Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

3DFX VooDoo Tomb Raider - INCREDIBLE

618 views
Skip to first unread message

von...@accessone.com

unread,
Nov 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/26/96
to

I just downloaded the BETA 3DFX VooDoo Tomb Raider patch (from the
www.tombraider.com) and its a totally new game!! It was playable but
a little jerky without the patch, but silky smooth to play and
beautiful to look at with the patch. There are a few inconsitencies
in the mip-mapping (mentioned in the readme file) but they should be
worked out prior to release of the production patch. Now if only the
VooDoo version of Mech II would ship.
3DFX VooDoo... There is no substitute.
Later days,
vonbecker
von...@accessone.com
------------------------------
nil illegitimus sic carborudum


Don M. Bizub

unread,
Nov 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/26/96
to

How fast is your Pentium?

--
Don Biz
don...@ix.netcom.com

von...@accessone.com wrote in article <57dr12$r...@kanga.accessone.com>...

PM RYAN

unread,
Nov 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/26/96
to

von...@accessone.com wrote:
>
> I just downloaded the BETA 3DFX VooDoo Tomb Raider patch (from the
> www.tombraider.com) and its a totally new game!! It was playable but
> a little jerky without the patch, but silky smooth to play and
> beautiful to look at with the patch. There are a few inconsitencies
> in the mip-mapping (mentioned in the readme file) but they should be
> worked out prior to release of the production patch. Now if only the
> VooDoo version of Mech II would ship.
> 3DFX VooDoo... There is no substitute.
> Later days,
> vonbecker
> von...@accessone.com
> ------------------------------
> nil illegitimus sic carborudum


That's what I've been trying to tell people. The PC version ultimately
kicks the PSX version's hiney! The level of detail you can get with the
voodoo chip is amazing. It looks like the whole game is rendered! What
I don't understand is why the voodoo support had to come up in a patch.
I saw a version of it running at the E3 show in May, and it looked good
then. What was the hold up?


PM RYAN
--The sweetest revenge is to live a good life.

enzo

unread,
Nov 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/26/96
to

PM RYAN wrote:

> That's what I've been trying to tell people. The PC version ultimately
> kicks the PSX version's hiney! The level of detail you can get with the
> voodoo chip is amazing. It looks like the whole game is rendered! What
> I don't understand is why the voodoo support had to come up in a patch.
> I saw a version of it running at the E3 show in May, and it looked good
> then. What was the hold up?

Who cares? We got it in about a week, as promised, and it works very
well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Mouneimne | "We are not afraid of the Russians.
en...@outwest.com | We are afraid of their helicopters."
| - Muhajeddin soldier
---CS-Anime-Bab5-SegaAM-Mtn_Bikes-RPGs-Newton-Ducatis-Hk-Glock-Rally-

Jeremy

unread,
Nov 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/26/96
to

von...@accessone.com wrote:

>I just downloaded the BETA 3DFX VooDoo Tomb Raider patch (from the
>www.tombraider.com) and its a totally new game!! It was playable but
>a little jerky without the patch, but silky smooth to play and
>beautiful to look at with the patch. There are a few inconsitencies
>in the mip-mapping (mentioned in the readme file) but they should be
>worked out prior to release of the production patch. Now if only the
>VooDoo version of Mech II would ship.
>3DFX VooDoo... There is no substitute.
>Later days,
>vonbecker
>von...@accessone.com
>------------------------------
>nil illegitimus sic carborudum
>

I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you want
to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated Tomb
Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that bad !!

Just rename the 3dfx version of the tomb.exe file to tomb3dfx.exe or
something similar and copy the tomb.exe file from your CD. Then you
can setup shortcuts to both and run them one after the other to really
see how 3dfx Voodoo version shines.

Sorry, must get back to Tomb Raider - I'm stuck on level 4.

Jeremy

BTW I'm running a P133, 32Mb EDO, ASUS Triton 1 (FX) motherboard.

Jeremy

WARNING: MY E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS BEEN ALTERED TO PREVENT UNWANTED MAIL!
REMOVE ASTERK FROM BEGINNING AND END OF ADDRESS TO REPLY BY E-MAIL.

ALX

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

In article <329b6857...@news.demon.co.uk>, *jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk*
(Jeremy) wrote:

> I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you
> want to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated
> Tomb Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that
> bad !!

Yep, bought the game today. The detail is incredible. I can't
wait for the final, non-beta 3DFX patch.

The first few levels seem a bit bland, but the latter levels
become far more interesting. The large area with the Raptors and
T-Rex is a hoot. So is the following level, with the Indiana
Jones inspired boulder.

BTW, with the extreme smoothness (not a single drop in frame rate),
I just wish they would've added a bit more complexity.

->ALX<-


von...@accessone.com

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

"Don M. Bizub" <don...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>How fast is your Pentium?

Its a P-90 with 40 megs of RAM.
>--
>Don Biz
>don...@ix.netcom.com

>von...@accessone.com wrote in article <57dr12$r...@kanga.accessone.com>...

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

*jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk* (Jeremy) wrote:

>I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you want
>to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated Tomb
>Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that bad !!

Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
(graphically speaking).

I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.


*** RTH ***
Rich Heimlich
Publisher/Executive Editor
Escapade
(www.escapade.com)

Kaj Laaksonen

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

>Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
>Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
>worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
>one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
>it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
>get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
>(graphically speaking).

Matter of taste really, isn't it? I didn't like the original SVGA palette
at all. Too bright and not very convincing, while IMHO Voodoo TR palette is
just right. Very subdued colour, which are quite powerful coupled with the
lighting effects. Some might see it as dull, but for me the better palette
and smooth animation were big improvements. Running SVGA and Voodoo
versions on P100 is something I would call night and day.

-Kaizu-

John F. Lee

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

In article <329B1E...@erols.com>, PM RYAN <pmr...@erols.com> wrote:

>von...@accessone.com wrote:
>
>That's what I've been trying to tell people. The PC version ultimately
>kicks the PSX version's hiney!

I don't know. The accelerated version is much better, to be sure, but,
then, a 3D card costs roughly the same as a new playstation. It depends
on what floats your boat, I suppose.

>The level of detail you can get with the
>voodoo chip is amazing. It looks like the whole game is rendered! What
>I don't understand is why the voodoo support had to come up in a patch.

Because they wanted to get it out on time. It's tougher to integrate a
feature in the regular version than in a patch.

>I saw a version of it running at the E3 show in May, and it looked good
>then. What was the hold up?

Testing. Although, I've been told, they weren't very thorough in testing
ccontrol with a steering wheel. :)

--
John F. Lee / jfl...@u.washington.edu
The Game List - http://weber.u.washington.edu/d38/jfl666/games.html

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

bea...@mindspring.com (beavis1) wrote:

>>I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
>>but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.
>

>You obviously have a fast CPU. On my P100 I couldn't even
>play it in SVGA - I was getting maybe 5-10 fps. But with the
>3dfx it is very smooth. So, obviously, for some, it *is*
>a night-and-day difference.

Excellent point. From that perspective I would have to agree with you.
Don't get me wrong. Even on a fast system the SVGA version is still a
step behind the speed of the 3Dfx but it was VERY playable to the
point where virtually no one said anything about it. Now it's just
smooooooth. <g>

BTW, working with both the R3D and Rendition under Windows 95/DOS is
working out great. I just don't have the R3D drivers under 95 for the
time being as Rendition excels under DirectX and I don't want that to
get goofed up. When Direct3D really takes hold I'll have to reconsider
that but for now, nice to have the options.

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

ka...@pelit.fi (Kaj Laaksonen) wrote:

>Matter of taste really, isn't it? I didn't like the original SVGA palette

Agreed. It is a matter of taste on much of it but that's part of the
point. People need to be aware of that and not jump to such extremes
as saying, "night and day" when refering to only the look of the
graphics (not the speed issue).

>at all. Too bright and not very convincing, while IMHO Voodoo TR palette is
>just right. Very subdued colour, which are quite powerful coupled with the
>lighting effects. Some might see it as dull, but for me the better palette

Like I said, it took a moment to adjust. It appears dull after
spending 10 levels the other way around. SVGA also looks "sharper" as,
in ways, it is but that's not really complimentary to be so, if you
follow me.

>and smooth animation were big improvements. Running SVGA and Voodoo
>versions on P100 is something I would call night and day.

Performance. Different issue. No argument there what-so-ever.

Dene Wilby

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

Tomb Raider is totally amazing with the 3dfx but i'll just say one
thing....


How good will the eventual TR2 be? Will it blow our minds???

-Dene

Erick Cid

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

In article <329fd7ab...@news.erols.com>, ric...@erols.com says...

>I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
>but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.
>

Certainly it is a good increase in framerate and smooth gameplay. Graphically,
it is clearly better, but not necessarily as great a change as many may have
liked. Nonetheless I for one am more then satisfied.

Erick

--
----------------------------------------------------
Erick Cid
http://www.allgames.com/
http://www.interport.net/~elcid
----------------------------------------------------


ttammi

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

PM RYAN <pmr...@erols.com> wrote:

>ultimately kicks the PSX version's hiney! The level of detail you can

>get with the voodoo chip is amazing. It looks like the whole game is
>rendered!

Err, I think the game _is_ "rendered" in real time. ;-) Maybe you meant
to say "raytraced" or something like that.

ttammi

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich) wrote:

>Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
>Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
>worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
>one.

I guess the same can be said about VQuake and Verite-ICR2.

>I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
>but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.

Hmm, what do you think about VQuake then? Which shows better
improvement, Quake -> VQuake or Tomb Raider -> Tomb Raider Voodoo?
Or are both just minor improvements?

Jeremy

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

unk...@account.com (ALX) wrote:
>
>
>Yep, bought the game today. The detail is incredible. I can't
>wait for the final, non-beta 3DFX patch.
>
I assume the only major difference will be that the mip map creation
will be better optimised and so take less time than with the beta
version. I can't imagine them improving the graphics any !!

>The first few levels seem a bit bland, but the latter levels
>become far more interesting. The large area with the Raptors and
>T-Rex is a hoot. So is the following level, with the Indiana
>Jones inspired boulder.

Ditto. I just keep playing the area with the T-Rex over and over to
see if I can escape him (or is it her) by stealth. Actually a neat
trick is to hide in the cave below the broken bridge and take pot
shots at the T-Rex as it stomps by :)

Yeah the boulder level is neat also, but I have noticed something odd.
When I've opened the 3 doors and entered the large hall with the
artifact in it, Lara points her weapons at the inanimate skeletons on
one side of the room as if they are some kind of enemy. They don't
make any move at all - what's going on ?


>
>BTW, with the extreme smoothness (not a single drop in frame rate),
>I just wish they would've added a bit more complexity.
>
>->ALX<-
>

Yes, looks as though it could've taken more complexity. Then again
maybe lower end pentiums would have run out of steam trying to
transform a more detailed world.

Gerald Leung

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to

Jeremy <*jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk*> wrote:

>one side of the room as if they are some kind of enemy. They don't
>make any move at all - what's going on ?

Oops.. deleted one too many lines...

Policy my friends and I have is to shoot first, ask questions later,
particularly in new rooms.

Dunno what that mummy thing is, but if you move around, you'll see that
it's head follows you. If Lara can point her gun at something, it can
be shot at.


Gerald Leung Phase IV
ger...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

Kaj Laaksonen

unread,
Nov 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/27/96
to


ttammi <tta...@spider.compart.fi> wrote in article
<VA.0000014...@me.compart.fi>...


>
> Hmm, what do you think about VQuake then? Which shows better
> improvement, Quake -> VQuake or Tomb Raider -> Tomb Raider Voodoo?
> Or are both just minor improvements?

I've played both and IMHO Tomb Raider Voodoo shows bigger improvement.
Notice though that they are both patched to 3D and they both could use even
more 3D features. Alpha blending pops into mind first. Tomb Raider has
those nasty looking waves on water and some 2D bitmaps which are kinda out
of place. VQuake doesn't use any transparency or fogging effects either.
I'm sure we will see much much better games using Voodoo and Verite when
games are being designed from the scratch with these cards in mind.

-Kaizu-


Smoke Crack and Worship Satan

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

In article <329fd7ab...@news.erols.com>, ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich)
wrote:

>
> *jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk* (Jeremy) wrote:
>
> >I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you want
> >to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated Tomb
> >Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that bad !!
>
> Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
> Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
> worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
> one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
> it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
> get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
> (graphically speaking).
>

Are you on DOPE? Those are 256 color textures versus 16-bit textures.
It's SO MUCH better it's not even funny. They are literally worlds
apart.

As for speed, unless you have a Pentium Pro, you're going to see about 5-15
fps in 640x480 versus a consistent 30+ on a 3dfx card. I'd say a 100%
performance improvement (at worst! Possibly 200%-300% in some cases!)
is easily worth it, not to mention the bilinear filtering, additional
colors, etc.

Quake, with its 256 color textures, looks merely better on a Rendition
card. Tomb Raider is like a whole different game on a 3dfx!

> I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
> but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.
>

I would-- it's a killer app. It was designed around 16-bit color from
the start, because of its Saturn/PSX/PC heritage, and damn does that
make a huge difference! I suggest you try playing Lara's home in the
old TOMB.EXE and then try it again with the 3dfx TOMB.EXE.

jcapr...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

>at all. Too bright and not very convincing, while IMHO Voodoo TR palette
is
>just right. Very subdued colour, which are quite powerful coupled with
the
>lighting effects. Some might see it as dull, but for me the better
palette

I'm pretty sure that the reson why the pallette seems more subdued is
because of the bi-linear filtering which blends adjoining colors so they
do not pixellate when you move close to them. This blending kind of makes
two colors look "muddy" and less crisp than if they were not blended. By
the way, I have a p200 and so does a friend of mine and we both think the
voodoo version blows the others away. Does anyone with this game notice
that when they go back and play older levels that there is often more
wolves in some areas in the voodoo version? If there is I think it may be
because the voodoo can actually handle all of them without any slowup.
I've had four of them circling me-smooth as silk! This is great!

-J.Capra

Smoke Crack and Worship Satan

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

In article <VA.0000014...@me.compart.fi>, ttammi <tta...@spider.compart.f

>
> ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich) wrote:
>
> >Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
> >Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
> >worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
> >one.
>
> I guess the same can be said about VQuake and Verite-ICR2.
>

ICR2 ran pretty damn fast at 640x480 on my P5-133 with all textures on except road! That is
not the mark of a processor intensive game. And Verite CANNOT push Quake at 640x480 at 30fps
like 3dfx Tomb Raider is.

> >I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
> >but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.
>

> Hmm, what do you think about VQuake then? Which shows better
> improvement, Quake -> VQuake or Tomb Raider -> Tomb Raider Voodoo?
> Or are both just minor improvements?
>


Quake -> VQuake = solid improvement.

TR -> TR Voodoo = INCREDIBLE, BLOW THE DOORS OFF improvement. Mainly due to 16-bit textures
that are totally lacking in Quake. Quake is a 256 color game, period.

Benedict Walmisley

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

unk...@account.com (ALX) wrote:

>Yep, bought the game today. The detail is incredible. I can't
>wait for the final, non-beta 3DFX patch.

>The first few levels seem a bit bland, but the latter levels


>become far more interesting. The large area with the Raptors and
>T-Rex is a hoot

I was killing myself when I was being pursued down that bloody valley
with a TRex on my heels - incredible. There are a few glitches - the
'2d' sprite objects arent filtered and the water problem. What
surprised the hell out of me was the way you can see into the water
but what you see is distorted.

> So is the following level, with the Indiana
>Jones inspired boulder.

Its nice to have nicely animated 'real' creatures as enemies and not
just the unending supply of Demons and stuff.

>BTW, with the extreme smoothness (not a single drop in frame rate),
>I just wish they would've added a bit more complexity.

Yes, I agree entirely. Although they have to keep the detail low
enough so that its playable on non accelerated machines.

OTOH The critters are probally taking up 50% of the polygons within an
area.

--
Benedict Walmisley - Reality is Insanity
Unsolicited spam email will be proofread at $100 per hour, min charge $100
Email: BWalm...@wolf.demon.co.uk

Steve Minor

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to


Smoke Crack and Worship Satan <nom...@nospammers.com> wrote in article
<57j0fl$j...@nexp.crl.com>...


> In article <329fd7ab...@news.erols.com>, ric...@erols.com (Rich
Heimlich)
> wrote:
> >
> > *jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk* (Jeremy) wrote:
> >
> > >I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you want
> > >to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated Tomb
> > >Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that bad !!
> >

> > Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
> > Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
> > worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like

> > one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
> > it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
> > get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
> > (graphically speaking).
> >
>
> Are you on DOPE? Those are 256 color textures versus 16-bit textures.
> It's SO MUCH better it's not even funny. They are literally worlds
> apart.
>

That is for sure. It is worlds better--no question about it.

Let's look at the facts. On my P166:

Millenium Vs 3Dfx
-------------- ----------------------
10-15fps 30fps+
256 color 65000 colors
pixellated bilinear filtering, etc. (ie: no pixellation)

And the Millenium is a good 2D board too! The bottom line is that this
"patch" gives a bigger boost then most sequels do! You can't ask for much
more than that! If this isn't a "night and day" improvement, then WHAT IS?
Think about it.

Some people have agendas, keep that in mind. For those people, if they
have choosen to support brand "X", they'll never say anything positive
about brand "Y". The good thing is that the comments these people make are
so obviously out of touch that they are easy to dismiss--as you noticed.

P.S.: I look forward to the Rendition version to come out. First, I'm sure
it will be great too! Second, for the 3Dfx bashers out there, it may keep
them occupied. Of course, if they own a Mystique they are still out of
luck. :)


Namae

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

On 28 Nov 1996 03:21:25 GMT, nom...@nospammers.com (Smoke Crack and
Worship Satan) wrote:

>As for speed, unless you have a Pentium Pro, you're going to see about 5-15
>fps in 640x480 versus a consistent 30+ on a 3dfx card. I'd say a 100%
>performance improvement (at worst! Possibly 200%-300% in some cases!)
>is easily worth it, not to mention the bilinear filtering, additional
>colors, etc.

Only problem is that the sprites are not filtered. I wonder if Eidos
can fix that in their final patch. And the small rectangles on water
surface...they got to remove those.

Skip Ledford

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

Just out of curiosity, how much does the playstation TR cost? The PC Tomb
Raider I saw cost $40, and I sure don't remember seeing *any* of the newer
generation consoles selling games for $40! Sure you can get a console for
the cost of a 3D card, but then look at how much you more you pay for the
games.

John F. Lee <jfl...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<57h5pe$r...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...

Jeremy

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich) wrote:

>*jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk* (Jeremy) wrote:
>
>>I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you want
>>to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated Tomb
>>Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that bad !!
>
>Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
>Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
>worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
>one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
>it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
>get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
>(graphically speaking).
>

Well, I stand by my original comments. The difference for me was a
large increase in frame rate, a lack of pixellisation and a beautiful
high colour palette. That *is* a huge difference and one which could
not even be achieved by upgrading my P133 to a PPro 200 (at a very
substantial cost).

>I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
>but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.
>
>

>*** RTH ***
>Rich Heimlich
>Publisher/Executive Editor
>Escapade
>(www.escapade.com)

You're welcome to your opinions, but I stand by mine.

Jeremy

Jeremy

unread,
Nov 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/28/96
to

ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich) wrote:

>*jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk* (Jeremy) wrote:
>
>>I have to agree it looks and plays like a new game. But if you want
>>to really see the difference try going back to unaccelerated Tomb
>>Raider - yeuch !! Did I really play it when it looked that bad !!
>
>Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
>Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
>worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
>one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
>it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
>get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
>(graphically speaking).
>

>I've gone back and compared and I too would prefer the 3Dfx version
>but I wouldn't go anyway near as far as some here are going.
>
>
>*** RTH ***
>Rich Heimlich
>Publisher/Executive Editor
>Escapade
>(www.escapade.com)

Of course I don't mean it's a different game (it wouldn't be Tomb
Raider otherwise ;-)
For me the added features of the 3dfx version make it a much better
game not just slighty better. The main factors improved over
non-accelerated version are :

* Frame rate (a huge leap - sorry can't give figures but much faster
on 3dfx)
* High colour depth - check the shading on non-accelerated vs 3dfx
* Image clarity - very pixellated on non-accelerated version vs
clarity even for distant objects on 3dfx version

Of course this is just IMHO, but others seem to agree also. I guess
some people are much harder to impress (no offence meant).

The fact is that no single hardware upgrade has made such a huge
improvement to games on my system over the years than the OR3D for
less than 200 uk pounds. I have actually put off buying a PPro 200 now
as I won't need one any more (and saved myself a lot of money).

ALX

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

In article <01bbdd59$c7c19100$7d79aac7@hal9000>, "Skip Ledford"
<skip...@america.net> wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, how much does the playstation TR cost? The
> PC Tomb Raider I saw cost $40, and I sure don't remember seeing
> *any* of the newer generation consoles selling games for $40!

I haven't been in the console market as of late, but one of the
huge PS titles, Tekken2, did retail for under $40 upon its debut
(Best Buy and Target - something in the range of $36-$38).

->ALX<-


Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

>> Looks and plays like a new game? I've run both (I run a
>> Rendition-based card alongside a Righteous 3D for the best of both
>> worlds). I'd hardly say it plays like a new game or even looks like
>> one. Water looks improved. Several other items look "improved" but
>> it's hardly night and day. In fact, it actually took a little bit to
>> get used to as it appeared a bit out-of-focus at first and dull
>> (graphically speaking).
>>

>Are you on DOPE? Those are 256 color textures versus 16-bit textures.


>It's SO MUCH better it's not even funny. They are literally worlds
>apart.

You're talking about technical differences. I would guarantee that if
you asked unbiased participants to look at both and put a percentage
increase of the benefits of the 3Dfx version over the other version
that the difference would be likely found to average out around .....
40%. That's not even close to "worlds apart."

>As for speed, unless you have a Pentium Pro, you're going to see about 5-15

I'm not talking about speed improvements. I'm talking about cosmetic
improvement.

>Quake, with its 256 color textures, looks merely better on a Rendition
>card. Tomb Raider is like a whole different game on a 3dfx!

Sorry. Can't agree with you. Nothing wrong with that but if you want
to make an issue of it, so be it.

>make a huge difference! I suggest you try playing Lara's home in the
>old TOMB.EXE and then try it again with the 3dfx TOMB.EXE.

Not that people play most of the game there but sure, I'll give that a
look too.


*** RTH ***
Rich Heimlich
Publisher/Executive Editor
Escapade

(http://www.escapade.com)

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

"Steve Minor" <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>That is for sure. It is worlds better--no question about it.
>
>Let's look at the facts. On my P166:

Your facts included speed improvements. I'm not talking about speed
improvement at all. That's obvious and goes without saying. No
argument there.

>Some people have agendas, keep that in mind. For those people, if they
>have choosen to support brand "X", they'll never say anything positive
>about brand "Y". The good thing is that the comments these people make are
>so obviously out of touch that they are easy to dismiss--as you noticed.

Excuse me? Apparently you didn't see my post. I own (in addition to
virtually any PC hardware on the market due to my vocation) a
Righteous 3D and several Rendition cards. I have no ulterior motive to
make such comments. Whatever turns out to be best I have the option of
using so it doesn't matter to me. While I will easily say that the
3Dfx version of Tomb Raider is superior to the non-3D version, I would
say that it's a very nice improvement. Cosmetically I feel that it's a
nice improvement but to suggest that it's like PLAYING A DIFFERENT
GAME?! Ludicrous. That's stretching the phrase to the breaking point.

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

*jez...@frimley.demon.co.uk* (Jeremy) wrote:

>Of course I don't mean it's a different game (it wouldn't be Tomb
>Raider otherwise ;-)

<grin> That's part of what I'm trying to say. Some people throw heavy
phrasing around like it's nothing without realizing how much weight
others, who don't have first-hand experience, put behind them.

>* Frame rate (a huge leap - sorry can't give figures but much faster
>on 3dfx)

Agreed.

>* High colour depth - check the shading on non-accelerated vs 3dfx

Agreed.

>* Image clarity - very pixellated on non-accelerated version vs
>clarity even for distant objects on 3dfx version

Basically agreed.

I also said that there was the current situation of the bugs in the
current version to deal with (like the video noise at virtually every
vertical seam of the walls). I also don't really care much to argue
about what informed buyers see. I put most of my emphasis on the
uninformed buyer. If you took a screen shot of both versions and
showed one (doesn't matter) to him on day one and the other to him on
day two, virtually no one would refer to one over the other as "like
night and day." Most wouldn't even know you changed shots. That's my
point. Hey, without looking, what version was used for the box shots?
People raved about them so which one was it?

>Of course this is just IMHO, but others seem to agree also. I guess
>some people are much harder to impress (no offence meant).

None taken. Remember that I always think it terms of average
consumers, not people who know better. Heck, I upgrade my system all
the time to get another 1% performance boost, etc. But I also know
this isn't reflective of the norm. Most consumers aren't very picky.
Really, HONESTLY, think about what I said about the screenshots.
Picture showing them to say, an uninformed neighbor and then tell me
that you honestly believe that he or she would say, "WOW, I can't
believe this one looks so much better." That's the kind of question
I'm getting from TYPICAL consumers every day. They want to know that
if they spend $300 on a 3Dfx (or anything) how OBVIOUS the difference
is going to be for them. If you say "night and day" they take that
LITERALLY and then you're setting them up for disappointment and thus,
you're (not you per say but 3Dfx fans) working against your own desire
to see this think go over like gang-busters.

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

jcapr...@aol.com wrote:

>I'm pretty sure that the reson why the pallette seems more subdued is
>because of the bi-linear filtering which blends adjoining colors so they
>do not pixellate when you move close to them. This blending kind of makes
>two colors look "muddy" and less crisp than if they were not blended. By

That's exactly what I was attempting to get across. What's most
immediately obvious to the casual observer is that suddenly, things
appear less crisp. Look at the Save Game book for example. It
definitely looks "foggy" compared to the non-3D version. Doesn't
matter if one is better or not. That's not the issue here.

>wolves in some areas in the voodoo version? If there is I think it may be
>because the voodoo can actually handle all of them without any slowup.
>I've had four of them circling me-smooth as silk! This is great!

The performance improvement should cause no argument with anyone. It's
blantantly obvious in virtually all cases.

Keith Young

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

Rich Heimlich <ric...@erols.com> wrote in article
<32a88102...@news.erols.com>...

>
> I also said that there was the current situation of the bugs in the
> current version to deal with (like the video noise at virtually every
> vertical seam of the walls). I also don't really care much to argue

No argument here, but I think the seams are in both versions...

> about what informed buyers see. I put most of my emphasis on the
> uninformed buyer. If you took a screen shot of both versions and
> showed one (doesn't matter) to him on day one and the other to him on
> day two, virtually no one would refer to one over the other as "like
> night and day." Most wouldn't even know you changed shots. That's my
> point. Hey, without looking, what version was used for the box shots?
> People raved about them so which one was it?
>
> >Of course this is just IMHO, but others seem to agree also. I guess
> >some people are much harder to impress (no offence meant).
>
> None taken. Remember that I always think it terms of average
> consumers, not people who know better. Heck, I upgrade my system all
> the time to get another 1% performance boost, etc. But I also know

<sigh>, sad, isn't it? :)

> this isn't reflective of the norm. Most consumers aren't very picky.
> Really, HONESTLY, think about what I said about the screenshots.
> Picture showing them to say, an uninformed neighbor and then tell me
> that you honestly believe that he or she would say, "WOW, I can't
> believe this one looks so much better." That's the kind of question
> I'm getting from TYPICAL consumers every day. They want to know that
> if they spend $300 on a 3Dfx (or anything) how OBVIOUS the difference
> is going to be for them. If you say "night and day" they take that
> LITERALLY and then you're setting them up for disappointment and thus,
> you're (not you per say but 3Dfx fans) working against your own desire
> to see this think go over like gang-busters.
>

[sorry to leave so much quoted material in, but I couldn't decide what to
trim without changing the context...]

Rich, I agree with your example as stated... I doubt most people would
remember the difference from the previous day, looking at the new
'screen-shot'. But when people are inquiring about 'what spending $300
will do for them' (ok, I re-worded you a bit there <g>), then screen-shots
don't tell the whole picture (pun intended).

I think you might agree that if the example was changed from screen-shots
to having them sit down and play the game, there would be a much more
obvious difference.

Of course the user's current CPU would have a huge bearing on the percieved
difference... the game runs acceptably smooth (?) on high end systems
non-accelerated, but it might well be a 'night and day' experiance for
someone with a P90 (smooth 640x480 with 16bit bi-linear filtered graphics
vs smooth 320x200 with big 256 color pixels)... and that's relevent to the
question.

If someone is pretty heavy into this type of game (3D games in general),
had a P90/P100 and was trying to decide whether to spend $300 on a 3D card
vs ~$550 on a 200mhz CPU (and possibly another $~150-200 for a new mboard
to support it), then the added performance issue becomes that much more
relevent.

[for the record, I'd normally suggest going with the CPU for the 'overall'
(ie. not just 3D games) performance boost, but with the MMX chips around
the corner, and assuming a strong 3D game bias, upgrading your 3D might be
a good option to extend the life of your '3D game machine' until new
(and/or cheaper) CPUs come out]

I guess my point is that people need to play/experiance it for themselves
(if possible), because the performance boost may be just as important, if
not more-so, than the graphics boost.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you much here (?)... I'm just trying to
highlight the performance issue relative to purchasing decisions.

----
Keith


Keith Young

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

Keith Young <kyo...@cstone.net> wrote in article
<01bbddce$d6bf8de0$b266c5cd@kosh>...
>
> [a bunch of stuff about performance issues with non-accelerated Tomb
Raider vs the > 3Dfx version in a reply to Rich H...]
>

Rich,

I see from your other posts in this thread that you were mainly addressing
the 'night and day' term being applied to the graphic differences (which of
course is somewhat subjective, and is always more promenant (sp) with
side-by-side comparisons, but...) and that the performance issue 'goes
without saying'...

So I guess my previous post was off-base except in that I felt it ought not
'go without saying' <g>.

Cheers,

----
Keith

Terrence Yee

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

Rich Heimlich wrote:
<SNIP>

> If you took a screen shot of both versions and
> showed one (doesn't matter) to him on day one and the other to him on
> day two, virtually no one would refer to one over the other as "like
> night and day." Most wouldn't even know you changed shots. That's my
> point. Hey, without looking, what version was used for the box shots?
> People raved about them so which one was it?

Hmm well they might say the same thing about Vquake and Quake (I liked
the Vquake pics myself) but would they (average consumers per you) say
the same when they saw the game in action? Still pics are one thing,
but a moving game is quite a different story, as Vquake owners will
surely testify to.

> HONESTLY, think about what I said about the screenshots.
> Picture showing them to say, an uninformed neighbor and then tell me
> that you honestly believe that he or she would say, "WOW, I can't
> believe this one looks so much better." That's the kind of question
> I'm getting from TYPICAL consumers every day. They want to know that
> if they spend $300 on a 3Dfx (or anything) how OBVIOUS the difference
> is going to be for them. If you say "night and day" they take that
> LITERALLY and then you're setting them up for disappointment and thus,
> you're (not you per say but 3Dfx fans) working against your own desire
> to see this think go over like gang-busters.

Again, games aren't played from stills, unless you have a real slow PC.
:)

Ty

Al Crawford

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

And lo, ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich) spake unto the masses saying:

>
> You're talking about technical differences. I would guarantee that if
> you asked unbiased participants to look at both and put a percentage
> increase of the benefits of the 3Dfx version over the other version
> that the difference would be likely found to average out around .....
> 40%. That's not even close to "worlds apart."

Guarantee, Rich? While you're about it, can we perhaps have error bars on
that percentage improvement? After all, if you think you can estimate this
sort of thing numerically, we should at least be given some idea of the
accuracy of your measurement. Details of your unbiased participants, what
age groups, what systems, etC? Oh, and what's the precise numeric
definition of "worlds apart"? 73.4%, +-0.75%?

The point I'm trying to make here is that when you're talking about
something like "how much a game is improved by being accelerated", claiming
to know how much people will claim it's improved, and attaching a *number*
to that is, oh, I dunno, either misguided, clueless or arrogant in the
extreme.

"Improvement" is a completely subjective thing. You *can't* have an
unbiased observer. What criteria do you think these people will be
measuring? Frame rate? I've seen everything from 8fps to 40fps claimed as
the "base level" for smooth. So, depending on the individual's perception
of smooth, any increase in that department can vary drastically. Then
there's the number of colours - how many people will notice 16-bit vs 8-bit
colour without having it pointed out? How many will just say that the
picture "looks smoother"? How many will pick up on clipping anomalies, how
many will demand that the character wear more clothes and completely ignore
the technical aspects, how many will X, how many will Y?

If you personally don't think it's the difference between night and day,
fine. That's roughly my view of it too - greatly improved, but it's a
better-looking game, not a new game. To extend this to "guarantee" tha
unbiased observers will claim an average improvement of 40% though, that's
a pretty huge leap, and one that you can't back up in any way. At the end
of the day, you've got your own opinion and, perhaps in your case, a *feel*
for what the public'll think. To extend that to an absolute guarantee with
numeric bounds though, that's nuts.

Al

--
Al Crawford - aw...@access.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~awrc
"Art/Empire/Industry"

Namae

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 06:21:42 GMT, ric...@erols.com (Rich Heimlich)
wrote:

>"Steve Minor" <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>That is for sure. It is worlds better--no question about it.
>>
>>Let's look at the facts. On my P166:
>
>Your facts included speed improvements. I'm not talking about speed
>improvement at all. That's obvious and goes without saying. No
>argument there.

Now I got it. You see Rich, most of us were playing TombRaider at
~10fps before the 3DFX patch came out. You say it goes without
saying, but this is one of the significant improvement.

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:

>>Your facts included speed improvements. I'm not talking about speed
>>improvement at all. That's obvious and goes without saying. No
>>argument there.
>
>Now I got it. You see Rich, most of us were playing TombRaider at
>~10fps before the 3DFX patch came out. You say it goes without
>saying, but this is one of the significant improvement.

As I said, agreed. It seems to be faster on EVERY system. I think we
all expect that, including the average consumer. What's harder to know
is now "obvious" (very variable word) the difference in look is.

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

aw...@access5.digex.net (Al Crawford) wrote:

>Guarantee, Rich? While you're about it, can we perhaps have error bars on

Yes. My QA company spends an inordinate amount of time hanging out in
malls with clipboards in hand harrassing unsuspecting consumers (how's
that for honesty? <g>). I can "guarantee" it because the rough
percentage I picked is much higher than I know the responses would be.

>The point I'm trying to make here is that when you're talking about
>something like "how much a game is improved by being accelerated", claiming
>to know how much people will claim it's improved, and attaching a *number*
>to that is, oh, I dunno, either misguided, clueless or arrogant in the
>extreme.

I would call it informed. We just disagree on that. I don't think I
have a clue as to where exactly that number would end up. We're
talking hypothetical situations here. I am confident that the number
would not end up in any realm that anyone else would define as "worlds
apart." That's my point.

>"Improvement" is a completely subjective thing. You *can't* have an
>unbiased observer. What criteria do you think these people will be
>measuring? Frame rate? I've seen everything from 8fps to 40fps claimed as

No. Nothing so technical as frame rate. They can look at game A and
then game B running on the same system. Then, they'd write down a
number representing their interpretation of the improvement in item B
over item A.

>there's the number of colours - how many people will notice 16-bit vs 8-bit
>colour without having it pointed out? How many will just say that the

EXACTLY! Now you're catching on to my point. I KNOW, from lots of time
working with average consumers, that 95% of them wouldn't even notice.

>If you personally don't think it's the difference between night and day,
>fine. That's roughly my view of it too - greatly improved, but it's a
>better-looking game, not a new game.

We agree there. I went further by saying that we're in the vast
majority.

>unbiased observers will claim an average improvement of 40% though, that's

I actually said under 40% and picked that number because it was much
higher than what I'm certain the number would actually end up at.
Follow me for a second. What I "guaranteed" is obvious. It's like
saying, "I can guarantee that most people would say they like ice
cream."

>for what the public'll think. To extend that to an absolute guarantee with
>numeric bounds though, that's nuts.

I stand by it. So I'm nuts. <g>

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

f...@nilenet.com (SG) wrote:

>Is there any way to save a screenshot?
>
>If so could someone do a screenshot at normal SVGA and then the same
>shot enhanced with the Voodoo??

Someone just posted a set here the other day.

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

"Keith Young" <kyo...@cstone.net> wrote:

>No argument here, but I think the seams are in both versions...

I just looked. I don't see them here in the SVGA version. Maybe
they're just more obvious in the current 3Dfx beta.

>> consumers, not people who know better. Heck, I upgrade my system all
>> the time to get another 1% performance boost, etc. But I also know
>
><sigh>, sad, isn't it? :)

And likely to be expensive too. <g>

>Rich, I agree with your example as stated... I doubt most people would
>remember the difference from the previous day, looking at the new
>'screen-shot'. But when people are inquiring about 'what spending $300
>will do for them' (ok, I re-worded you a bit there <g>), then screen-shots
>don't tell the whole picture (pun intended).

Okay. I'd have to agree with that but speed is basic and can be
explained easily. I also share that fact with those who e-mail us all
the questions. It's easy to say, "In most cases the 3D-enhanced
version allows for everything to be turned on and still play at full
speed on even average systems." Consumers get this. Explaining the
graphical difference is the problem. Using phrases like, "night and
day," "worlds apart," etc., is a bad idea from the start.

>I think you might agree that if the example was changed from screen-shots
>to having them sit down and play the game, there would be a much more
>obvious difference.

Yes, because it would include performance too. As I said, I'm taking
NO issue with that what-so-ever. I just took issue with people using
the above phrases to describe the visual improvement.

>If someone is pretty heavy into this type of game (3D games in general),
>had a P90/P100 and was trying to decide whether to spend $300 on a 3D card
>vs ~$550 on a 200mhz CPU (and possibly another $~150-200 for a new mboard
>to support it), then the added performance issue becomes that much more
>relevent.

The bigger question is in how many people are likely to spend $300 on
a video upgrade card when they apparently didn't spend the same money
on their core system. I am left to wonder how many 3Dfx owners have
"basic" systems. I suspect it's a non-representively low number.

>I guess my point is that people need to play/experiance it for themselves
>(if possible), because the performance boost may be just as important, if
>not more-so, than the graphics boost.

Agreed.

>I don't think I'm disagreeing with you much here (?)... I'm just trying to
>highlight the performance issue relative to purchasing decisions.

Then we're not disagreeing at all. <g>

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

"Keith Young" <kyo...@cstone.net> wrote:

>So I guess my previous post was off-base except in that I felt it ought not
>'go without saying' <g>.

I suspect I could have avoided some confusion by "saying" it. <g>

Rich Heimlich

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

Terrence Yee <ty...@aloha.com> wrote:

>Hmm well they might say the same thing about Vquake and Quake (I liked

Makes for an interesting discussion doesn't it?

>the Vquake pics myself) but would they (average consumers per you) say
>the same when they saw the game in action? Still pics are one thing,
>but a moving game is quite a different story, as Vquake owners will
>surely testify to.

Good example. Most people we showed this to (I don't have my test
notes in front of me as I'm home for the holiday, but I believe we had
more than 40 people look at Quake versus VQuake for impact testing for
our cover story) didn't initially notice the difference AT ALL. Then,
after playing both, virtually everyone noted that they preferred the
VQuake version. The most accurate phrase we saw on the reports used
the phrase, "subliminal difference." I'd say that sums it up fairly
well. You wouldn't want to play the Quake version anymore but VQuake
couldn't be fairly described, by the masses, as "night and day,"
"worlds apart" or "like playing a whole new game" over the SVGA
version.

Don M. Bizub

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

Rich Heimlich <ric...@erols.com> wrote in article

> The bigger question is in how many people are likely to spend $300 on
> a video upgrade card when they apparently didn't spend the same money
> on their core system. I am left to wonder how many 3Dfx owners have
> "basic" systems. I suspect it's a non-representively low number.

Exactly. For a lot of us people with p90s, adding a 3DFX also means adding
a 2D card, thus making the total expenditure compete with the cost of a
chip upgrade.

Those that have maxed out there system think nothing of another $300.
Those of us who haven't must weigh the cost of one upgrade vs. another.

Do I get a bigger hard drive this month, more memory next month, upgrade
the video next, then buy a MMX chip? What about a tape backup system, a
zip/jaz drive or a larger monitor?

Most of us face multiple upgrade decisions, there is nothing wrong with
debating which ones are worth the money and which ones are not.

Don Biz

Terrence Yee

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96
to

Rich Heimlich wrote:
>
> Cosmetically I feel that it's a
> nice improvement but to suggest that it's like PLAYING A DIFFERENT
> GAME?! Ludicrous. That's stretching the phrase to the breaking point.

What do you think of Vquake vs Quake?

Ty

Smoke Crack and Worship Satan

unread,
Nov 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/29/96