 480 in Jedi Knight.
On an AMD K5 PR133, using the Riva128 D3D wrapper, I was able to run the
Quake 2 Test program and achieve about 8.36 fps in Timerefresh (Timedemo
doesn't work on the test program) at 640 x 480 (in a window) at the
beginning of the game at Easy level. It had some texture problems
(background textures were solid colors) but colored lighting seemed to
work.
For more info and screen shots of the CL-GD5465 in action (including shots
of it running GLQuake 2) see:
Warez_007
Jeff Atwood
Unfortunately this "optimizing for particular chipsets" part of OpenGL
evidently takes several man-years of programming, as evinced by the
hideously poor state of full OpenGL drivers on the PC today. In the
rapid-fire cycle of products in the PC world, completing a stable complete
OpenGL driver at the same time you're beginning to introduce the next hot 3D
chipset is really not a good thing...
Jeff
Atomic Skull wrote in message <6aha81$hpe$2...@aurora.ns.net>...
>In article <6ae7gs$8...@chile.earthlink.net>, kdo...@email.msn.com says...
>>
>>Slightly slower performance that could have been equal performance had the
>>programmer been given more time to tweak or to redo it entirely in D3D
>>native.
>>
>
> You can't "tweak" D3D, it uses a HAL (hardware abstraction layer). With
>Open-GL you can optimize for specific chipsets, while still being able to
run
>it on _any_ card that supports Open-GL.
Jeff Atwood
Actually in this case I would blame Diamond. I know the 3dfx drivers in and
out, and I've never seen them cause a problem. But Diamond is notorious for
crappy drivers that sometimes won't even properly uninstall themselves. You
can correct the "win95 automatically detecting" device problem by deleting
the corresponding *.INF file from the C:\WINDOWS\INF folder.. just sort it
by date and use the names as a clue to which is which. Win95 can only detect
what it has definitions in the INF file for.
This indicates an improper driver uninstall from Diamond, bringing me full
circle. You could even try using alternate video card drivers (you say you
have a Stealth but not which model) from www.s3.com or whatever video
chipset is on the card.
Jeff
Wayne Bell wrote in message ...
Paul Campbell
> >
> >This is what the real issue is. I read an article in Computer Shopper
> >today that gave the Matrox Mystique the highest honors for graphics
> >cards.
> >
> >I ask the world: Is it any fucking wonder we have people complaining
> >about Quake's performance on their system when they followed the advice
> >of a (respectable?) computer magazine and ended up with a 4th-rate
> >piece of hardware?
Indeed.
The problem is that "serious" PC mags simply don't like to acknowledge
the
extent to which the games scene drives the PC hardware market.
I mean lets face it, 99.99% of people buying a 3d card are goint to use
it exclusively for games. Any review that that does not have games
compatibility
and game performance as its central criteria is going to be missleading.
To be fair though even the games oriented mags have been amazingly
non-commital. I suppose its the usual conflict of interest between
readers and advertisers.
Thank god for usenet !.
Paul C.
UK.
Atomic Skull
In article <MPG.f3588d57...@news.deltanet.com>, wb...@deltanet.com
says...
>
>In article <6agkio$2h5$1...@nnrp2.crl.com>, jat...@a.crl.com says...
>> I've never had a single problem with DirectX across the 5+ computers I
>> currently own, including my laptop. I have seen problems with cheap hardware
>> (off-brand audio cards, low end video cards) but that mostly has to do with
>> poor/nonexistant driver support, not DirectX.
>
Softimage (a high end 3-D animation and modeling package) uses Open-GL for
_everything_, not only 3-D, but the 2-D as well. (it's an SGI port)..
Atomic Skull
In article <6ahi52$k40$1...@nnrp2.crl.com>, jat...@a.crl.com says...
>
>Unfortunately this "optimizing for particular chipsets" part of OpenGL
>evidently takes several man-years of programming, as evinced by the
>hideously poor state of full OpenGL drivers on the PC today. In the
>rapid-fire cycle of products in the PC world, completing a stable complete
>OpenGL driver at the same time you're beginning to introduce the next hot 3D
>chipset is really not a good thing...
>
>Jeff
>
No, tweaking the rendering pipeline is a programming thing, ie. how the game
uses Open-GL..
Mike Smith
Burnnn <umfe...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in article
<34ce35f7...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> losers?
Well, calling *themselves* losers (I'm sorry, isn't that "loozrs" or
"luzers" or "l00zurs" or something like that now?) would be way too
obvious.
--Mike Smith
Brent A Ellingson
> kota wrote:
>
> > Are you sick and tired of Win95 game publishers supporting only
> > Glide
> > or OpenGL? Consider these points:
> >
> > +D3D support is available NOW on almost all hardware
> > -Glide is proprietary
> > -OpenGL isn't widely supported yet
> >
Kota is apparently smoking crack. As near as anyone can tell,
D3D is NOT supported on nearly all hardware. In fact, accell.
D3D seems available only on newish IBM PC compatibles purchased
somewhere other than Best Buy/Toys-R-Crap/Wherever, and even
then only available if you blindly choose to use Win95 (and
_not_ WinNT, or, heaven forbid, any of the other 2 dozen
operating systems available for the platform).
PC's running Win95 are "almost all hardware" only if you
subscribe to the myopic view of Ziff Davis publications.
Not even Microsoft claims such bunk.
Whatever,
Brent Ellingson
Atomic Skull
In article <6ae7gs$8...@chile.earthlink.net>, kdo...@email.msn.com says...
>
>Slightly slower performance that could have been equal performance had the
>programmer been given more time to tweak or to redo it entirely in D3D
>native.
>
You can't "tweak" D3D, it uses a HAL (hardware abstraction layer). With
Open-GL you can optimize for specific chipsets, while still being able to run
it on _any_ card that supports Open-GL.
Atomic Skull
In article <01bd29b2$af1a5d20$dc3ed3cf@default>, en...@nospam.net says...
>
>DirectX itself is fairly easy to install, but a number of the components
>are flawed and difficult to make work quite right. Under typical business
>applications, this tends to not show up, but in games things get pretty
>complicated. Direct3D is the very worst culprit, though it's problems
>aren't
>necessarily a condemnation of DirectX for games overall, and certainly
>not for DirectX for typical business apps.
BTW. Open-GL has functions for working with 2-D as well as 3-D.. Imagine a
2-D game that loads the sprites up to the VRAM and blits them locally Multiple
scrolling backgrounds in 640x480x16-bit would be simple to create, alpha
blending, scaling, etc could all be done in hardware.. (you'd want to blit the
background tiles over the buss to the card though, not enough RAM to cache all
of them)
Burnnn
>losers, decision has already been made for you and mr gates says you
>will like it
Why do the warez people always insist on calling everyone *else*
losers?
----------
Burnnn
fREoN
Brent A Ellingson wrote in message <34CCA36B...@badlands.nodak.edu>...
:> kota wrote:
:>
:> > Are you sick and tired of Win95 game publishers supporting only
:> > Glide
:> > or OpenGL? Consider these points:
:> >
:> > +D3D support is available NOW on almost all hardware
:> > -Glide is proprietary
:> > -OpenGL isn't widely supported yet
:> >
:
:
:Kota is apparently smoking crack. As near as anyone can tell,
:D3D is NOT supported on nearly all hardware. In fact, accell.
:D3D seems available only on newish IBM PC compatibles purchased
:somewhere other than Best Buy/Toys-R-Crap/Wherever, and even
:then only available if you blindly choose to use Win95 (and
:_not_ WinNT, or, heaven forbid, any of the other 2 dozen
:operating systems available for the platform).
:
Well I agree with you that there are a lot of non-D3D compliant video boards
on the market. There are a lot of D3D compliant cards that really suck
pretty damn bad too. I also think that OpenGL is a great API but its not
really too supported on the consumer end of graphics cards, there are more
D3D cards than there are OpenGL cards.
I did not blindly choose Windows95 neither did millions of other people who
bought the CD to upgrade their windows 3.11. WinNT is not for me, it lacks
legacy hardware support and drivers always made first for 95 then for NT if
they even bother with them. NT Does have D3D. And it wouldnt matter if you
were running another OS because the D3D version of that game for that OS
wouldnt be made anyway.
:PC's running Win95 are "almost all hardware" only if you
:subscribe to the myopic view of Ziff Davis publications.
:Not even Microsoft claims such bunk.
:
Well they soon will be. id software is going to _HardWare only_ acceleration
for their upcoming releases. Expect many to follow suit.
:Whatever,
:Brent Ellingson
Chris Marriott
In article <34CCA36B...@badlands.nodak.edu>, Brent A Ellingson
<bell...@badlands.nodak.edu> writes
>Kota is apparently smoking crack. As near as anyone can tell,
>D3D is NOT supported on nearly all hardware. In fact, accell.
>D3D seems available only on newish IBM PC compatibles purchased
>somewhere other than Best Buy/Toys-R-Crap/Wherever, and even
>then only available if you blindly choose to use Win95 (and
>_not_ WinNT, or, heaven forbid, any of the other 2 dozen
>operating systems available for the platform).
>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Brent, but I believe that NT4 *does* now
support Direct3D; I run NT4 on my machine and I'm pretty sure that
Service Pack 3 introduced D3D support.
>PC's running Win95 are "almost all hardware" only if you
>subscribe to the myopic view of Ziff Davis publications.
>Not even Microsoft claims such bunk.
Windows 95 is definitely the single most popular "home PC" operating
system; that's not a "myopic view" but a simple fact.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, Microsoft Certified Solution Developer.
SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: ch...@skymap.com
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
ttammi
wb...@deltanet.com (Wayne Bell) wrote:
>My initial DirectX5 install didn't go well either (on a clean OS
>install). It couldn't find some files that it thought it needed,
>demanding the win95 install CD, then gave up when it couldn't find the
>files.
I have a feeling you just couldn't show it the right place on the CD
where the required files were. I've once had this problem myself, when
some install program started to search for the Win95 files from the
wrong place, but I remember the easy fix was to run "Find files..." in
the background for the CD-ROM, and then point the install program to
that place where those files were.
>Sure, you install it all perfectly the first time, in the right order for
>everything, it should work. If you make even the slightest mistake (such
>as installing things in the wrong order, when they aren't supposed to be
>order-dependent), you're completely hosed. It is impossible to recover.
Wrong. A couple of days ago I decided to install new Orchid
WinGlide/D3D drivers, and I decided to get rid of the 3Dfx reference
drivers from my system first, because for some reason they completely
lacked the "Drivers" tab in the control panel (appeared to be a bug in
the 3Dfx reference drivers). After that I installed Orchid drivers,
and the newest SB16 and Trio64 drivers. After that I installed POD
(because I wanted to try the new 24MB patch for it and the newest
tracks), and it ran its own DirectX3 setup without asking me. I'm not
sure if it wrote over of any of the drivers I had, as everything
seemed to run fine, but I later installed the Orchid/SB16/Trio64
drivers again after POD, just in case. Still everything works fine.
So as you can see I did install them "in the wrong order", but it
didn't destroy my system as you claimed it would.
Xander Pav
On or about 26 Jan 1998 14:55:11 GMT, "Mike Smith"
<kld_m...@nospam.earthlink.net> uttered these words which shall
stand for all time:
>Well, calling *themselves* losers (I'm sorry, isn't that "loozrs" or
>"luzers" or "l00zurs" or something like that now?) would be way too
>obvious.
Lemme try this on for size:
<STUPIDWAREZESE>
Well ur a l00zer. I'm kewl. U people suk.
</STUPIDWAREZESE>
Ugh! Do they actually type like that! That hurts my eyes. I think
that IRC will be responsible for the degradation of the english
language.
Alex Pavloff -- p...@uh.edu -- www.uh.edu/~pav
Why not? Because that would make sense.
Richard Krehbiel
Chris Marriott <ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <34CCA36B...@badlands.nodak.edu>, Brent A Ellingson
> <bell...@badlands.nodak.edu> writes
> >Kota is apparently smoking crack. As near as anyone can tell,
> >D3D is NOT supported on nearly all hardware. In fact, accell.
> >D3D seems available only on newish IBM PC compatibles purchased
> >somewhere other than Best Buy/Toys-R-Crap/Wherever, and even
> >then only available if you blindly choose to use Win95 (and
> >_not_ WinNT, or, heaven forbid, any of the other 2 dozen
> >operating systems available for the platform).
> >
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Brent, but I believe that NT4 *does* now
> support Direct3D; I run NT4 on my machine and I'm pretty sure that
> Service Pack 3 introduced D3D support.
Yes, SP3 introduced Direct3D. They left out one minor thing, though:
hardware accelleration. Yep, the one thing that justifies D3D's
existence, that's all.
--
Richard Krehbiel, Kastle Systems, Arlington, VA, USA
ri...@kastle.com (work) or ri...@mnsinc.com (personal)
Graeme Adamson
Chris Marriott <ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <34CCA36B...@badlands.nodak.edu>, Brent A Ellingson
> <bell...@badlands.nodak.edu> writes
> >Kota is apparently smoking crack. As near as anyone can tell,
> >D3D is NOT supported on nearly all hardware. In fact, accell.
> >D3D seems available only on newish IBM PC compatibles purchased
> >somewhere other than Best Buy/Toys-R-Crap/Wherever, and even
> >then only available if you blindly choose to use Win95 (and
> >_not_ WinNT, or, heaven forbid, any of the other 2 dozen
> >operating systems available for the platform).
> >
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Brent, but I believe that NT4 *does* now
> support Direct3D; I run NT4 on my machine and I'm pretty sure that
> Service Pack 3 introduced D3D support.
SP3 introduced DirectX 3.0 support. Unfortunately, you need DirectX 5.0 for
hardware 3D support.
Graeme
========================================================
Graeme Adamson of Clan Mackintosh, clay...@spl.co.za
Bryce website: http://www2.spl.co.za/~graemea/
World of Lune: http://www2.spl.co.za/~lune/
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an
"intellectual" -- find out how he feels about
astrology. - Lazarus Long
========================================================
Mike Smith
Xander Pav <DIESPAMM...@uh.edu> wrote in article
<34cd0fb9...@207.126.101.100>...
>
> Lemme try this on for size:
>
> <STUPIDWAREZESE>
> Well ur a l00zer. I'm kewl. U people suk.
> </STUPIDWAREZESE>
>
Now ur getin thuh hang uf it. Butt ul nevr be az kewl az me. Ull
awlwez be a sukbag dumass luzr. ;-)
--Mike Smith
Chris Marriott
In article <uu3aq8...@kastle.com>, Richard Krehbiel
<ri...@kastle.com> writes
>Yes, SP3 introduced Direct3D. They left out one minor thing, though:
>hardware accelleration. Yep, the one thing that justifies D3D's
>existence, that's all.
Surely the thing that "justifies its existance" is making life easier
for people who wish to display 3D graphics, is it not?
There are lots of applications for which speed is basically a "non
issue". For example, in my astronomy software I display a "3D" view of
the solar system, showing the spacial positions of the planets as seen
by an "outside observer". It's a static image - it doesn't matter
whether it takes 1 millisecond or 1 second to display. At the moment I'm
doing it with OpenGL, but I could just as easily have used Direct3D,
couldn't I?
Zarko Bizaca
Mike Smith wrote:
Er... i kinda like D3D, it is always entertaining to see how different
drivers/vidio cards interpret the same code. Ah well, translucent or
opaque, who cares. But it IS twice faster
than the only OGL I could make a 3dfx port to run: FireGL1000 with
3dlabs drivers. Anything elese out there that can run full blown OpenGL
faster without blowing my budget?
-Zarko Bizaca
Michael Funk
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:30:34 +1100, Warez_007 <ware...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>losers, decision has already been made for you and mr gates says you
>will like it
Nope, sounds like Bill is making this guy's decisions. I've made my own, and
BG wouldn't like them very much.
An MS sycophant *and* a 'warez d00d'? Oh joy! He should try and be even
less appealing, but how?
Mike
Paul Shirley
In article <34CCF2...@sgi.com>, Angus Dorbie <dorbie...@sgi.com>
writes
>> That means: Fahrenheit will *be* D3D, but as many of us have been
>
>suggest they have different expectations.
From the microsoft web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1997/dec97/fahrpr.htm
>>>
Fahrenheit low-level API will become the primary graphics
API for both consumer and professional applications on
Windows. The Fahrenheit low-level API will evolve from
Direct3D, DirectDraw and OpenGL while providing full
backward compatibility with applications and hardware
device drivers written for Microsoft Direct3D and functional
compatibility with Silicon Graphics' OpenGL technologies.
<<<
Notice that compatibility is only with *D3D* drivers. This is M$ and
SGI's publicly stated position, what some M$ employee said under
pressure is rather less credible. That or the D3D interface will change
so dramatically it would not be worth calling it D3D :)
Fahrenheit is of course much more than an immediate mode API, but the
press release makes it clear it will be based D3D. Its also clear the M$
are openly copying OpenGL functionality for D3D ;)
Paul Shirley
In article <gjvRUOAx...@chrism.demon.co.uk>, Chris Marriott
<ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <uu3aq8...@kastle.com>, Richard Krehbiel
><ri...@kastle.com> writes
>>Yes, SP3 introduced Direct3D. They left out one minor thing, though:
>>hardware accelleration. Yep, the one thing that justifies D3D's
>>existence, that's all.
>
>Surely the thing that "justifies its existance" is making life easier
>for people who wish to display 3D graphics, is it not?
D3D originated as a way to get hardware independent *acceleration*.
And guess what: *everyone* at the time thought it was a great idea, most
changed their minds after seeing the mess M$ made of D3D of course ;)
>There are lots of applications for which speed is basically a "non
>issue". For example, in my astronomy software I display a "3D" view of
>the solar system, showing the spacial positions of the planets as seen
>by an "outside observer". It's a static image - it doesn't matter
>whether it takes 1 millisecond or 1 second to display. At the moment I'm
>doing it with OpenGL, but I could just as easily have used Direct3D,
>couldn't I?
Before DX5 absolutely not, the whole thing was a total nightmare. You
would only use it to get hardware acceleration. DX5 makes it relatively
easy, but if speed is unimportant OpenGL is still easier to use.
When OpenGL ICDs start arriving you can use OpenGL for acceleration. M$
sabotaged MCD development for a reason...
The bottom line is: D3D is *only* about accelerated 3D (unless you
consider its strategic importance to M$ gaining market domination to be
a positive feature)
Tony Volpe
What are you lamers talkin about?? Isn't it really KRAD to talk like 3l33t
dudz??? I think it's pretty keul. :)
l8tr,
Tony Volpe
PS - I'm just kiddin around
In article <01bd2b57$013806c0$0200000a@kld_mcs>, "Mike Smith"
Adam Woodhouse
Everyone quite their bitching and get a video card that does both
OpenGL and D3D!
Shrike
Adam Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Everyone quite their bitching and get a video card that does both
> OpenGL and D3D!
Not necessarily. If you do that, you are implicitly supporting D3D.
--
______
Shrike
______
"Jim Beam's given me the right to be wrong"
-Country Dick Montana
Jeff Atwood
Even worse, you are implicitly supporting OpenGL.
Jeff
Shrike wrote in message <34D60510.2781@_SPAMTRAP_alcaudon.com>...
Pavel V. Zaitesev
Well, Sure D3D is better than OpenGL without D3D but that is the whole
purpose of D3D and OpenGL to be portable and use 3d capabilities of 3d
cards. any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
in Java,which utilizes OpenGL. Heard of that Microsoft lost the deal to
Sun in purchasing WebTV/JavaBoxes to one of the largest Cable TV
companines? Go with OpenGL dude.
Pavel.
--
/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\
Hey... don't get mad, get even.
Phone Number is avail. at your request.
Linux:Windoze from Bill:BC++:WIN32API:OWL:ORACLE:XWin wins:g++:libc:TCP/IP
IRC ii:inetd:sendmail:joe:/etc/default/uugetty.ttyS3!!!
! PANIC !: Segment Fault
K Stewart
Brian Hook himself said in an article in BOOT magazine that D3D blew big
chunks...
Kieron Dodds
Pavel V. Zaitesev wrote in message ...
>Well, Sure D3D is better than OpenGL without D3D but that is the whole
>purpose of D3D and OpenGL to be portable and use 3d capabilities of 3d
>cards.
What are you trying to say here? It's completely unclear.
D3D+OpenGL>OpenGL? D3D=OpenGL=portable? You couldn't be more wrong.
OpenGL is a better API, both in tech and in ease of use. D3D is *not*
portable. It's restricted to the Windows (mainly 95) based platforms.
Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
> any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
>in Java,which utilizes OpenGL.
No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
entire game coded in Java.
> Heard of that Microsoft lost the deal to
>Sun in purchasing WebTV/JavaBoxes to one of the largest Cable TV
>companines?
What does this have to do 3D APIs?
Atomic Skull
>
>> any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
>>in Java,which utilizes OpenGL.
>
>No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
>entire game coded in Java.
>
Sun has a prototype CPU that uses Java as it's instruction set.. ie. you can
feed it Java directly without compiling it.
Jeff Atwood
Who cares? Games are written for Win95 nowadays anyway. Use D3D, use OpenGL,
use whatever blows your skirt up. The bottom line is that game is 99% likely
to be played on Win95. What other (non-console) gaming platforms even
matter?
And by the time it matters (late 1999), Microsoft has already said that
OpenGL and Direct3D are merging, making that choice even less relevant.
Jeff
Kieron Dodds wrote in message <6bgcqr$8...@chile.earthlink.net>...
>
>Pavel V. Zaitesev wrote in message ...
>>Well, Sure D3D is better than OpenGL without D3D but that is the whole
>>purpose of D3D and OpenGL to be portable and use 3d capabilities of 3d
>>cards.
>
>What are you trying to say here? It's completely unclear.
>D3D+OpenGL>OpenGL? D3D=OpenGL=portable? You couldn't be more wrong.
>OpenGL is a better API, both in tech and in ease of use. D3D is *not*
>portable. It's restricted to the Windows (mainly 95) based platforms.
>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>
>> any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
>>in Java,which utilizes OpenGL.
>
>No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
>entire game coded in Java.
>
Atomic Skull
I
>
>> any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
>>in Java,which utilizes OpenGL.
>
>No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
>entire game coded in Java.
>
>
Check out http://www.davesclassics.com/Java/Phoenix/ this is an _emulator_
for the classic coin op Phoenix, ie. it emulates the original coin op hardware
with software and runs the ROM images from the arcade board. Pretty damn
impressive for a web applet. Yeah, MAME emulates this game faster, but not by
much (I can't really see much of a difference)
From what I've seen, compiled Java is only a bit slower than C (Netscape and
IE 4.0 both compile the Java into executable code before running it)
Kieron Dodds
Yeah, like old BIOS Basic interpreters. In any case, Sun's a far cry from
being a mainstream system.
Atomic Skull wrote in message <6bgpmn$mks$3...@aurora.ns.net>...
>
>>
>>> any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
>>>in Java,which utilizes OpenGL.
>>
>>No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
>>entire game coded in Java.
>>
>
> Sun has a prototype CPU that uses Java as it's instruction set.. ie. you
can
>feed it Java directly without compiling it.
>
Kieron Dodds
Hmm... Don't know why I didn't put a question mark in there. I actually
meant it as a question. Thanks for the heads up/answer.
Atomic Skull wrote in message <6bj1t4$1t7$3...@aurora.ns.net>...
>In article <6bhupv$2...@chile.earthlink.net>,
nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com
>says...
>>
>>Yeah, like old BIOS Basic interpreters. In any case, Sun's a far cry from
>>being a mainstream system.
>>
>>
>
> No, not like that at all, it compiles the Java into RISC instructions
(much
>like a K6 or 6X86 compile 80x86 CISC instructions into native instruction
>that are run on the chip's RISC core). There is also work being done on
CPU's
>that actually use Java as their instruction set, The Java code is
converted
>into an intermediate binary language which the CPU can run directly. This
is
>_not_ the same as compiling source into binary executable code.. Compiled
code
>is no longer Java, it's binary machine language and can't be reverse
compiled.
>In the latter case, the Java commands are just represented by binary values
>rather than alphanumeric character strings (and could be converted back
into
>alphanumeric Java code if you were to run the process in reverse)
Chris Villarreal
Atomic Skull wrote:
>
> >
> >> any how I belive most computing will be done in programs ,written
> >>in Java,which utilizes OpenGL.
> >
> >No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
> >entire game coded in Java.
> >
>
> Sun has a prototype CPU that uses Java as it's instruction set.. ie. you can
> feed it Java directly without compiling it.
Isn't Politika coded in Java?
--
**********************************************************************
Anti-Spam measures in place. Remove spam.this from my address to reply.
Chris Villarreal
Atomic Skull
Burnnn
>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
>No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
>entire game coded in Java.
Tom Clancy's Politika.
----------
Burnnn
MB
Burnnn wrote in message <34eb6d74....@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
><nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
>>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>
>Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
Because its software driven. And at 1fps I would have to guess you are
running a P100 or less? I have seen P166's run them very easily.
Eric Whalen
Burnnn wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
> <nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
> >good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>
> Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
>
Because you don't have an Open Gl accelerator.
Kieron Dodds
Burnnn wrote in message <34eb6d74....@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
><nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
>>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>
>Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
One guess, your card blows? I wouldn't place much in the OpenGL screensaver
performance either. Heck, I'm not even sure if it's true OpenGL or just a
D3D wrapper since they run quite well on cards that are known to absolutely
*suck* at 3D, and even cards that don't have 3D acceleration at all. Hmm...
figure that one out.
>>No way. Sure applets and modules and such maybe, but I don't foresee an
>>entire game coded in Java.
>
>Tom Clancy's Politika.
Really? Hmm...
>----------
>Burnnn
Chris Marriott
In article <6bkni9$d...@ecuador.earthlink.net>, Kieron Dodds <nospam.kdod
d...@nospam.email.msn.com> writes
>Heck, I'm not even sure if it's true OpenGL or just a
>D3D wrapper since they run quite well on cards that are known to absolutely
>*suck* at 3D, and even cards that don't have 3D acceleration at all. Hmm...
>figure that one out.
The source code for several of the standard OpenGL screensavers (eg "3D
Pipes") is supplied as standard with the Win32 SDK. You can look at it
yourself to see whether or not it's "proper" OpenGL.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com).
Visit our web site at: http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers.
Vahidi Arash
This has nothing to do with graphics (sorry for wasting bandwith)
but just to show you how it works check
http://www.cd.chalmers.se/~vahidi/java/javachip/ineg.gif
/Arash
Shrike
Am I much mistaken or was that a fvwm95 screenshot, and not a Win95 one?
:)
MB
Burnnn wrote in message <311bf914...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 03:13:39 -0700, "MB" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Burnnn wrote in message <34eb6d74....@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>>>On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
>>><nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than
a
>>>>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>>>
>>>Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
>>
>>Because its software driven. And at 1fps I would have to guess you are
>>running a P100 or less? I have seen P166's run them very easily.
>
>P200MMX. Crank up the detail on the settings and watch it crawl.
>
>My point was that saying D3D is more processor reliant doesn't make
>sense to me. Without geometry acceleration on a video card, both of
>the cards have all their set up done in software. I doubt that one is
>more processor intensive than the other.
The guy was probably just confusing Hardware and Software D3D acceleration.
I think the DirectX 3.0 for NT has only software accelerated Direct3D. That
would deffinately be more processor reliant.
By the way, which screen saver are you talking about?
The one that seems to run slowly is that lame maze one. But I have seen that
run crappy on many different computers. Its just poor optimization. The
others run pretty fast with full detail, even when you load a texture .BMP.
>
>----------
>Burnnn
Burnnn
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 03:13:39 -0700, "MB" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Burnnn wrote in message <34eb6d74....@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>>On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
>><nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
>>>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>>
>>Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
>
>Because its software driven. And at 1fps I would have to guess you are
>running a P100 or less? I have seen P166's run them very easily.
P200MMX. Crank up the detail on the settings and watch it crawl.
My point was that saying D3D is more processor reliant doesn't make
sense to me. Without geometry acceleration on a video card, both of
the cards have all their set up done in software. I doubt that one is
more processor intensive than the other.
----------
Burnnn
Dean
On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 08:31:56 GMT, umfe...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Burnnn)
wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
><nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more than a
>>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
>
>Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
OpenGL drivers are VERY difficult to write (average developement time
is about 1.5 years...) I know that's not a good excuse, but it's most
likely that your drivers were put together quickly with very little
thought given to optimisations.
Dean.
Shrike
Probably a Microsoft ploy to make the averaje Joe think OpenGL is crap.
Peter Kovach
Actually, D3D and OpenGL are about equally processor hungry. Apples to
apples, they run the SAME speed on an unaccelerated machine. You can buy
D3D accelerator boards for quite a bit less than OpenGL boards (to achieve
the same performance) so D3D tends to be a much better environment to build
with. I have programmed with both since they were introduced, and with D3D
now providing DrawPrimitive, it is as easy to use as OpenGL (or easier).
If you want SPEED, look at the Quantum3D boards (Obsidian, etc.) - you can
get D3D apps to fly with them and they still are less than the 'good'
OpenGL boards
Peter Kovach
http://cjc1.tiac.net/direct3d/ (My D3D site)
http://www.browsebooks.com/Kovach/116.html (My D3D (DX5) Book - 800 pages)
MB <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in article <6bom7e$7ka$1...@news.mcn.net>...
>
> Burnnn wrote in message <311bf914...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> >On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 03:13:39 -0700, "MB" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Burnnn wrote in message <34eb6d74....@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> >>>On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:19:37 -0500, "Kieron Dodds"
> >>><nospam...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Furthermore, D3D is more processor reliant, and thus requires more
than
> a
> >>>>good 3D accelerator to keep up with OpenGL.
> >>>
> >>>Why do my OpenGL screensavers run at 1 fps then?
> >>
> >>Because its software driven. And at 1fps I would have to guess you are
> >>running a P100 or less? I have seen P166's run them very easily.
> >
> >P200MMX. Crank up the detail on the settings and watch it crawl.
> >
> >My point was that saying D3D is more processor reliant doesn't make
> >sense to me. Without geometry acceleration on a video card, both of
> >the cards have all their set up done in software. I doubt that one is
> >more processor intensive than the other.
>
> The guy was probably just confusing Hardware and Software D3D
acceleration.
> I think the DirectX 3.0 for NT has only software accelerated Direct3D.
That
> would deffinately be more processor reliant.
> By the way, which screen saver are you talking about?
> The one that seems to run slowly is that lame maze one. But I have seen
that
> run crappy on many different computers. Its just poor optimization. The
> others run pretty fast with full detail, even when you load a texture
BMP.
>
>
> >
> >----------
> >Burnnn
>
>
>
Angus Dorbie
Burnnn wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:29:37 -0800, Shrike
> <shrike@_SPAMTRAP_alcaudon.com> wrote:
>
> >Dean wrote:
> >> OpenGL drivers are VERY difficult to write (average developement time
> >> is about 1.5 years...) I know that's not a good excuse, but it's most
> >> likely that your drivers were put together quickly with very little
> >> thought given to optimisations.
> >
>
How about it runs faster than comparable software APIs, this notion that
OpenGL can't be made fast in software has been discredited long ago. I'm
not saying that APIs like OpenGL or D3D etc will ever be the best option
for application specific software engines, but software OpenGL is more
than a match for anything elso in software unless you go to a higher
level description and mandate a lot about what you can describe and how
you describe it, which clearly isn't generally usefull.
Cheers,Angus.
--
"The clash of doctrines is not a disaster, it is an opportunity."
- Alfred North Whitehead
Burnnn
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:44:19 -0700, "MB" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Burnnn wrote in message <311bf914...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>>My point was that saying D3D is more processor reliant doesn't make
>>sense to me. Without geometry acceleration on a video card, both of
>>the cards have all their set up done in software. I doubt that one is
>>more processor intensive than the other.
>
>The guy was probably just confusing Hardware and Software D3D acceleration.
That was my guess. :o)
>I think the DirectX 3.0 for NT has only software accelerated Direct3D.
Yup.
> That would deffinately be more processor reliant.
I don't remember OpenGL acceleration via NT either though? I thought
(right now) NT didn't allow direct access to the hardware, blah blah
blah. Oh well, I don't know for sure. Maybe now that I have my
Monster I should load up NT4 again just to make sure. :o)
>By the way, which screen saver are you talking about?
>The one that seems to run slowly is that lame maze one.
That would be the one. :o) However, you'd be surprised how badly
some of the other ones run when you fiddle with the settings and max
them out.
> But I have seen that
>run crappy on many different computers.
Same here. Makes you wonder why the salespeople think that crummy
display is going to sell their computers.... :o)
> Its just poor optimization.
No, the scene setup takes a lot more calculations than any of the
other screensavers do. OpenGL is slow without hardware acceleration.
> The
>others run pretty fast with full detail, even when you load a texture .BMP.
Reasonably well, I suppose. I'm not too willing to go back and play
around again though... :o)
----------
Burnnn
Burnnn
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:29:37 -0800, Shrike
<shrike@_SPAMTRAP_alcaudon.com> wrote:
>Dean wrote:
>> OpenGL drivers are VERY difficult to write (average developement time
>> is about 1.5 years...) I know that's not a good excuse, but it's most
>> likely that your drivers were put together quickly with very little
>> thought given to optimisations.
>
>Probably a Microsoft ploy to make the averaje Joe think OpenGL is crap.
Or gee, how about OpenGL runs piss-poor slow in software?
----------
Burnnn
Dean
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:32:42 GMT, umfe...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Burnnn)
wrote:
>Or gee, how about OpenGL runs piss-poor slow in software?
It's not that (as such) just that there are no fully optimised openGL
drivers available for software only.
Dean.
Chris Hill
In article <3120352a...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>, umfe...@cc.umanitoba.ca
says...
>I don't remember OpenGL acceleration via NT either though? I thought
>(right now) NT didn't allow direct access to the hardware, blah blah
>blah. Oh well, I don't know for sure. Maybe now that I have my
>Monster I should load up NT4 again just to make sure. :o)
Yes, NT can accelerate OpenGL if hardware (and a driver) is present. Drivers
can access the hardware under NT or something, blah blah blah.
--
Chris Hill
hil...@cs.purdue.edu
Alexei Novikov
In article <34e190b6...@news.zip.com.au>, de...@zip.com.au (Dean)
wrote:
No? What is OpenGL for Win95/NT from SGI then? Check the readme for it
- it is exactly software-optimized OpenGL without hardware support.
Angus Dorbie
Burnnn wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:47:15 -0800, Angus Dorbie
> <dorbie...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> >Burnnn wrote:
>
> >> Or gee, how about OpenGL runs piss-poor slow in software?
>
> >OpenGL can't be made fast in software has been discredited long ago. I'm
> >not saying that APIs like OpenGL or D3D etc will ever be the best option
> >for application specific software engines, but software OpenGL is more
> >than a match for anything elso in software unless you go to a higher
> >level description and mandate a lot about what you can describe and how
> >you describe it, which clearly isn't generally usefull.
> >
> >Cheers,Angus.
>
And your point would be?
If your trying to say that your 'piss-poor slow' claim has more
credibility than my post simply because I work for SGI you have a
rather weak case. Let's at least hear some substance, the evidence
is there and the jury checked out of the Holiday Inn months ago.
You can get good performance from software OpenGL which is at
least on par or better than equivalent software APIs which once
made bogus claims about inherent design advantages, this has been
demonstrated. If you factor in the boost you can get from the
MMX instructions which enhance the software implementation of
OpenGL the performance is even impressive if you are smart about
the texture filters and state you use.
Burnnn
>Burnnn wrote:
>> Or gee, how about OpenGL runs piss-poor slow in software?
>How about it runs faster than comparable software APIs, this notion that
>OpenGL can't be made fast in software has been discredited long ago. I'm
>not saying that APIs like OpenGL or D3D etc will ever be the best option
>for application specific software engines, but software OpenGL is more
>than a match for anything elso in software unless you go to a higher
>level description and mandate a lot about what you can describe and how
>you describe it, which clearly isn't generally usefull.
>
>Cheers,Angus.
.... forgot your SGI sig Angus. :o)
----------
Burnnn