3dfx faster than playstation?
r...@auracom.com
Is the 3dfx board faster than the playstation for graffics and frame rate?
Reg
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jeff Atwood
3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of pixels,
at a higher frame rate.
3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
Jeff
Steve Cronin wrote in article <01bc60d0$79e2c4e0$37d5b7c7@uspppsmcron>...
>The hardware on the 3dfx board is many times(3or more times faster than
the
>playstation. The 3dfx is in the N64's class, but I have heard it is even
>faster than that.
>
>r...@auracom.com wrote in article <8636331...@dejanews.com>...
Dennis Strickland
Not only is it faster than a Nintendo 64, it looks quite better as well.
There is no comparison. The 3DFX is the best gaming sensation in awhile.
Dennis Strickland
Steve Cronin <smc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
Todd Lehrfeld
> 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
> games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
>
Probably around 50-100% faster.
By next year, PCs should have some setups that can beat Sega's Model 3.
Kahlil Thomas (SM 1996)
Steve Cronin (smc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I have a 3dfx card, my firend has the N64, he was telling me that it runs
: at 640X480 on a TV. Now I had a little problem with this because most
: televisions do not have more than 450 or 500 horizontal lines of
: resolution. But I have no knowlegde or facts to contradict the fact that it
: ran at 640X480. Are you sure it runs at 256X224?
According to http://www.next-generation.com, NFL Quaterback Club '98
will be the first N64 game to use 640x480 mode, and even that won't be
out until "Q4 '97." Games such as Mario are 256x244 mode.
KVT
: Jeff Atwood <jat...@a.crl.com> wrote in article
: <5ldu7b$ptg$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>...
: > 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
Steve Cronin
I have a 3dfx card, my firend has the N64, he was telling me that it runs
at 640X480 on a TV. Now I had a little problem with this because most
televisions do not have more than 450 or 500 horizontal lines of
resolution. But I have no knowlegde or facts to contradict the fact that it
ran at 640X480. Are you sure it runs at 256X224?
Jeff Atwood <jat...@a.crl.com> wrote in article
<5ldu7b$ptg$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>...
> 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
> faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
> 3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of
pixels,
> at a higher frame rate.
>
> 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
> games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
>
> Jeff
>
> Steve Cronin wrote in article <01bc60d0$79e2c4e0$37d5b7c7@uspppsmcron>...
Werner Punz
"Steve Cronin" <smc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I have a 3dfx card, my firend has the N64, he was telling me that it runs
>at 640X480 on a TV. Now I had a little problem with this because most
>televisions do not have more than 450 or 500 horizontal lines of
>resolution. But I have no knowlegde or facts to contradict the fact that it
>ran at 640X480. Are you sure it runs at 256X224?
>
Mario 64 does. The reason you don't see any blocky lines is first. The
natural AA of the TV and secondly it uses line AA. The N64
theoretically can go up to 640x480 but I doubt that the GX processor
has the horsepower to handle that.
Werner
---
mailto://we...@inflab.uni-linz.ac.at
http://witiko.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at/~werpu/
FOR A REPLY PLEASE REMOVE THE NOSPAM FROM MY E-MAIL
ADDRESS. I WAS FORCED TO DO THIS DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE
AMOUND OF SPAMMED E-MAIL I GOT WHICH EXCEEDED THE NORMAL
MAIL BY THE FACTOR OF FOUR. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.
Lee Chisnall
On 15 May 1997 04:05:40 GMT, "Todd Lehrfeld"
<lehr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
>> games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
>>
>
>Probably around 50-100% faster.
>
>By next year, PCs should have some setups that can beat Sega's Model 3.
What exactly is a Sega Model 3?
________________________________________________________
Please remove the last # in my address to reply by email
n...@netcomuk.co.uk
Jeremy Riley
On Thu, 15 May 1997 13:35:33 GMT, n...@netcomuk.co.uk# (Lee Chisnall)
wrote:
It is the board that Sega uses to power Virtua Fighter 3. Which looks
gobsmackingly good, and plays like a bucket.
Jeremy Riley
Computer Games World
C...@netspeed.com.au
http://www.netspeed.com.au/cgw
David Nagy
Steve Cronin (smc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I have a 3dfx card, my firend has the N64, he was telling me that it runs
: at 640X480 on a TV.
Not often, it doesn't. Maybe on occasional title screens? I doubt it
since storage space is so cramped.
: Now I had a little problem with this because most
: televisions do not have more than 450 or 500 horizontal lines of
: resolution.
The better ones are up nearer to 600. Also recall that the "lines of
horizontal resolution" measurement is a bit weird in that it measures the
amount of resolution in a scanline that is as long as the screen is
high. In the case of a 4:3 TV like most of us have, it's measuring the
resolution of 3/4ths of a scanline.
Sooo... To display a 640-wide image, your TV would need to be have a
"lines of horizontal resolution" rating of 480 lines. Most do, and those
that don't will just be a little blurrier than those that do.
: But I have no knowlegde or facts to contradict the fact that it
: ran at 640X480. Are you sure it runs at 256X224?
That sounds correct. Many N64 games are anti-aliased in a couple
different ways, so the resolution may "appear" greater as long as you
don't get to close to the screen.
Dave Nagy
ma...@sheba.demon.co.uk
On Thu, 15 May 1997 14:22:13 GMT, c...@netspeed.com.au (Jeremy Riley)
wrote:
>It is the board that Sega uses to power Virtua Fighter 3. Which looks
>gobsmackingly good, and plays like a bucket.
###############
Er,
is that a good or a bad thing?
Mark Perkins
Andrew Thilo
Listen up People
Now, undoubtably the 3dfx is much faster than the playstation and Saturn
put together, and easily on a par with the N64, BUT
Not everybody can afford such performance equipment such as a P200 with
3dfx card. This is the main reason that machines such as the Playstation
and N64 will continue to sell for ages.
For people like us, we are lucky enough to make our mates mouths water at
the sight of GLQuake, POD, MotoRacer etc..
Just my feelings on the matter!
Andy
big...@netgsi.com
>> 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
>> games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
>>
>
>Probably around 50-100% faster.
>
>By next year, PCs should have some setups that can beat Sega's Model 3.
I wonder how HDTV will fit into all of this.. we should be able to
plug our 'puters into the HDTV and get some fantastic looking
large output.. ;) hmm.. I wonder how the consoles feel about
this..
Chris
Jaster
In article <01bc60e5$26132f20$89e3...@801135122.worldnet.att.net>,
"Todd Lehrfeld" <lehr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
>> games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
>>
>
>Probably around 50-100% faster.
>
>By next year, PCs should have some setups that can beat Sega's Model 3.
I heard intel and 3dfx are gonna try to sell the pentium 2 and 3dfx setup to
arcade coin op game makers. Just Imagine... you'd be able to play arcade games
on your computer exactly like the arcade!
_____
| ____| _
| |__ _ __|_| ___
| __>| '__>_ / __>
| |___| | | | <__
|_____|_| |_|\___>
Andrew Ariens
On 16 May 1997 00:05:50 GMT, te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au (T Wojcik)
wrote:
>Dennis Strickland (wet...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Not only is it faster than a Nintendo 64, it looks quite better as well.
>: There is no comparison. The 3DFX is the best gaming sensation in awhile.
>:
>
>Um, sorry but I dont think so. I own both and granted the 3Dfx kicks
>major ass but i still doubt I could produce the 'wave' effect in
>WaveRace 64 as easily and smoothly as the N64 can. If anyone can prove
>me wrong here let me know. I am NOT bagging the 3dfx here but someone
>who claims its faster than a N64 is plain wrong
>
You're kidding right? 3DFX on a PC is leaps and bounds beyond the
N64. I'm sure WaveRace's "wave effect" could easily been done on 3DFX
hardware. Right now there aren't any games that would benefit from an
effect like that so what. Also, WaveRace is running at really low
resolution, 3DFX is running at 640x480.
Richard Wang
Andrew Thilo (andy....@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: Listen up People
Listening
: Now, undoubtably the 3dfx is much faster than the playstation and Saturn
: put together, and easily on a par with the N64, BUT
Agreed
: Not everybody can afford such performance equipment such as a P200 with
: 3dfx card. This is the main reason that machines such as the Playstation
: and N64 will continue to sell for ages.
Again mostly agreed. However for someone with a lower spec pentium already
such as a P100 the choice between 3DFX and N64 is less clear cut. Half the
point of a 3D card is that you don't need a shit-off-a-shovel PC to run
things at a good framerate. It gets even worse for the consoles if you
haven't got a telly. (ok not very likely but I can't be unique here)
: For people like us, we are lucky enough to make our mates mouths water at
: the sight of GLQuake, POD, MotoRacer etc..
Hehehe ;)
: Just my feelings on the matter!
: Andy
--
Richard Wang sjoh...@sable.ox.ac.uk
Jaster
In article <5lg8cu$l8p$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au (T Wojcik) wrote:
>Dennis Strickland (wet...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Not only is it faster than a Nintendo 64, it looks quite better as well.
>: There is no comparison. The 3DFX is the best gaming sensation in awhile.
>:
>
>Um, sorry but I dont think so. I own both and granted the 3Dfx kicks
>major ass but i still doubt I could produce the 'wave' effect in
>WaveRace 64 as easily and smoothly as the N64 can. If anyone can prove
>me wrong here let me know. I am NOT bagging the 3dfx here but someone
>who claims its faster than a N64 is plain wrong
>
huh... you have got to be kidding me...
640x480 30+ FPS 16 bit color average
VS
200 something by 300 something at 20 FPS maybe with 256 colors
which is better? you tell me
Eric
Mark Green
In article <8636331...@dejanews.com> r...@auracom.com writes:
> Is the 3dfx board faster than the playstation for graffics and frame rate?
In terms of hardware statistics, yes, but in actual fact, no, it's 200%
slower, because:
- Half the time, the game programmers can't be bothered to support it (in
which case it runs at an incredibly efficient 0% acceleration)
- If they can, they insist on using a hairy MS/D3D architecture which slows
the system down by swapping about twice as much as the acceleration speeds
it up
Mg
(forgive me on this, but I'm hacked off with 3dFx. I bought one a while
back, and have found THREE games that run on it: Descent 2, Tomb Raider and
GlQuake. HyperBlade *allegedly* runs, but doesn't: it bombs during loading.
I wrote to WizBang about this; they put me off for two weeks ("we'll ask
about it at the Meltdown conference"), gave me a 'solution' that didn't work,
then clammed up. Everything else either needs a patch (which is usually
neatly placed only on a WWW (not an FTP) site, just to make it nice and
slow, and as an additional twist in the case of MDK is placed on the site
in a location where you can't see it), which is usually in Beta, or messes
up everything else in the game....)
--
Dennis Strickland
Umm, are you completely blind? You load both a N64 game and a 3DFX game at
the same time and if you still think the N64 looks better and faster, then
make an appointment with a doctor because you are quite delusional.
Dennis Strickland
T Wojcik <te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au> wrote in article
<5lg8cu$l8p$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
O. Van Cantfort
>3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
>faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
>3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of pixels,
>at a higher frame rate.
>
Not only the consoles run at a low resolution, no home console at the
moment can do bilinear filtering or even a completely perspective
correct texturing. Of course, these are not necessary at such low
resolutions...
Besides, the playstation has a very big limitation : it only has 2 MB
of memory ! This forces games artists to use very crappy textures...
Do not plug your Playstation in a high quality monitor, you'll surely
be disappointed... many shadings are made of only a few colors
interlaced and look like a continuous shading only due to the natural
blurryness of TV !
The N64 at least suffers less from this due to the use of cartridges.
Olivier Van Cantfort, from Belgium.
<< Computers are useless, they only give answers... >>
Pablo Picasso
Justin Saxinger
On 15 May 1997 03:46:43 GMT, "Steve Cronin" <smc...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>I have a 3dfx card, my firend has the N64, he was telling me that it runs
>at 640X480 on a TV. Now I had a little problem with this because most
>televisions do not have more than 450 or 500 horizontal lines of
>resolution. But I have no knowlegde or facts to contradict the fact that it
>ran at 640X480. Are you sure it runs at 256X224?
>
N64 games most certainly do not run in 640x480. Very few console
games run in high resolution. Virtua Fighter 2 and and a couple
pinball games are in high res and the difference between these games
and the average low res console game is quite distinct. Your friend
probably made the mistake because the blurring of a TV screen makes a
low res game look a lot better on a TV than a computer monitor so he
just assumed that the N64 games are in high res.
--
justin
js...@dc.net
Joe
Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk (Mark Green) wrote:
Download the Moto Racer demo. I don't think the full version's in
stores in the US yet, but this gamer ROCKS on 3df (even hought it does
use D3D). Just be sure to go into options and set the D3D setting to
"filtered" (instead of "On") to get the maximum 3dfx effects).
Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================
Paul D.
On 15 May 1997 04:33:38 GMT, kah...@pantheon.yale.edu (Kahlil Thomas
(SM 1996)) wrote:
>Steve Cronin (smc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: I have a 3dfx card, my firend has the N64, he was telling me that it runs
>: at 640X480 on a TV. Now I had a little problem with this because most
>: televisions do not have more than 450 or 500 horizontal lines of
>: resolution. But I have no knowlegde or facts to contradict the fact that it
>: ran at 640X480. Are you sure it runs at 256X224?
>
>
>According to http://www.next-generation.com, NFL Quaterback Club '98
>will be the first N64 game to use 640x480 mode, and even that won't be
>out until "Q4 '97." Games such as Mario are 256x244 mode.
That's impossible! The N64 has a maximum resolution of 256x244!
Read the spec.
>KVT
>
>
>: Jeff Atwood <jat...@a.crl.com> wrote in article
>: <5ldu7b$ptg$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>...
>: > 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
>: > faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
>: > 3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of
>: pixels,
>: > at a higher frame rate.
Paul <pa...@c-thru-music.co.uk>
(Quake Handles: Majika/Overlord of Chaos/Danger)
Pedro Colman-Arrellaga
On Sat, 17 May 1997 21:24:52 GMT, pa...@c-thru-music.co.uk (Paul D.)
wrote:
>>
>>According to http://www.next-generation.com, NFL Quaterback Club '98
>>will be the first N64 game to use 640x480 mode, and even that won't be
>>out until "Q4 '97." Games such as Mario are 256x244 mode.
>
>That's impossible! The N64 has a maximum resolution of 256x244!
>Read the spec.
You're mistaken. 256x224 is most definitely not the N64's highest
resolution. Now whether it'll be able to run something in 640x480 at a
good framerate is what I'd like to know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Colman-Arréllaga | Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so
hiss...@cris.com | many more believers than thinkers.
hiss...@concentric.net | - Bruce Calvert
------------------------|
| Do I contradict myself?
Under | Very well then, I contradict myself,
Construction | (I am large, I contain multitudes).
| - Walt Whitman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keatah
O. Van Cantfort wrote:
>
> >3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
> >faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
> >3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of pixels,
> >at a higher frame rate.
> >
>
> moment can do bilinear filtering or even a completely perspective
> correct texturing. Of course, these are not necessary at such low
> resolutions...
> Besides, the playstation has a very big limitation : it only has 2 MB
> of memory ! This forces games artists to use very crappy textures...
> Do not plug your Playstation in a high quality monitor, you'll surely
> be disappointed... many shadings are made of only a few colors
> interlaced and look like a continuous shading only due to the natural
> blurryness of TV !
>
> The N64 at least suffers less from this due to the use of cartridges.
>
> Olivier Van Cantfort, from Belgium.
>
> << Computers are useless, they only give answers... >>
> Pablo Picasso
all that besides.. wouldnt' you say a 3dfx powered pc has much much more
going for it?? especially in the software department. Software that is
priced right :-) not 80.00 per game.. and expandability (too much to
mention here) longevity, sure we'll upgrade our 3dfx chips next year. and
still run the existing base of software. this whole nintendo stuff feels
like garbage.
Keatah
Kahlil Thomas (SM 1996)
Pedro Colman-Arrellaga (hiss...@concentric.net) wrote:
: On Sat, 17 May 1997 21:24:52 GMT, pa...@c-thru-music.co.uk (Paul D.)
: wrote:
: >>
: >>According to http://www.next-generation.com, NFL Quaterback Club '98
: >>will be the first N64 game to use 640x480 mode, and even that won't be
: >>out until "Q4 '97." Games such as Mario are 256x244 mode.
: >
: >That's impossible! The N64 has a maximum resolution of 256x244!
: >Read the spec.
: You're mistaken. 256x224 is most definitely not the N64's highest
: resolution. Now whether it'll be able to run something in 640x480 at a
: good framerate is what I'd like to know.
If they could run at 640x480 with a good frame rate then why haven't
they done it yet? It does seem a little strange that the first
hi-res title will be football, where there will be 20+ polygonal characters
(including refs) on the screen at any given time. My guess is that
the framerate will be a lot lower than what N64 users are used to.
KVT
John Reynolds
In article <5lg8cu$l8p$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
T Wojcik <te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au> wrote:
% Dennis Strickland (wet...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
% : Not only is it faster than a Nintendo 64, it looks quite better as well.
% : There is no comparison. The 3DFX is the best gaming sensation in awhile.
%
% Um, sorry but I dont think so. I own both and granted the 3Dfx kicks
% major ass but i still doubt I could produce the 'wave' effect in
% WaveRace 64 as easily and smoothly as the N64 can. If anyone can prove
% me wrong here let me know. I am NOT bagging the 3dfx here but someone
% who claims its faster than a N64 is plain wrong
Well, I've just seem Waverace running as a demo in a shop, and I was
rather unimpressed by the wave effect. All it seems to be is some smoothed
polygons. Also note that the waves do not reach the horizon, and cut
out not very far in front of your racer. A similar effect should be trivial
on a 3dfx.
Cheers,
--
John M Reynolds
mailto:john.r...@ccc.ox.ac.uk
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UK
Wedge Antilles
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC639A.7CDCF4A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
More fun with the N64? Umm, yeah, OK. Sorry, but I cannot personally have
fun with the ~10 games that exist, most of which are lackluster. I'll take
a PC any day. The reason the framerates are so high is because the
resolution is a joke, but you can't notice on a TV, which has "built in"
blurring, reducing pixelization. I guarantee you wouldn't be as impressed
viewing an N64 game on a monitor. Nor should the lack of hi-res, large
textures on polygons impress you.
And there's talk about the Black Belt, or Dural, using the dual 3Dfx
chipset... now there's some polys!
--
Jonathan Perry
Wedge Antilles
PSRolf
"You have shown me the ugliness of continued existence"
Hugh, Phantasy Star II
John Shaw <jo...@elecplay.com> wrote in article
<5lm997$o...@spawn.dotcom.bc.ca>...
> I agree. It's difficult to be definative on this issue when comparing the
N64,
> and the PlayStation to an open archetecture such as the PC. Yes, the 3Dfx
is
> faster than the N64's "Reality Immersion" graphics co-processor and yes,
the
> N64 can run at 640x480 resolution. But there are other factors to
consider
> when talking about overall performance. A honkin' ass Pentium II with a
ton of
> RAM, and some sizable cache is going to beat out the N64 in frame rate
and
> overall performance as long as the app is well programmed.
>
> Most PC gamers, do not have this setup though and once you factor in the
cost
> of the hardware to the amount of fun you can have with it then the N64
wins
> hands down.
>
> Nevertheless, for gamers that can afford the hardware, the PC in
conjunction
> with the 3Dfx is going to be the WOW! machine of the year. There will be
more
> choice, better support and more development innovations as a result of
the
> VooDoo. 3Dfx is a major player now.
>
> Think about this. The VooDoo is already in use with a number of Arcade
boards
> (re. Atari's San Francisco Rush Racing) and there is a great amount of
talk
> that Sega's vapourware Black Belt system will incorporate a 3Dfx chipset.
You
> may see the 3Dfx used more across a number of platforms because of the
> inherent ease for developers to "port" games developed for the 3Dfx
(arcade)
> to another system (PC, Blackbelt). It may be as close to a standard as
we've
> seen in gaming for some time.
>
> John Shaw
> Executive Editor
> The Electric Playground
> www.elecplay.com
>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC639A.7CDCF4A0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">More <i>fun </i>with the N64? =
Umm, yeah, OK. Sorry, but I cannot personally have fun with =
the ~10 games that exist, most of which are lackluster. I'll take =
a PC any day. The reason the framerates are so high is because the =
resolution is a joke, but you can't notice on a TV, which has =
"built in" blurring, reducing pixelization. I guarantee =
you wouldn't be as impressed viewing an N64 game on a monitor. Nor =
should the lack of hi-res, large textures on polygons impress you. =
<br><br>And there's talk about the Black Belt, or Dural, using the =
dual 3Dfx chipset... now there's some polys! <br>-- <br>Jonathan =
Perry<br>Wedge Antilles<br>PSRolf<br>"You have shown me the =
ugliness of continued existence"<br>Hugh, Phantasy Star =
II<br><br><br><br>John Shaw <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>jo...@elecplay.com</u><font color=3D"#000000">> =
wrote in article <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>5lm997$o...@spawn.dotcom.bc.ca</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> I agree. It's difficult to be =
definative on this issue when comparing the N64, <br>> and the =
PlayStation to an open archetecture such as the PC. Yes, the 3Dfx is =
<br>> faster than the N64's "Reality Immersion" graphics =
co-processor and yes, the <br>> N64 can run at 640x480 resolution. =
But there are other factors to consider <br>> when talking about =
overall performance. A honkin' ass Pentium II with a ton of <br>> =
RAM, and some sizable cache is going to beat out the N64 in frame rate =
and <br>> overall performance as long as the app is well programmed. =
<br>> <br>> Most PC gamers, do not have this setup though and once =
you factor in the cost <br>> of the hardware to the amount of fun you =
can have with it then the N64 wins <br>> hands down. <br>> =
<br>> Nevertheless, for gamers that can afford the hardware, the PC =
in conjunction <br>> with the 3Dfx is going to be the WOW! machine of =
the year. There will be more <br>> choice, better support and more =
development innovations as a result of the <br>> VooDoo. 3Dfx is a =
major player now.<br>> <br>> Think about this. The VooDoo is =
already in use with a number of Arcade boards <br>> (re. Atari's San =
Francisco Rush Racing) and there is a great amount of talk <br>> that =
Sega's vapourware Black Belt system will incorporate a 3Dfx chipset. You =
<br>> may see the 3Dfx used more across a number of platforms because =
of the <br>> inherent ease for developers to "port" games =
developed for the 3Dfx (arcade) <br>> to another system (PC, =
Blackbelt). It may be as close to a standard as we've <br>> seen in =
gaming for some time. <br>> <br>> John Shaw<br>> Executive =
Editor<br>> The Electric Playground<br>> www.elecplay.com<br>> =
</p>
</font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC639A.7CDCF4A0--
Wally
How dare you even compare the 3dfx to a n64 or playstation. The closest
competitor N64 has on 16 megs per cartridge! Gamers have decried the
pathetic limited textures and looping music in Shadows of the Empire.
You might say " well the N64 DD drive is going to expand the
capacity......" but by how much? , only I believe 1/4 of the capacity of a
regular CD. Games are moving towards the DVD direction. Nintendo is
moving backwards.
N64 will cry once Shadows is ported to the 3dFX
John Shaw
In article <01bc6172$cb482440$ccf4...@ge81.dial.pipex.com>, "Andrew Thilo" <andy....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Listen up People
>
>Now, undoubtably the 3dfx is much faster than the playstation and Saturn
>put together, and easily on a par with the N64, BUT
>
>3dfx card. This is the main reason that machines such as the Playstation
>and N64 will continue to sell for ages.
>
>the sight of GLQuake, POD, MotoRacer etc..
>
>
>Andy
>
Andrew Ariens
On 18 May 1997 21:09:07 GMT, "Wally" <int...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How dare you even compare the 3dfx to a n64 or playstation. The closest
>competitor N64 has on 16 megs per cartridge!
Also note that its megaBITS, which means that each N64 cartridge can
only hold about 4 megabytes.
dave middling
I disagree that there are no games. I play most of my games on 3dfx now.
POD, Formula 1, moto racer, MDK, mechwarior 2.
With the mix of D3D (they are quick), openGL and glide games, you have the
best mix of accelerated games available.
Oh, hyperblade DOES work, as I have it, have had it ages, and played it in
D3D, just a shame it's so crap.
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> wrote in article <5lkvkh$8nt$3...@orb.direct.ca>...
Griff
Owning both, I seriously doubt that N64 owners will be crying
when "Shadows" gets ported, as it definitely does not get any merits
for being a brilliant 'showcase' game or a triumph for the n64.
For me, it's gotta be Turok that impressed me the most,
incredible game! And as much as I hate kiddie stuff, Mario was
a blast. And Doom64 was a killer, all new levels, great control,
fantastic atmosphere, basically looks like what Doom would've been
had they ported it to the FX. And I would dare to compare,
Wave Racer blew me away, astounding graphics. Moto Racer for the
FX lasted about an hour on my harddrive, didn't do a thing for me
after Wave Racer. But this bickering is pointless, they are both
great platforms and I do prefer the PC but have gotten ALOT of
fun outta the 64.
Later,
Griff
On 18 May 1997 21:09:07 GMT, "Wally" <int...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How dare you even compare the 3dfx to a n64 or playstation. The closest
Paul Campbell
Andrew Ariens wrote:
>
> On 18 May 1997 21:09:07 GMT, "Wally" <int...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How dare you even compare the 3dfx to a n64 or playstation. The closest
> >competitor N64 has on 16 megs per cartridge!
>
> only hold about 4 megabytes.
Shouldnt that be 2mb ? (8mBits == 1mbyte)
Dave Glue
Jeff Atwood <jat...@a.crl.com> wrote in article
<5ldu7b$ptg$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>...
> 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
> faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
> 3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of
pixels,
> at a higher frame rate.
>
I know you're one for overblown statements Jeff, but come on! No way is it
10 times faster than an N64- I wouldn't even say 4 times. I'd say perhaps
2-3. Some 3DFX games slow down as well. The 3DFX is obviously superior,
but most N64 games are also using more effects at that low resolution than
3DFX games.
Dave Glue
Paul D. <pa...@c-thru-music.co.uk> wrote in article
<337e21ec...@news.powernet.co.uk>...
> That's impossible! The N64 has a maximum resolution of 256x244!
> Read the spec.
No, it doesn't. In fact it's maximum resolution is even above 640*480.
Most games use 256*224 (I believe it's 224, not 244- someone correct me if
they're sure) due to memory constraints and frame rate, that's all.
Dave Glue
Todd Lehrfeld <lehr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc60e5$26132f20$89e3...@801135122.worldnet.att.net>...
> > 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
> > games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
> >
>
> Probably around 50-100% faster.
In what, though- fill rate, or sustained polygon rate? Before we make
these comparisons, I think it would be wise to wait and see something like
VF2 or Sega Rally moving at 60fps on a PC screen - so far, no 3D
accelerated game has really come close to either.
Dave Gibbons
I thought the N64's limit was 96Mbits (12MB), but I understand that
it is now 128Mbits
This is the by far the biggest flaw in the N64. The arrogance of N in
not putting a CD on the machine beggars belief.
My cousin swapped his PSX+6 games for a N64 (+payed an extra 25 UKP)
without a game. Moron.
Dave
da...@flavious.prestel.co.uk
Joe
"dave middling" <midd...@webfactory.co.uk> wrote:
>I disagree that there are no games. I play most of my games on 3dfx now.
>POD, Formula 1, moto racer, MDK, mechwarior 2.
>With the mix of D3D (they are quick), openGL and glide games, you have the
>best mix of accelerated games available.
>Oh, hyperblade DOES work, as I have it, have had it ages, and played it in
>D3D, just a shame it's so crap.
There are some, but it's true the 3d support has been slow coming. For
example no serious racing-sim yet supports the 3dfx. Even for recently
released games (Xvt, I76, Flying Corps) the 3d patches are all in the
future, not available yet.
Joe
"Dave Glue" <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Maybe, maybe not- the fact is you have a very constrained world as well
>(the field), and most of those character will be quite small in relation to
>the 3-4 that will be blown up- and most large views are impractical for
>gaming purposes, so the amount of polygons it's drawing will be fairly low.
> However, the game looks _fantastic_ - look at the screen shots on NG. I
>hope a 3D-accelerated PC football game looks that good in the future.
Haven't heard about football, but Powerplay98 is supposed to be 3d
accelerated.
Joe
"Dave Glue" <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In what, though- fill rate, or sustained polygon rate? Before we make
>these comparisons, I think it would be wise to wait and see something like
>VF2 or Sega Rally moving at 60fps on a PC screen - so far, no 3D
>accelerated game has really come close to either.
Just curious if you have seen Moto Racer on a 3df? IMO it is arcade
quality, similar to Daytona USA (never play Sega rally so I can't
compare to that).
Joe
da...@flavious.prestel.co.uk (Dave Gibbons) wrote:
>This is the by far the biggest flaw in the N64. The arrogance of N in
>not putting a CD on the machine beggars belief.
i remember when it was first coming out, even before the PSX really
took off, there were all these morons on the 3DO ng defending the
decision, trying to argue that you didn't need a CD for a large game.
Riiiiiiiiiiiigggghht.
Dave Glue
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> wrote in article <5lq9f6$m67$9...@aphex.direct.ca>...
> "Dave Glue" <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> >In what, though- fill rate, or sustained polygon rate? Before we make
> >these comparisons, I think it would be wise to wait and see something
like
> >VF2 or Sega Rally moving at 60fps on a PC screen - so far, no 3D
> >accelerated game has really come close to either.
>
> Just curious if you have seen Moto Racer on a 3df? IMO it is arcade
> quality, similar to Daytona USA (never play Sega rally so I can't
> compare to that).
IMO, it's laughable to compare the two. Comparing Moto Racer to Daytona is
like comparing Pac-Man to Quake. I've played the demo on my Verite- while
the frame rate is good (and likely better on a 3DFX), the graphics are
hardly comparable. I can't understand the hype this very mediocre title is
getting for the life of me.
Simon Juncal
Whats the use of a max resolution of 640x480 when 1) they don't use it
and 2) TV's resolution is 400x300?
--
(Remove the ^ from my address when replying)
____________________________________________
) Simon )
( Midzilla Music & sound (
) Mailto:s^jun...@erols.com )
( http://users.aol.com/sjuncal/theax.html (
)___________________________________________)
Randall Flagg
On Fri, 16 May 97 15:43:13 GMT, Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk (Mark Green)
wrote:
>In article <8636331...@dejanews.com> r...@auracom.com writes:
>> Is the 3dfx board faster than the playstation for graffics and frame rate?
>
> In terms of hardware statistics, yes, but in actual fact, no, it's 200%
>slower, because:
>
>- Half the time, the game programmers can't be bothered to support it (in
> which case it runs at an incredibly efficient 0% acceleration)
>- If they can, they insist on using a hairy MS/D3D architecture which slows
> the system down by swapping about twice as much as the acceleration speeds
> it up
>
>Mg
>(forgive me on this, but I'm hacked off with 3dFx. I bought one a while
>back, and have found THREE games that run on it: Descent 2, Tomb Raider and
>GlQuake. HyperBlade *allegedly* runs, but doesn't: it bombs during loading.
>I wrote to WizBang about this; they put me off for two weeks ("we'll ask
>about it at the Meltdown conference"), gave me a 'solution' that didn't work,
>then clammed up. Everything else either needs a patch (which is usually
>neatly placed only on a WWW (not an FTP) site, just to make it nice and
>slow, and as an additional twist in the case of MDK is placed on the site
>in a location where you can't see it), which is usually in Beta, or messes
>up everything else in the game....)
>--
>
Jeez buddy, do you ever post anything that's NOT a whiny, bitching
complaint?
Grow up.
What a loser.
Dave Glue
Kahlil Thomas (SM 1996) <kah...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote in article
<5lm1d0$s...@news.ycc.yale.edu>...
> If they could run at 640x480 with a good frame rate then why haven't
> they done it yet? It does seem a little strange that the first
> hi-res title will be football, where there will be 20+ polygonal
characters
> (including refs) on the screen at any given time. My guess is that
> the framerate will be a lot lower than what N64 users are used to.
Maybe, maybe not- the fact is you have a very constrained world as well
ccorpora
ANONYMOUS:
> > If they could run at 640x480 with a good frame rate then why haven't
> > they done it yet? It does seem a little strange that the first
> > hi-res title will be football, where there will be 20+ polygonal
> characters
> > (including refs) on the screen at any given time. My guess is that
> > the framerate will be a lot lower than what N64 users are used to.
DAVE G:
> Maybe, maybe not- the fact is you have a very constrained world as well
> (the field), and most of those character will be quite small in relation to
> the 3-4 that will be blown up- and most large views are impractical for
> gaming purposes, so the amount of polygons it's drawing will be fairly low.
> However, the game looks _fantastic_ - look at the screen shots on NG. I
> hope a 3D-accelerated PC football game looks that good in the future.
R:
I'm still betting against those pics. In fact I'll take wagers on it. The TV
simply can't make images that clear let alone hardware specs.
It's just like all those rendered pictures the PSX sports titels had for a
year before relase. When they came out they were shells of what they were
previed as. A TV can't do it, that is clear jersey numbers as shown in those
pics. I predict those were the pc images as that game is being developed for
pc accelerators as well.
Q.B.M.
Dave Glue
Wally <int...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<01bc63d7$c2d52bc0$2f856fce@default>...
> N64 will cry once Shadows is ported to the 3dFX
3DFX owners will weep if that dog title is converted without any
enhancements. Graphics are secondary, it's a poor game and I'll hardly be
holding my breath for it.
Dave Glue
Zarkof <Zar...@ccim.be> wrote in article
<5lqslg$bv6$1...@pluto.interpac.be>...
> ehm sure but let's see glquake... no arcade game has been seen close to
> such a 3d engine level
> running at 45fps on my p225+3dfx (in 640x480x16) and note that the opengl
> drivers for glquake are
> just a redirection.. not even optimized..
You're joking, right? GLQuake is more impressive than VF3? Scud Racer?
No need to insult Model3 hardware by mentioning GLQuake.
Regardless, it's a poor comparison- that type of game is rarely, if ever
seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D accelerated
racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the Model2,
and so I'll wait to see games of similar graphic quality before declaring
the 3DFX is at least equal to it. What I've seen so far doesn't indicate
that's the case - whether its API overhead or the Pentium's poor FP
performance is irrelevant, people here are talking about Voodoo-equipped
PC's and we have to accept all the disadvantages that come with the entire
architecture. Even so if we are to compare _arcade_ Voodoo configurations;
while San Fransico Rush looks good, it's obviously far slower than Sega
Rally or even Daytona.
> And if we don't see games such as VF2 or sega rally running pretty well
on
> pcs it's juste coz PCs require a constant compatibility with previous
> computers... Most games are still 486-code!.. when you watch a game on a
> console.. you can be sure they use mostly 100% of the hardware...which
> isn't the case at all on PCs..
Please! Most games are 486 code? Not true - most games these days require
a Pentium to run well, and your beloved Quake is one such game that was
optimized for the Pentium's pipeline. To believe it's because games are
designed for 486 code (a complete fallacy) is the reason we're not seeing
VF2 on PC's now is _really_ stretching it. Pentium optimization gives you
what..20-20% more CPU speed? That translate into say, 5% extra FPS from a
3D accelerator?
> the processor included in the N64 is a 100MIPS processor
(source=nintendo)
> a pentium 60Mhz is round 100MIPS..(source=wintune97)
> a p200 is likely 400MIPS..(source=wintune97)
You can't be serious comparing MIPS. MIPS is a completely irrelevatn
benchmark, it's meaningless. And what does the N64 have to do with this?
You won't see me arguing that a 3DFX is more powerfull than an N64, I
believe it is. This is about Model2 vs 3DFX.
> quake is running at 14fps on a p200+et6000 in 640x480 (own computer)
> glquake is running at 40fps on a p200+3dfx in 640x480 (in 65536 colors
with
> all needed effects) (own computer)
> so imagine that the fpu of a p200 is running faster than the one in the
N64
> and check the difference with the 3dfx
> (quake using mostly the fpu)
Etc, etc...again, what's your point? We're discussing Model2 vs. 3DFX, not
Nintendo 64. I don't know why you're bringing this up.
Jeff Atwood
10 times faster, 4 times faster, what's the difference? It's a hell of a
lot faster. What do you expect when the 3D accelerator itself costs as much
as the entire N64 with controller?
Jeff
Dave Glue wrote in article <01bc647d$a20a39c0$dc98d4c7@Pdaveacg>...
Jaster
In article <01bc6491$fa7c0ac0$dc98d4c7@Pdaveacg>,
crappy verite can do it though.. can it? you should really check that out.
that is what make that game...
Eric
_____
| ____| _
| |__ _ __|_| ___
| __>| '__>_ / __>
| |___| | | | <__
|_____|_| |_|\___>
ccorpora
Dave G:
> Regardless, it's a poor comparison- that type of game is rarely, if ever
> seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D accelerated
> racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
> smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the Model2,
> and so I'll wait to see games of similar graphic quality before declaring
> the 3DFX is at least equal to it.
R:
Your telling me that Sega Rally is smoother than smooth. As ICR 2 is as smooth
as it can get. It also looks pretty darn well to. Plus it's a tad more worthy
of braincell time. Also POD-Whiplash-MotoRacer are all honorable mentions,
just a tad under Rally in terms of graphic/performance ratio. Pod stinks in
the gameplay dept. though.
Q.B.M.
Tiitus Tamminen
Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
:seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D accelerated
:racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
:smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the Model2,
POD anyone? Seems to run at maybe 50-60 fps on my P133/3dfx, and the
graphics seem rather detailed (no pop up either, like in Moto Racer).
And if we are going to nitpick, the Sega Model2 hardware doesn't handle
transparency effects correctly. Check for example the car windows and
the water pools, why do they look like chessboards?
Then again, I agree _most_ 3D accelerated games are not in the same
league, and none in the same league with Virtua Fighter 3 and Scud Race.
Jim Lacey
Kahlil Thomas (SM 1996) wrote:
>
> Pedro Colman-Arrellaga (hiss...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : On Sat, 17 May 1997 21:24:52 GMT, pa...@c-thru-music.co.uk (Paul D.)
> : wrote:
>
> : >>
> : >>According to http://www.next-generation.com, NFL Quaterback Club '98
> : >>will be the first N64 game to use 640x480 mode, and even that won't be
> : >>out until "Q4 '97." Games such as Mario are 256x244 mode.
> : >
> : >That's impossible! The N64 has a maximum resolution of 256x244!
> : >Read the spec.
>
> : You're mistaken. 256x224 is most definitely not the N64's highest
> : resolution. Now whether it'll be able to run something in 640x480 at a
> : good framerate is what I'd like to know.
>
> If they could run at 640x480 with a good frame rate then why haven't
> they done it yet? It does seem a little strange that the first
> hi-res title will be football, where there will be 20+ polygonal characters
> (including refs) on the screen at any given time. My guess is that
> the framerate will be a lot lower than what N64 users are used to.
>
First of all I would like to say that the 3dFX kicks the N64's ass
allover the place - all you have to do is look at it slowing down to
less than 20 fps on pilot wings and the very limited drawing distance in
turok although nicley fogged out.
However it is capable of displaying 640 x 400 something but it will only
be able to do this when the N64DD addon is available as the cartridges
have not got enough memory on them to allow a game to use 640x400 +
graphics.
Also the display on a TV gives a much better display for games as it
slightly blurs the picture giving a sensation of higher resolution.
I also believe that the higher res modes need a high definintion TV but
i am not sure if that was for a suposed 1280 x 1024 on the upcoming M2.
I would still love to have an N64 to plonk in front of the TV though
just to have the no hassles ease of coming in with a few mates after a
night out and switching on to a game without having to worry if in your
present state you bugger up w95 or not.
Jim
Jim Lacey
Jeremy Riley wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 May 1997 13:35:33 GMT, n...@netcomuk.co.uk# (Lee Chisnall)
> wrote:
>
> >On 15 May 1997 04:05:40 GMT, "Todd Lehrfeld"
> ><lehr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2 arcade
> >>> games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
> >>>
> >>
> >>Probably around 50-100% faster.
> >>
> >
> >What exactly is a Sega Model 3?
> >________________________________________________________
> >Please remove the last # in my address to reply by email
> >n...@netcomuk.co.uk
>
> It is the board that Sega uses to power Virtua Fighter 3. Which looks
> gobsmackingly good, and plays like a bucket.
>
> Jeremy Riley
> Computer Games World
> C...@netspeed.com.au
> http://www.netspeed.com.au/cgw
Also the one that powers Scud Race WOW!
VF3 fighters also have jointed fingers, wobling guts, flowing clothes,
and the faces have changing expressions as they play. The amount of
polygons in the faces of VF3 are about the same as the amount of
polygons in the whole fighter on VF2. This should give you some idea of
how pwerful the model 3 board is. Oh yeah and everything is Tri-Linear
filtered as well.
Jim
Zarkof
Dave Glue a écrit dans l'article <01bc64cd$ff589540$dc98d4c7@Pdaveacg>...
>
>
>Zarkof <Zar...@ccim.be> wrote in article
><5lqslg$bv6$1...@pluto.interpac.be>...
>
>
>> ehm sure but let's see glquake... no arcade game has been seen close to
>> such a 3d engine level
>> running at 45fps on my p225+3dfx (in 640x480x16) and note that the
opengl
>> drivers for glquake are
>> just a redirection.. not even optimized..
>
>You're joking, right? GLQuake is more impressive than VF3? Scud Racer?
>No need to insult Model3 hardware by mentioning GLQuake.
>
I don't insult model3 hardware and note we were talking about model2..
But I just mention the fact no games at the level of glquake has been seen
in arcade (in its style of game)..
Joe
ejfi...@infoave.net (Jaster) wrote:
> Because, you probably haven't set it to FILTERED. I'm not sure if the
>crappy verite can do it though.. can it? you should really check that out.
>that is what make that game...
>Eric
Good point. The "filtered" option makes the graphics look a hundred
times better - with just as much speed.
Andreas
On 16 May 1997 03:11:55 GMT, ejfi...@infoave.net (Jaster) wrote:
>In article <5lg8cu$l8p$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au (T Wojcik) wrote:
>>Um, sorry but I dont think so. I own both and granted the 3Dfx kicks
>>major ass but i still doubt I could produce the 'wave' effect in
>>WaveRace 64 as easily and smoothly as the N64 can. If anyone can prove
>>me wrong here let me know. I am NOT bagging the 3dfx here but someone
>>who claims its faster than a N64 is plain wrong
>>
>
>huh... you have got to be kidding me...
>
>640x480 30+ FPS 16 bit color average
>
> VS
>
>200 something by 300 something at 20 FPS maybe with 256 colors
>
Only *256* colors? i doubt it... the N64 ought to be running 16-bit as
well. But you are right, a good Pentium with 3dfx outperforms a N64.
/A.
Steven Chiesa
If you ask me, portability is not something I care much for. Most 3dfx
games that are enhanced can be played multiplayer over modem, network,
internet etc....
The only downside to multiplayer using these methods is the lack of
voice support. I find it much more gratifying to have the person hear
me gloat rather than waiting for me to type it.
I think the N64 might just be a passing fad. Until Nintendo realizes
that CD gaming is the way to go they will not be able to compete with
game systems that allow immense size and quality. I care about
graphics, but they don't make or break a good game.
Right now a person's best bet would be to stick with the computer and
the 3dfx (at least IMO). While these can become obsolete quickly, they
serve their purpose for more than just games. I get twice as much use
at of my computer than all of my consol systems combined (and I have 4).
They are really good when you don't want to get involved in the game
because when you get bored you just hit the power switch.
These are just my opinions from my own observations.
Jeff Atwood
Yep, we pack up our whole PCs and play 8+ player network games. Or I could
play a nice game of POD over the Internet against a couple folks. Consoles
are simple, but remember that's a liability, too.
Jeff
ICC wrote in article <01bc658d$cd00b120$444188d0@amiga>...
>3dfx is a good chip set - good graphics but when it comes to portability
>and games, I'll go with the N64. Portability - Try packing up your
>computer or pull the 3dfx card out of your system and put it in your
>friends sure take a lot of time and frustration. N64, you just pack what
-
>controller, CPU, game, video cable and power supply. Games - So far
games
>for N64 looks and play better than any other system I saw. Try 1st party
>games like Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and Wave Race 64. On 3dfx, the only
>games that look nice so far is Tomb Raider.
>
>Pan
>
>Dave Glue <dav...@interlog.com> wrote in article
Jeff Atwood
>>Dave Glue wrote:
>>
>> You're joking, right? GLQuake is more impressive than VF3? Scud
Racer?
>> No need to insult Model3 hardware by mentioning GLQuake.
>>
Yes, comparing a $150 3D card to a $10,000 arcade game may be a tad unfair.
Duh. None of the arcades around here have any model 3 games, they are just
too expensive for arcade owners to justify.
>> Regardless, it's a poor comparison- that type of game is rarely, if
ever
>> seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D
accelerated
>> racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
>> smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the
Model2,
>> and so I'll wait to see games of similar graphic quality before
declaring
>> the 3DFX is at least equal to it. What I've seen so far doesn't
indicate
>> that's the case - whether its API overhead or the Pentium's poor FP
>> performance is irrelevant, people here are talking about Voodoo-equipped
>> PC's and we have to accept all the disadvantages that come with the
entire
>> architecture.
According to Next-Gen, the PC port of VF2 is arcade-perfect. You're awfully
pessimistic, considering the Model 2 board came out in 1993 (!). That's
four years of time for the PC to catch up.
>> Even so if we are to compare _arcade_ Voodoo configurations;
>> while San Fransico Rush looks good, it's obviously far slower than Sega
>> Rally or even Daytona.
It is definitely *not* slower than either of those games. SF Rush has a
heck of a lot more detail. My friend who used to WORK at the arcade and
played Daytona practically every day (one of his favorites, along with VF2,
which he is very good at) says SF Rush is graphically superior to those
Model 2 games.
Plus, SF Rush is a frickin' RIOT. I don't think anyone can play SF Rush and
*not* enjoy themselves. The gameplay is superb. Far more realistic and fun
than Daytona. Heck, that new Model 3 racer is just a "pretty" Daytona! Same
game, just looks a lot better.
Plus arcades can actually afford to buy SF Rush in the first place...
>> Please! Most games are 486 code? Not true - most games these days
require
>> a Pentium to run well, and your beloved Quake is one such game that was
>> optimized for the Pentium's pipeline. To believe it's because games
are
>> designed for 486 code (a complete fallacy) is the reason we're not
seeing
>> VF2 on PC's now is _really_ stretching it. Pentium optimization gives
you
>> what..20-20% more CPU speed? That translate into say, 5% extra FPS from
a
>> 3D accelerator?
>>
Depends where the bottleneck is-- if you're running into fill rate limits,
then the 3D accelerator is the bottleneck. Otherwise it is the CPU. Quake
at 512x384 is CPU bound, for example, while Quake at 640x480 is fill-rate
bound. Until geometry is moved to the 3D card (something I personally don't
think will happen), CPU *definitely* matters. Ask all those poor K6 owners
who play Quake!
>> > the processor included in the N64 is a 100MIPS processor
>> (source=nintendo)
>> > a pentium 60Mhz is round 100MIPS..(source=wintune97)
>> > a p200 is likely 400MIPS..(source=wintune97)
>>
>> You can't be serious comparing MIPS. MIPS is a completely irrelevatn
>> benchmark, it's meaningless. And what does the N64 have to do with
this?
>> You won't see me arguing that a 3DFX is more powerfull than an N64, I
>> believe it is. This is about Model2 vs 3DFX.
>>
Actually the N64's processor is about equivalent to a P60 or P66 in
specInt95 and specFp95. I have old archived email with web site references
to spec for both processors if you want it... it's a fact!
Jeff
Zarkof
Dave Glue a écrit dans l'article <01bc647e$506feaa0$dc98d4c7@Pdaveacg>...
>
>
>Todd Lehrfeld <lehr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><01bc60e5$26132f20$89e3...@801135122.worldnet.att.net>...
>> > 3dfx is by my reckoning about the same speed as the Sega Model 2
arcade
>> > games (Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop 1&2, etc).
>> >
>>
>> Probably around 50-100% faster.
>
>In what, though- fill rate, or sustained polygon rate? Before we make
>these comparisons, I think it would be wise to wait and see something
like
>VF2 or Sega Rally moving at 60fps on a PC screen - so far, no 3D
>accelerated game has really come close to either.
>
>
>
ehm sure but let's see glquake... no arcade game has been seen close to
such a 3d engine level
running at 45fps on my p225+3dfx (in 640x480x16) and note that the opengl
drivers for glquake are
just a redirection.. not even optimized..
And if we don't see games such as VF2 or sega rally running pretty well on
pcs it's juste coz PCs require a constant compatibility with previous
computers... Most games are still 486-code!.. when you watch a game on a
console.. you can be sure they use mostly 100% of the hardware...which
isn't the case at all on PCs..
the processor included in the N64 is a 100MIPS processor (source=nintendo)
a pentium 60Mhz is round 100MIPS..(source=wintune97)
a p200 is likely 400MIPS..(source=wintune97)
the video unit in the N64 has a 100 MFLOPS power..(soucre=nintendo)
a p166 coprocessor is just doing this job! (source=wintune97)
as I was unable to find the MFLOPS power of the 3dfx I'll just make
comparaisons..
quake is running at 14fps on a p200+et6000 in 640x480 (own computer)
glquake is running at 40fps on a p200+3dfx in 640x480 (in 65536 colors with
all needed effects) (own computer)
so imagine that the fpu of a p200 is running faster than the one in the N64
and check the difference with the 3dfx
(quake using mostly the fpu)
Psx developpers had the advantage to develop on 1 processor with no
compatibility problem..
That's one of the factor slowing down the PCs...
Tiitus Tamminen
T Wojcik <te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au> wrote:
:Um, sorry but I dont think so. I own both and granted the 3Dfx kicks
:major ass but i still doubt I could produce the 'wave' effect in
:WaveRace 64 as easily and smoothly as the N64 can. If anyone can prove
:me wrong here let me know.
This is something I can't understand. Having seen and played several
N64 games, I really can't understand where all these questions of
whether 3DFX could do the same come from.
For one thing, I'm yet to see even one N64 game that runs truly smoothly.
Mario64 (PAL) seems to run at something like 15-20 fps, and this was
in 256x224 (or 320x240, don't recall which resolution this title uses).
The NTSC version is apparently a bit faster, because of the higher
refresh rate of NTSC televisions.
Another game, Waverace64 (PAL) seemed to run at 15 fps all the time.
I have also played the Japanese version of this, and it was only
slightly faster. Somehow this failed to impress me, in fact I was
very surprised by this after all the praise this title has got for
its "great looking and fluid graphics".
Not to mention PilotWings64 and the indoor sections of SOTE, which were
appaling speedwise as well (around 15 fps I'd say).
Maybe this will improve in the future, but for now, unlike with e.g.
Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn or a P133 with a 3dfx card, I haven't seen
a single N64 game that runs at 30 fps most of the time, let alone 60 fps.
As for the quality of graphics, well, if I hadn't got a 3dfx card, I would
think the N64 graphics in e.g. Mario64 and Waverace64 are very impressive.
But as it is, they are ho-hum for me.
For instance, in Mario64, they seem to use textures very sparingly. It seems
most of the objects (including Mario himself) are not texture mapped at all!
As another example, the trees have the same "blocky edges" that made
so many 3dfx owners flip when they saw the same in the initial version of
3dfx Descent 2 (the explosions and pick ups).
As for Waverace64, graphically it seemed to me about the same as
Moto Racer on 3dfx, except that it was running in low res, and running
in a MUCH lower speed as well. And I don't understand why somebody
thinks 3dfx cards couldn't handle the "water effects", since they are
nothing more but transparent polygons, and 3dfx cards handle transparency
effects great.
Am I missing something? Where is the N64 title that really shows its
"3dfx-beating" potential? So far everything I've seen on it were like
3dfx games running in a lower resolution and at a lower speed.
:I am NOT bagging the 3dfx here but someone
:who claims its faster than a N64 is plain wrong
I recall one bloke from the team that is porting SF Rush coin op to
both N64 and 3dfx-PCs said that on N64, they both have to cut down
the number of polygons (to keep the frame rate up) and the amount
of textures (because of the limited texture size), while the PC version
will be much closer to the coin op (apparently they have to reduce
the number of textures on the 3dfx cards as well, because the coin op
has 4MB texture RAM, I recall).
The fact that the N64 version apparently will have less polygons than
the 3dfx-PC version implies that the N64 system is indeed slower
than a 3dfx/Pentium system. Well, in fact the bloke bluntly said that
a 3dfx/Pentium system is definitely more powerful than the N64.
Yes, I know the N64 only costs $149, but we weren't talking about the
price here, were we? ;^)
ICC
Ralph Schwarten
ccorpora wrote:
>
> ANONYMOUS:
>
> > > If they could run at 640x480 with a good frame rate then why haven't
> > > they done it yet? It does seem a little strange that the first
> > > hi-res title will be football, where there will be 20+ polygonal
> > characters
> > > (including refs) on the screen at any given time. My guess is that
> > > the framerate will be a lot lower than what N64 users are used to.
>
>
> > Maybe, maybe not- the fact is you have a very constrained world as well
> > (the field), and most of those character will be quite small in relation to
> > the 3-4 that will be blown up- and most large views are impractical for
> > gaming purposes, so the amount of polygons it's drawing will be fairly low.
> > However, the game looks _fantastic_ - look at the screen shots on NG. I
> > hope a 3D-accelerated PC football game looks that good in the future.
>
> R:
>
> I'm still betting against those pics. In fact I'll take wagers on it. The TV
> simply can't make images that clear let alone hardware specs.
>
> It's just like all those rendered pictures the PSX sports titels had for a
> year before relase. When they came out they were shells of what they were
> previed as. A TV can't do it, that is clear jersey numbers as shown in those
> pics. I predict those were the pc images as that game is being developed for
> pc accelerators as well.
>
> Q.B.M.
Don't think a tv would be that clear ???? Have you seen the M2 IMSA
Racing screenshots on the Next gen site ?
ccorpora
QBM:
> > I'm still betting against those pics. In fact I'll take wagers on it. The
TV
> > simply can't make images that clear let alone hardware specs.
> >
> > It's just like all those rendered pictures the PSX sports titels had for a
> > year before relase. When they came out they were shells of what they were
> > previed as. A TV can't do it, that is clear jersey numbers as shown in
those
> > pics. I predict those were the pc images as that game is being developed
for
> > pc accelerators as well.
RALPH:
> Don't think a tv would be that clear ???? Have you seen the M2 IMSA
> Racing screenshots on the Next gen site ?
R:
Pictures at a web site mean zero. Again what is M2 IMSA actually being
previewed on. The M2's spec goes way beyind a TV, it's probably off a monitor
if they look ultra clear.
Again look at those pictures of the football game. How can one expect to see
this clarity on the tube? It's imposible.
Everyday it's repeat repeat repeat. By now we should be able to look at a
screen shot (especially console based TV units) and be able to tell if this is
really possible. I'm down right certain those pics at NG are not gonna be what
you get on your N64 on your TV. They are simply models that were rendered on
another system. Probably a 3dfx system. :)
Can anyone remeber when the PSX and Saturn came out they showed screenshot
after screenshot of these ultra clear images. What we found out later was
these were models off a SGI system. They then took these models and converted
them to the console. They forgot to tell us this and led us to believe these
were the actual pics of the console.
The TV is very limited. HDTV is needed for these consoles to go the next step.
Until then they're gonna be cheap second fiddles.
On the PC side there is a game called Forsaken. These pictures look
unbelievable. Now I say this becuase of the trasparent coloring schemes. I'm
not doubting the monitor. So it's very possible it could be true and will most
certainly be doable a year from now on more advanced 3d boards. But with this
game it's more difficult to really determine if it's real or fake again
because the monitor is capable of doing it. If this was based off a tv set I
would know that that screen is impossible ala those footbal pics.
Q.B.M.
ccorpora
RALPH:
> Don't think a tv would be that clear ???? Have you seen the M2 IMSA
> Racing screenshots on the Next gen site ?
R:
One thing I overlooked as well we were talking PSX and N64. Now your bringing
in the M2 which has even higher specs. than the others. But not on a TV are
those clear images from. Yeah I relooked at the stills a NG and I wasn't
impressed, they were quite poor in quality.
Q.B.M.
ccorpora
In Article<338259...@eas.gu.edu.au>, <R.Sch...@eas.gu.edu.au> writes:
> ICR2 Still has that PC "SIM" look though. i.e. Low polygon count, very
> simple textures etc.
R:
Ah I don't know if I'll swallow that, I'm talking accelerated version. I'll
buy that the control of the car is very touchy. That's why I go Nascar 2, but
until Rendition makes the AA patch for N2, I won't give it the seal of
graphical approval. :)
I can sit here and bash Daytona gameplay till the cows come home. And what
resemblence of the actual Daytona track does it have? Definately not the
cliffs. :) the shame here is Papy can't make a actual Daytona track because
Sega has the rights to a track they never even use. Now that's dumb.
Q.B.M.
ccorpora
> 3dfx is a good chip set - good graphics but when it comes to portability
> and games, I'll go with the N64. Portability - Try packing up your
> computer or pull the 3dfx card out of your system and put it in your
> friends sure take a lot of time and frustration. N64, you just pack what -
> controller, CPU, game, video cable and power supply. Games - So far games
> for N64 looks and play better than any other system I saw. Try 1st party
> games like Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and Wave Race 64. On 3dfx, the only
> games that look nice so far is Tomb Raider.
>
> Pan
R:
Were way past you.
Try this out.
We have a few hubs (I'll call it for lack of better wording) at different
locals (friends).
What does that mean?
At each local we have always in place a network, a monitor, a keyboard and a
mouse. All the buddies need to do is bring a pc with them (joystick or
steering wheel also) and plug in and go. Now that's just as easy as moving a
console and then you get superior network gaming.
The cabling, keyboard and mice are really a no cost factor. The monitors are
but at the same time this initial investment pays for itself in ease of use.
Try Toshiba's 20" multimedia monitors for $399 in this type of enviroment.
Once you have a few 4 to 8 network hubs setup around town you can just pop in
and out of different places and get the best gaming available to man.
Were always looking for more people and more places to setup these hubs. There
are a ton of people out there it's just getting the message spread.
Now if you or anybody else don't do this, chances not. Don't think it's a pipe
dream. You just need to promote your scheme and find others with your
interest. People who enjoy computer gaming are more than happy to enjoy
computer network gaming. As you bring more and more people into this network
enviroment they get excited and then you sell the idea to them. As this
spreads you'll start setting of hubs at friends houses in which their
wives/girlfriends will allow. :) Don't think you can't do this because really
it's an easy sell. This experience goes beyind internet gaming as well in all
ways except national rankings.
What great 3d games work in this enviroment.
Nascar 2
Quake
Descent 2
Whiplash
soon Motoracer... You can play all the above for a long long time.
Q.B.M.
ccorpora
While I'm at it.
If your not a Nascar 2 fan, forget about all the experiences you've had
before.
I would like to announce an add-on for Nascar 2 which uses the arcade mode
that adjusts the AI to be very challanging. This add-on also comes with car
setups for great control of the car.
A lot of arcade racers I've found don't like Nascar 2 becuase of the time
needed to hone a somewhat touchy car. I understand these people clearly.
That's why I have done this, for you guys.
The plus side to Nascar 2 over many and most arcade racers is the physics and
feel of actually driving a car. Most arcade games give you leaniancies for
mess ups and unreal control to do impossible things. Nascar 2 with the add-on
simply gives your car more traction to keep yourself on the track and in the
thick of things without sacrificing the feel of racing a car for real.
I've also done some other things with the AI to make the racing bumper to
bumper.
If you tried Nascar 2 before and were disapointed mainly because of control
then you owe it to yourself to try it again with this add-on. That is if you
like good racing games. As a racing game it's pretty hard to beat.
I'll send it to you buy request.
Here's an incerpt from the readme file:
Why this program?
-----------------
I have been racing Nascar 2 in a network environment regularly since it's
release. I've raced side by side with well over 50 drivers now. Our skill
levels rank from beginner to very good. Now with this add-on there are
benefits for all drivers of all skill levels.
Some of the things I found annoying with stock Nascar 2 in realistic mode:
1. Over aggressive behavior of AI drivers. Either they pull you up high or
cut you down low a bit to often. I've have severely tamed their aggression but
at the same time left a handful of drivers that are a bit temperamental.
Earnhart for example.
2. The pack as a whole varied to much from first to last in terms of racing
speeds. This hurt all racers. I found that a nice balanced race started with
all the cars running near the same speeds. It was very difficult to deal with
back pack traffic when you came up on them so strong, which is most evident in
the corners. To make the back pack competitive you simply didn't have a chance
against the front racers then. So simply adjusting all the skill ratings of
all the drivers closer to one another made a much more controllable and
enjoyable race.
3. In realistic mode I felt the "Line" was to much a make or break situation
in Nascar 2. In many tracks you are severely penalized for not hitting a small
groove. Only the best drivers can hit the groove all the time and no driver
can always hit the groove when another racer takes it from you. At that point
on several tracks the car becomes to unstable for safe driving, braking in
many cases is a possibility but requires one to step heavily into it. By
watching Nascar races myself, those cars always seem stable and smooth for the
most part, you don't see heavy braking on ovals as a standard way of driving.
When racing in Nascar 2 under realistic conditions it is a way of life for the
majority, if not all of us. By jumping to Arcade mode however this makes the
car much more controllable and opens up a wider line to drive. With this wider
line there still is "the best" line to drive, which is now what your fighting
for just like in realistic mode. However if you can't hit it for whatever
reason you can still manage to control the car around a particular turn in
almost all cases. Again this seems more realistic to me as I watch races on
the tube.
4. Is the braking and there is nothing I can do for it. But it seems there is
to much of a penalty for using the brake even if you use it ever so slightly.
Hey nothing is perfect.
Benefits of driving under this mode.
------------------------------------
1. The races are more competitive than ever either racing in single player
mode or multiplayer mode. The AI is tweaked to typical lap racing times.
Newcomers can jump right in and be able to run much safer laps and after
little time can start giving even a veteran a bit of a push.
2. As a driver you'll be racing in the pack much more and with a great deal
of more confidence. Under the arcade mode the car is more stable when bumping
with other cars, which really helps in a lot of cases. The car can still loose
it so it's not all fluff.
3. Overall the races are much cleaner in regards to wrecking. This alone
greatly enhances the enjoyment especially under multiplayer situations.
4. Your car has more horsepower which allows you to stay in 4th gear at all
of the oval tracks like they do for real. For example Martinsvile and Richmond
were tough tracks to stay in 4th all the way around. Now you can naturally.
With this added horsepower comes to other things one good one maybe not so
good. The good is that you get a further sensation of speed. You'll be
averaging over 200 mph per lap at Charolette as to 180 mph in realistic mode.
The bad is that the speeds aren't realistic with real Nascar racing. This is
the only area where I feel this mode losses a bit of realism, but it's just a
number anyway.
Who is this patch for?
----------------------
Anybody that wants to race a much more controllable car.
Anybody that isn't hell-bent to race realistic for a variety of reasons many a
tad bent.
Anybody that wants more bumper to bumper racing. To get a more real feel of
racing these cars.
Anybody that wants a safer race.
Anybody that has troubles with the road courses.
Anybody who thinks they like arcade racers, but only like them over sims
because the sims are too demanding on an average driver. This add-on gives
those people the best of both worlds. Controllable cars with physics. This is
what Nascar 2 should of been out of the box without going to this length,
plainly stated the gameplay could have been a little tighter.
Rating the tracks
-----------------
1. Richmond at night. It's beautiful and it's very driveable. When in the
clear you don't need to brake. You never need to go to third. Very competitive
bumper to bumper racing. A great ride.
2. Sears Point. With the added traction this track really comes alive. It's
nice to be able to stay right in the middle of the chaos and still look good
on the replays. You should be turning good clean laps between 100-105 mph.
3. Dover. A really smooth small to medium sized super speedway. Just lay on
the gas and take your spots as they come you.
4. Phoenix. This track is really helped by this add-on, second only to
Richmond. Really a fun track to run around with it's little nuances in it.
5. N. Wilkesboro. Wow. You really can fly around this track and still manage
to control the car well. It's a real slot race here. The most exhilarating
track of the lot.
Frank Hoffmann
*dav...@interlog.com* schrieb am *19.05.97* folgendes:
*dav...@interlog.com* wrote on *19.05.97*:
> > 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10 times
> > faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many places.
> > 3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of
> pixels,
> > at a higher frame rate.
> I know you're one for overblown statements Jeff, but come on! No way is
it
> 10 times faster than an N64- I wouldn't even say 4 times. I'd say perhaps
> 2-3. Some 3DFX games slow down as well. The 3DFX is obviously superior,
> but most N64 games are also using more effects at that low resolution than
> 3DFX games.
faster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machts gut und danke fuer den <>< !ICHTHYS! mailto:F.Hof...@netaccess.de
Verkaufe PC-Stuff: http://home.t-online.de/home/f.hoffmann !PGP-Key per EB
Die letzten Worte des Biologen: "Die Schlange kenn ich, die ist
nicht giftig."
------------------------------------------------------------------------20
Tiitus Tamminen
Andreas (andreas....@spamtrap.mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
:>200 something by 300 something at 20 FPS maybe with 256 colors
:Only *256* colors? i doubt it... the N64 ought to be running 16-bit as
:well. But you are right, a good Pentium with 3dfx outperforms a N64.
Actually N64 outputs 21bit colours. To my eyes, doesn't differ at all
from 16-bit output.
Ralph Schwarten
Dave Glue wrote:
>
> Zarkof <Zar...@ccim.be> wrote in article
> <5lqslg$bv6$1...@pluto.interpac.be>...
>
> > such a 3d engine level
> > running at 45fps on my p225+3dfx (in 640x480x16) and note that the opengl
> > drivers for glquake are
> > just a redirection.. not even optimized..
>
> No need to insult Model3 hardware by mentioning GLQuake.
>
> seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D accelerated
> racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
> smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the Model2,
> and so I'll wait to see games of similar graphic quality before declaring
> the 3DFX is at least equal to it. What I've seen so far doesn't indicate
> that's the case - whether its API overhead or the Pentium's poor FP
> performance is irrelevant, people here are talking about Voodoo-equipped
> PC's and we have to accept all the disadvantages that come with the entire
> while San Fransico Rush looks good, it's obviously far slower than Sega
> Rally or even Daytona.
Model 2 has a *way* higher Polygons per second rate than 200pentium +
3dFx
Let alone model 3 !!!
>
> > And if we don't see games such as VF2 or sega rally running pretty well
> on
> > pcs it's juste coz PCs require a constant compatibility with previous
> > computers... Most games are still 486-code!.. when you watch a game on a
> > console.. you can be sure they use mostly 100% of the hardware...which
> > isn't the case at all on PCs..
>
> Please! Most games are 486 code? Not true - most games these days require
> a Pentium to run well, and your beloved Quake is one such game that was
> optimized for the Pentium's pipeline. To believe it's because games are
> designed for 486 code (a complete fallacy) is the reason we're not seeing
> VF2 on PC's now is _really_ stretching it. Pentium optimization gives you
> what..20-20% more CPU speed? That translate into say, 5% extra FPS from a
> 3D accelerator?
>
> > the processor included in the N64 is a 100MIPS processor
> (source=nintendo)
> > a pentium 60Mhz is round 100MIPS..(source=wintune97)
> > a p200 is likely 400MIPS..(source=wintune97)
>
> You can't be serious comparing MIPS. MIPS is a completely irrelevatn
> benchmark, it's meaningless. And what does the N64 have to do with this?
> You won't see me arguing that a 3DFX is more powerfull than an N64, I
> believe it is. This is about Model2 vs 3DFX.
>
> > quake is running at 14fps on a p200+et6000 in 640x480 (own computer)
> > glquake is running at 40fps on a p200+3dfx in 640x480 (in 65536 colors
> with
> > all needed effects) (own computer)
> > so imagine that the fpu of a p200 is running faster than the one in the
> N64
> > and check the difference with the 3dfx
> > (quake using mostly the fpu)
>
Ralph Schwarten
ccorpora wrote:
>
> Dave G:
>
> > Regardless, it's a poor comparison- that type of game is rarely, if ever
> > seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D accelerated
> > racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
> > smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the Model2,
> > and so I'll wait to see games of similar graphic quality before declaring
> > the 3DFX is at least equal to it.
>
>
> Your telling me that Sega Rally is smoother than smooth. As ICR 2 is as smooth
> as it can get. It also looks pretty darn well to. Plus it's a tad more worthy
> of braincell time.
ICR2 Still has that PC "SIM" look though. i.e. Low polygon count, very
simple textures etc.
Also POD-Whiplash-MotoRacer are all honorable mentions,
Richard W Reavy
In article <5lnc4v$8...@news.ox.ac.uk>, corp...@sable.ox.ac.uk (John Reynolds) writes:
|> In article <5lg8cu$l8p$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
|> T Wojcik <te...@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au> wrote:
|> % Dennis Strickland (wet...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
|> % : Not only is it faster than a Nintendo 64, it looks quite better as well.
|> % : There is no comparison. The 3DFX is the best gaming sensation in awhile.
|> %
|> % Um, sorry but I dont think so. I own both and granted the 3Dfx kicks
|> % major ass but i still doubt I could produce the 'wave' effect in
|> % WaveRace 64 as easily and smoothly as the N64 can. If anyone can prove
|> % me wrong here let me know. I am NOT bagging the 3dfx here but someone
|> % who claims its faster than a N64 is plain wrong
|>
|> Well, I've just seem Waverace running as a demo in a shop, and I was
|> rather unimpressed by the wave effect. All it seems to be is some smoothed
|> polygons. Also note that the waves do not reach the horizon, and cut
|> out not very far in front of your racer. A similar effect should be trivial
|> on a 3dfx.
|>
|> Cheers,
|>
|> --
|> John M Reynolds
|> mailto:john.r...@ccc.ox.ac.uk
|> Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UK
|>
|>
|>
Was it the single player or two player mode you were watching? Granted, in
two player split screen mode the transparency of the waves is sacrificed,
wisely, to maintain screen refresh rates. In the single player mode, mind you,
the waves really are (in my opinion!) one of the most impressive things I have
ever seen any system do. The actual modelling of the waves itself is scarily
realistic, never mind the rendering bit - watching the waves washing up on
the beach or lapping up the back of the jet ski itself is just awe inspiring.
Mind you, I'm not doubting that the 3DFX couldn't handle such a thing if someone
got round to programming it, it certainly has the specifications to cope. I'm
just saying that it Waverace is a fantastic bit of work, technically, graphically,
and fantastic gameplay to boot.
Cheers,
Richard Reavy.
Dave Glue
Andreas <andreas....@spamtrap.mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in article
<3381edd3...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
> Only *256* colors? i doubt it... the N64 ought to be running 16-bit as
> well. But you are right, a good Pentium with 3dfx outperforms a N64.
The N64 actually runs at 21bit colour.
Dave Glue
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> wrote in article <5lsv07$3l0$1...@aphex.direct.ca>...
> ejfi...@infoave.net (Jaster) wrote:
>
> > Because, you probably haven't set it to FILTERED. I'm not sure if
the
> >crappy verite can do it though.. can it? you should really check that
out.
> >that is what make that game...
>
> >Eric
>
> Good point. The "filtered" option makes the graphics look a hundred
> times better - with just as much speed.
Good point? Too bad he voiced it like a 10 year old. Yes, the "crappy"
Verite can do it, and do it quite well. Doesn't know the Verite has
filtering? Gee, that's some impressive knowledge of 3D hardware.
Dave Glue
Frank Hoffmann <F.Hof...@netaccess.de> wrote in article
<6XIFb...@spirit.de>...
> *dav...@interlog.com* schrieb am *19.05.97* folgendes:
> *dav...@interlog.com* wrote on *19.05.97*:
> > > 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10
times
> > > faster. N64 games are running at 256x224-- with slowdown in many
places.
> > > 3dfx games run at 640x480, which is more than 4 times the number of
> > pixels,
> > > at a higher frame rate.
> > I know you're one for overblown statements Jeff, but come on! No way
is
> it
> > 10 times faster than an N64- I wouldn't even say 4 times. I'd say
perhaps
> > 2-3. Some 3DFX games slow down as well. The 3DFX is obviously
superior,
> > but most N64 games are also using more effects at that low resolution
than
> > 3DFX games.
> I don't know Jeff but he wrote abaut 4 times more pixel not 4 times
> faster.
Lord, you even _quoted_ your own error. Here it is again, from the top:
> > > 3dfx is WAY, WAY, WAY faster than N64. I'd say on the order of 10
times
> > > faster.
Looks like he said 10 times faster to me. Obviously, I know he doesn't
mean 10 times faster at 640*480, we're comparing power in total, not at
specific resolutions.
Dave Glue
ICC <m...@what.com> wrote in article <01bc658d$cd00b120$444188d0@amiga>...
> 3dfx is a good chip set - good graphics but when it comes to portability
> and games, I'll go with the N64. Portability - Try packing up your
> computer or pull the 3dfx card out of your system and put it in your
> friends sure take a lot of time and frustration. N64, you just pack what
-
> controller, CPU, game, video cable and power supply. Games - So far
games
> for N64 looks and play better than any other system I saw. Try 1st party
> games like Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and Wave Race 64. On 3dfx, the only
> games that look nice so far is Tomb Raider.
Mario Kart. Mario 64. You're kidding...right? No need to insult the
Voodoo by comparing it to such low-res, large polygon simplistic-looking
fare. It's a fine console, but lets get real.
Dave Glue
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> wrote in article <5lq9cu$m67$8...@aphex.direct.ca>...
> "Dave Glue" <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
> >Maybe, maybe not- the fact is you have a very constrained world as well
> >(the field), and most of those character will be quite small in relation
to
> >the 3-4 that will be blown up- and most large views are impractical for
> >gaming purposes, so the amount of polygons it's drawing will be fairly
low.
> > However, the game looks _fantastic_ - look at the screen shots on NG.
I
> >hope a 3D-accelerated PC football game looks that good in the future.
>
> Haven't heard about football, but Powerplay98 is supposed to be 3d
> accelerated.
The shots I've seen of it though don't compare to the shots of this N64
football game- the players look very angular. What was striking about NFL
Quarterback '98 for the N64 was how smoothly the characters were modelled-
their joints looked _round_, not made up of a bunch of polygons- and
640*480 to boot.
Dave Glue
Tiitus Tamminen <sha...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in article
<5ls752$t...@nntp.hut.fi>...
> For one thing, I'm yet to see even one N64 game that runs truly smoothly.
> Mario64 (PAL) seems to run at something like 15-20 fps, and this was
> in 256x224 (or 320x240, don't recall which resolution this title uses).
> The NTSC version is apparently a bit faster, because of the higher
> refresh rate of NTSC televisions.
Boy, I definitely wouldn't say that- I'd say 30fps almost all the time for
Mario64, easily.
> Another game, Waverace64 (PAL) seemed to run at 15 fps all the time.
> I have also played the Japanese version of this, and it was only
> slightly faster. Somehow this failed to impress me, in fact I was
> very surprised by this after all the praise this title has got for
> its "great looking and fluid graphics".
It's not 30, but I'd say 20-25. Didn't impress me that much either.
> Maybe this will improve in the future, but for now, unlike with e.g.
> Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn or a P133 with a 3dfx card, I haven't seen
> a single N64 game that runs at 30 fps most of the time, let alone 60 fps.
Actually, a lot of PSX games I played got quite choppy as well- Triple Play
97 is awful frame-rate wise compared to the PC, Loaded slows down
tremendously, Doom, Agile Warrior, Twisted Metal - slowdown has no platform
bias. :)
> Am I missing something? Where is the N64 title that really shows its
> "3dfx-beating" potential? So far everything I've seen on it were like
> 3dfx games running in a lower resolution and at a lower speed.
You're not missing much. Blast Corps was one of the more impressive titles
I've played, but beyond that I wasn't overblown with the graphics, or the
gameplay in my renting stint with it.
Dave Glue
Tiitus Tamminen <sha...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in article
<5ls7q2$t...@nntp.hut.fi>...
> Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
>
> :seen in the arcades. Compare games of the same genre. No 3D
accelerated
> :racer or fighter has come close to Sega Rally or Virtua Fighter 2 in
> :smoothness or graphics quality- those are the games I see on the Model2,
>
> POD anyone? Seems to run at maybe 50-60 fps on my P133/3dfx, and the
> graphics seem rather detailed (no pop up either, like in Moto Racer).
And you're comparing it graphically to Sega Rally? You can't be this
biased, come on! The amount of detail, polygons and obviously much higher
degree of perspectice-correction in Sega Rally blow POD away. Sure, it's
smooth- with that low of a polygon count and skewed perspective it had damn
well better be on a 3DFX.
> And if we are going to nitpick, the Sega Model2 hardware doesn't handle
> transparency effects correctly. Check for example the car windows and
> the water pools, why do they look like chessboards?
Hell, I'll take it! :)
Joe
"Dave Glue" <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>The shots I've seen of it though don't compare to the shots of this N64
>football game- the players look very angular. What was striking about NFL
>Quarterback '98 for the N64 was how smoothly the characters were modelled-
>their joints looked _round_, not made up of a bunch of polygons- and
>640*480 to boot.
Hopefully they'll port it to PC where we can actually play it at
640x480! <g>
Anyway, I don't care that much for closeup views in hockey. Actually
one of the reasons I want a fully 3D powerplay game is so that I can
zoon OUT a little more, get a better view of what's happening.
Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================
Joe
"Dave Glue" <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>> Good point. The "filtered" option makes the graphics look a hundred
>> times better - with just as much speed.
>Good point?
BTW, I was at the arcade last night so I checked out the motorcycle
games. Not one of them CAME CLOSE to the graphics, textures, and speed
of Moto Racer 3dfx. (But I guess I'm more interested in reality than
in theoretical software on the latest systems that arcade vendors can
theoretically afford.)
Joe
sha...@cc.hut.fi (Tiitus Tamminen) wrote:
>I'm not talking about how well the graphics are drawn or how
>the colors are chosen, but the performance only (polygons per
>second, graphical effects applied etc.).
As I said in another post, it's not the same thing - put the POD
engine on earth rendering realistic looking environments and it would
be as slow as any other game.
>For polygon count, Sega Rally really doesn't seem that different
>from POD. Are you sure you have seen some of the later tracks
>in POD? Seem rather detailed to me.
Sega Rally has textures of real environments and objects. BIG
difference.
Joe
sha...@cc.hut.fi (Tiitus Tamminen) wrote:
>Joe (mcg...@direct.ca) wrote:
>:BTW, I was at the arcade last night so I checked out the motorcycle
>:games. Not one of them CAME CLOSE to the graphics, textures, and speed
>:of Moto Racer 3dfx. (But I guess I'm more interested in reality than
>Moto Racer is a great arcade racer, but e.g. Sega's Manx TT certaianly
>has a much more detailed environment, and no pop-up either.
Is that a motorcycle sim? They don't have it here.
>In my opinion POD is the game that best shows how close Pentium/3dfx
>hardware is to e.g. Sega's Model2 (I'm talking about the performance
>here). Hell, unlike Model2, at least 3dfx handles transparency
>properly, and the lens flare effect in POD is even better and
>more natural than the same effect in even Model3 Sega's Scud Race! ;-)
I can't really agree, because POD is animating "neon wierdness" not
realistic looking environments, which is much harder. No way could
they get those frame rates animating clouds, trees, landscape
textures, etc.
Tiitus Tamminen
Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
:>POD anyone? Seems to run at maybe 50-60 fps on my P133/3dfx, and the
:>graphics seem rather detailed (no pop up either, like in Moto Racer).
:And you're comparing it graphically to Sega Rally? You can't be this
:biased, come on!
I'm not talking about how well the graphics are drawn or how
the colors are chosen, but the performance only (polygons per
second, graphical effects applied etc.).
:The amount of detail, polygons and obviously much higher
:degree of perspectice-correction in Sega Rally blow POD away.
For polygon count, Sega Rally really doesn't seem that different
from POD. Are you sure you have seen some of the later tracks
in POD? Seem rather detailed to me.
Sure you can complain that many of the cars may look boxy or
something, but then, the zebras in Sega Rally have mighty
low polygon detail. ;-) Many of the tracks in POD are very
detailed, with lots of stuff on the road, detailed
environment etc.
As for "perspective correction", I'm not sure what you mean.
POD certainly has perspective-corrected textures. If you mean
the "fish-eye" effect in POD, that doesn't seem to be a
shortcoming in the 3dfx hardware or even the game engine, but
it seems to be a design choice to try to make the graphics
look more "at your face" (may e.g. make the sense of speed
better in the "cockpit view" etc.).
Sure the graphics in POD are garish and not so polished, and the
gameplay may be boring, but I was talking about the performance
here.
:Sure, it's
:smooth- with that low of a polygon count and skewed perspective it had damn
:well better be on a 3DFX.
Sorry, but Sega Rally doesn't seem to have that much better polygon
count. And as I explained, the "skewed perspective" (or rather,
fish's eye perspective, at least photographers should be familiar
with that term) is not a shortcoming in the hardware or the
game engine, but rather a design choice.
Tiitus Tamminen
Joe (mcg...@direct.ca) wrote:
:BTW, I was at the arcade last night so I checked out the motorcycle
:games. Not one of them CAME CLOSE to the graphics, textures, and speed
:of Moto Racer 3dfx. (But I guess I'm more interested in reality than
Moto Racer is a great arcade racer, but e.g. Sega's Manx TT certaianly
has a much more detailed environment, and no pop-up either.
In my opinion POD is the game that best shows how close Pentium/3dfx
hardware is to e.g. Sega's Model2 (I'm talking about the performance
here). Hell, unlike Model2, at least 3dfx handles transparency
properly, and the lens flare effect in POD is even better and
more natural than the same effect in even Model3 Sega's Scud Race! ;-)
Whether POD is boring, that discussion doesn't really belong here.
Richard W Reavy
In article <5lq9mh$m67$1...@aphex.direct.ca>, mcg...@direct.ca (Joe) writes:
|> From: mcg...@direct.ca (Joe)
|> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
|> Subject: Re: 3dfx faster than playstation?
|> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 19:27:06 GMT
|> Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc.
|> Lines: 16
|> Message-ID: <5lq9mh$m67$1...@aphex.direct.ca>
|> References: <8636331...@dejanews.com> <01bc6172$cb482440$ccf4...@ge81.dial.pipex.com> <5lm997$o...@spawn.dotcom.bc.ca> <01bc63bc$03ee94a0$b28e13cf@jon> <01bc63d7$c2d52bc0$2f856fce@default> <337fa64a...@news.aiinc.com> <33808FF7...@lucent.com> <338098e2...@news.prestel.co.uk>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: vic-as-02a08.direct.ca
|> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
|> Xref: newsfeed.ed.ac.uk comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video:148658 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:162134
|>
|> da...@flavious.prestel.co.uk (Dave Gibbons) wrote:
|>
|> >This is the by far the biggest flaw in the N64. The arrogance of N in
|> >not putting a CD on the machine beggars belief.
|>
|> i remember when it was first coming out, even before the PSX really
|> took off, there were all these morons on the 3DO ng defending the
|> decision, trying to argue that you didn't need a CD for a large game.
|> Riiiiiiiiiiiigggghht.
|>
|> Joe McGinn
|> ===================================================
|> Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
|> http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
|> ===================================================
|>
Well, fair enough a CD does have a substantially bigger storage capacity, but
in reality developers seem happy enough to stick on a bit of streamed audio and
video clips to bulk out the games. I've never been happier with the size of games
than with the N64, although it obviously must take some time and effort to keep
the code size down. What the size of games currently seems to be limited to is
the amount of time and expense developers are likely to be able to justify
designing levels rather than the capacity of the distribution media.
Obviously CD/roms both have their own pros and cons, but my point is purely that
there ARE very large games for the N64; Mario, Turok and the amount of detail in
Pilotwings spring to mind. And number of extremely varied courses in Waverace
compares rather favourably with, say, the one course played forwards/backwards/
mirrored/upside down in PSX Ridge Racer and the likes. Obviously, more courses
could have been fitted on this CD but it could also have been done on cartridge.
And sure, you can buy a CD-rom for the N64 down the Barras market, so I hear,
and have the best of both worlds... ;-)
Cheers,
Richard Reavy.
Rob Dunlop
Tiitus Tamminen wrote:
> Sure the graphics in POD are garish and not so polished, and the
> gameplay may be boring, but I was talking about the performance
> here.
>
> :Sure, it's
> :smooth- with that low of a polygon count and skewed perspective it had damn
> :well better be on a 3DFX.
>
> Sorry, but Sega Rally doesn't seem to have that much better polygon
> count. And as I explained, the "skewed perspective" (or rather,
> fish's eye perspective, at least photographers should be familiar
> with that term) is not a shortcoming in the hardware or the
> game engine, but rather a design choice.
Holy Toledo! Why has this thread continued?! Only a very very blind
person could possibly claim that pod performs better than Sega Rally. Do
we have to go into this at all? Look at the cars in Sega Rally and try
counting those polys on one hand. I mean 3dfx is great and all, but talk
about living in da Nile.
What next? Pac man shifts more polys than Mario64? Pong actually has
better texture mapping than Quake?
--
Rob Dunlop / Picasso
*****************************************************************
*** Minerva666 for multiplayer Descent2 ***
* Animated textures, horror theme. Needs D2 version1.2 *
* Get it here (thanks Toby) - http://www.salina.net/tg/descent/ *
*****************************************************************
ttammi
Steven Chiesa <BASS...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If you ask me, portability is not something I care much for. Most
>3dfx games that are enhanced can be played multiplayer over modem,
>network, internet etc....
>The only downside to multiplayer using these methods is the lack of
>voice support. I find it much more gratifying to have the person hear
>me gloat rather than waiting for me to type it.
I recall seeing some guys playing multiplayer Doom with ISDN modems,
where they were talking to each other through the phone line at the
same time.
ttammi
Rob Dunlop <unc...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Holy Toledo! Why has this thread continued?! Only a very very blind
>person could possibly claim that pod performs better than Sega Rally.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your reading comprehension skills must be very flawed. I've seen nobody
say that.
ttammi
mcg...@direct.ca (Joe) wrote:
>>In my opinion POD is the game that best shows how close Pentium/3dfx
>>hardware is to e.g. Sega's Model2 (I'm talking about the performance
>>here). Hell, unlike Model2, at least 3dfx handles transparency
>I can't really agree, because POD is animating "neon wierdness" not
>realistic looking environments, which is much harder.
In what way exactly?
>No way could they get those frame rates animating clouds, trees,
>landscape textures, etc.
And I thought many tracks of POD have an animating sky? I could just as
easily claim that if Sega Rally had the realistic lens flare effect of
POD, it would be really slow.
As for the textures, it doesn't matter what they are depicting. Whether
it's dirt, grass or rusty metal, it is just as hard for the hardware to
render.
ttammi
mcg...@direct.ca (Joe) wrote:
>As I said in another post, it's not the same thing - put the POD
>engine on earth rendering realistic looking environments and it would
>be as slow as any other game.
Huh? Come again? What difference does it make whether the game is
rendering the environments of earth or planet Io? None whatsoever.
>Sega Rally has textures of real environments and objects. BIG
>difference.
Texture is a texture is a texture, no matter what it is trying to
depict.
Joe
ttammi <tta...@netlife.fi> wrote:
>As for the textures, it doesn't matter what they are depicting. Whether
>it's dirt, grass or rusty metal, it is just as hard for the hardware to
>render.
No true. Flat textures - which PO uses to excess - are MUCH easier and
faster to draw than "organic" ones like you see in a game like Moto
Racer.
Joe
Joe
ttammi <tta...@netlife.fi> wrote:
>Huh? Come again? What difference does it make whether the game is
>rendering the environments of earth or planet Io? None whatsoever.
HUGE difference. For one thing, no one can look at a scene in POD and
say "that doesn't look like the real thing" - they are not MODELLING
anything, just animating a bunch of neon and foreign objects - 100
times easier.
>Texture is a texture is a texture, no matter what it is trying to
>depict.
Nothing could be further from thr truth.
Joe
ccorpora
tt:
> >As for the textures, it doesn't matter what they are depicting. Whether
> >it's dirt, grass or rusty metal, it is just as hard for the hardware to
> >render.
JOE:
> No true. Flat textures - which PO uses to excess - are MUCH easier and
> faster to draw than "organic" ones like you see in a game like Moto
> Racer.
R:
Personally I don't see where Moto-Racers graphics are really any better. Yes
there are some extra animations thrown in. But at the same time you get more
popup in Moto.
There close. Moto is just a better playing game.
Q.B.M.
Remy Saville
Joe wrote:
> >Texture is a texture is a texture, no matter what it is trying to
> >depict.
> Nothing could be further from thr truth.
Not to a video card.
Joe
Remy Saville <ti...@pacificcoast.net> wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about. Game performance isnn't just
based on textures, but also polygon count - how complex and varied the
shapes of the textured objects are. In unreal environments like POD
there are tons of FLAT surfaces, unlike when you are trying to model a
realistic image.
Joe
Travis Hamer
Realistic images are made up of tons of FLAT surfaces, too. It's just a
matter of complexity. And just because Pod takes place in fantastic
environments doesn't mean that the environments are simple.
Travis