Console vs. PC: The Final Word
Eric Pobirs
Paul Maynard wrote:
>
> [Brantley Jones bjo...@iamerica.net (bjstone) wrote:]
>
> >These console manufacturers need to start
> >concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest hardware.
>
> The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
> not by supporting old hardware).
>
Profit from video game hardware is close to nil. The hardware
companies make net revenue from production and sales of new software.
Backward compatibility primarily benefits second-hand sales and thus
isn't very attractive to hardware makers. The FlashRAM system Nintendo
is creating in Japan is an attempt to counter the tens of millions of
used Super Famicom games available.
--
Eric Pobirs
nbr...@ix.netcom.com or @earthlink.net
They can take away my local storage when
they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Paul Maynard
[Brantley Jones bjo...@iamerica.net (bjstone) wrote:]
>These console manufacturers need to start
>concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest hardware.
The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
not by supporting old hardware).
Paul.
----------------------------------------
Paul Maynard (cyclist)
Mail: pmay...@wr.com.au
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4915/index.html
Erik Harris
In article <85061288...@nachos.wr.com.au>, pmay...@wr.com.au (Paul Maynard) wrote:
>>These console manufacturers need to start
>>concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest hardware.
>The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
>not by supporting old hardware).
Not true. The consoles themselves are generally sold at about cost, if not at
a slight loss. The real profit is on the games themselves.
However, the public WANTS high tech games, so games for old systems doesn't
sell well, so in that sense, you're right, they don't make much money on
supporting old hardware.
Erik Harris
es...@cornell.edu
Chris
Paul Maynard wrote:
>
> [Brantley Jones bjo...@iamerica.net (bjstone) wrote:]
>
> >These console manufacturers need to start
> >concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest hardware.
>
> The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
> not by supporting old hardware).
Just like ID did by making Quake Pentium only. A consle last MUCH longer
than the standard PC. A PC needs to be upgrade EVERY year in order to
stay with new games. Have you ever read the req. of games lately on the
PC
Min 486 66 (yeah right it won't even crawl at thatt speed)
40 meg hard drive(75 req)
Just to name a few.
Rob Dunlop
You have a point, but I'd like to add something. You buy a master
system, couple of years later you get a mega drive, then afterwards you
get a saturn. Now all your mega drive and master system games are
unusable on the saturn. At least with PCs when I get a P166 chip it
doesn't stop Doom from playing. Better still, games are coded nowadays
to be demanding on processors for years to come, as you increase the
resolution. Ok, so in actual fact 3d cards have totally stomped on this
benefit, bringing pcs much closer to consols in concept. But with any
luck Direct3d will be the DOS of the future - ie future 3d generations
of 3d cards will still play D3d Quake.
The other advantage PCs have in their constant upgrade requirements is
that they can stay ahead of the competition. It's taken a hell of a long
time, but we have finally got to the point where an average spec PC (and
I mean a pentium there) with a Voodoo card inside can beat the shit out
of any consol around or on the horizon. Consols look so good because
they are displayed on TVs which tend to fool you into thinking they are
high resolution, while N64 Mario for example uses about a quarter of the
pixels that D2 for the 3dfx uses - and doesn't match the 3dfx's
framerate. If you still prefer the look of the blurry consols, then feel
free to sell the sony trinitron 17 inch monitor and get some big ugly tv
with an adapter for you computer. Or take your glasses off when you look
at the screen.
I was never very concerned about the technology though. I have always
been happy to see Wipeout eat the pc version alive. For me the ONLY
reason I use my pc for games is to play against other people (and I'm
not talking split screen here). Red Alert, Descent2, Quake, etc etc -
they are my hobbies, and I am willing to throw a reasonable amount of
cash at something I enjoy. And I enjoy multiplayer games immensely. Oh
yes you can probably hook up the consols but you'd need a fair amount of
cable to connect the UK to the USA.
I bought a SNES once. It didn't last. I don't enjoy going to arcades and
playing virtua something, I prefer the sophistication of pc games. I
WILL buy a 3dfx or equivalent, but this is purely to show off to my
friends;) I admit it.
Pc's rule. Mac's rule a little, coz they can do all the multiplayer
stuff now on mac kali. Consols? Feel free. They work best in rock band
tour buses though.
Rob / Picasso
Agammemnon
In article <32B4BF...@dircon.co.uk>, unc...@dircon.co.uk says...
The thing about PC's is that there is much more initial cost, and it
costs a lot more to upgrade a PC than it does a console. A 3d-card
costs as much as a PSX. Sure, I could upgrade my P-90 to play the
newest PC games, but I don't want to spend $500, only to have to
upgrade to a Pentium 200 1 or 2 years down the road. Instead, I'll
just buy the latest console.
Ed Giangrande
>Just like ID did by making Quake Pentium only. A consle last MUCH
longer
>than the standard PC. A PC needs to be upgrade EVERY year in order to
>stay with new games. Have you ever read the req. of games lately on
the
>PC
>Min 486 66 (yeah right it won't even crawl at thatt speed)
>40 meg hard drive(75 req)
>
>Just to name a few.
Give me a break... a console doesn't last longer, you just end up
having to buy a new one every 2 years when it becomes outdated, or
suffer with having last year'stop item as well. I mean look, Saturn and
PSX became somewhat graphically outdated once N64 came out, as did
Genesis when SNES came out, as did Game Boy when TGE and Game Gear Came
out, etc.... That was only less than 2 years later in each of those
cases.. What about PCs? Sure, they get outdated too, but frankly a
Pentium 133 is about the standard PC purchased in the major chain
stores today.. in that case, Quake would run fine on it.. Most chains
carry Pentium Pros and Pentium 200s... and I highly doubt that there
will be any game that has a Pentium 133 minimum req in the next year
and a half. Sure, PC get outdated faster, but the only reason for that
is because more people want bigger and better PCs than consoles... a
SNES has been outdated for years graphically ever since 3DO and Jaguar,
it is just a different syndrome because Nintendo etc are still going to
make games for the outdated technology to get as much as they can out
of it... Whereas on a PC, since everyone is always buying newer stuff
and everyone makes games on the same platform, the game makers can
afford to keep raising the minimum reqs. every now and then and not
have to worry about it...
Dave Ripberger
tig...@ix.netcom.com(Ed Giangrande) wrote:
>Give me a break... a console doesn't last longer, you just end up
>having to buy a new one every 2 years when it becomes outdated, or
>suffer with having last year'stop item as well. I mean look, Saturn and
>PSX became somewhat graphically outdated once N64 came out, as did
>Genesis when SNES came out, as did Game Boy when TGE and Game Gear Came
>out, etc.... That was only less than 2 years later in each of those
>cases.. What about PCs? Sure, they get outdated too, but frankly a
>Pentium 133 is about the standard PC purchased in the major chain
>stores today
> ---
It is just as expensive, if not more, to keep up with PC games, and
when your thru the PC game still requires tying up your PC to play a
game. I.E. dad can't use the PC when little Johnny wants to play.
It comes down to who the games are for. If they're for your kids, get
a console system, where you get fantastic graphics at a reasonable
price. If the games are for dad or mom, or even a teenager, then PC
games are the natural choice, where more mentally challenging
interactive games can be found that require less horsepower.
But dad shouldn't be surprised if he get's addicted to Mario too :).
I can't wait for Christmas to open up the N64!!!!
Dave
Mike McLean
>And then you have to buy all new games and you have less to pick from
>because the latest console is so new. I can play every game ever made
>for an IBM PC compatable computer on my P-166.
>
Same here. The last console I owned was a Super NES. It now sits in
my closet collecting dust. I could do everything the SNES could do on
a 486. There are more and more games for a PC anyways. total
backwards compatibilty, and the ability to create your own games if
you want to like I do
Louc...@ezonline.com
Agame...@juno.com (Agammemnon) wrote:
>The thing about PC's is that there is much more initial cost, and it
>costs a lot more to upgrade a PC than it does a console. A 3d-card
>costs as much as a PSX. Sure, I could upgrade my P-90 to play the
>newest PC games, but I don't want to spend $500, only to have to
>upgrade to a Pentium 200 1 or 2 years down the road. Instead, I'll
>just buy the latest console.
And then you have to buy all new games and you have less to pick from
bill plem
In article <5921oh$din$1...@news3.microserve.net>, Louc...@ezonline.com says...
Paul Erickson
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:18:04 GMT, pmay...@wr.com.au (Paul Maynard)
wrote:
>[Brantley Jones bjo...@iamerica.net (bjstone) wrote:]
>
>>These console manufacturers need to start
>>concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest hardware.
>
>The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
>not by supporting old hardware).
Absolutely wrong.
The video game industry makes no margin and in the case of Nintendo
and the N64, and formerly Sony, they actually take a loss on the
console itself. The real money to be made is off the royalties from
game sales. Think about it... a 10 buck royalty per game vs. let's
say making $50 off the consumer at time of console purchase... which
one generates more long-run profits?
And they do concentrate on the games. Lack of games is one drawback
that hampers both the Saturn and N64. Saturn only recently woke up
and started pumping out quality titles to stem the bleeding from
constantly decreasing market share of the Saturn.
However the console life cycle is only about 2-3 years.. you can
expect to see a new console around the 2-2.5 year time period. There
is a Saturn 2, a PSX-2 both in the works. Christmas '97 for the
Playstation 2 I believe. By that point the console will be almost 3
years old?
________________________
____Paul R. Erickson____
__ARCLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC(DE)__
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Univ. of Texas/Austin
Graduate School of Business
MBA 1998 Marketing
"The meek shall inherit the earth only when
we're good and done with it, and with them."
-Fred Rexer, G.I.
Chris
Mike McLean wrote:
>
> >And then you have to buy all new games and you have less to pick from
> >because the latest console is so new. I can play every game ever made
> >for an IBM PC compatable computer on my P-166.
> >
>
> my closet collecting dust. I could do everything the SNES could do on
> a 486. There are more and more games for a PC anyways. total
> backwards compatibilty, and the ability to create your own games if
> you want to like I do
Yes but the SNES came outt in 90-91 so the standard at tthe time was a
286 maybe a 386. These machines are now used as door stops. At least you
could sell you SNES for 100 with 8 games...try and sell a 286!
Would yoou really want to play a PC game made 5 years ago. Wing
Commander 1...I don't think so.
I love PC games! But games like Tomb raider, Quake, Wing Commander 4,
any flinght sim, Daytona USA (PC!) and other require you to have a
high-end machine. A PSX, N64, Saturn and M2(not out yet) require 200-300
dollars and offer JUST as good graphics and gameplay while only cost
little.
My point being, I a guy goes out to buy a PC for his son....for
games...he will pay 2000-3000 dollar P200(loaded). They get it home and
everything works great. They get a game, install it...find out their
sound card is incompatiable, IRQ conficts and finally get it to run. The
next Christmans comes and the new game are out. The boy sees a game NHL
98(not out but probably will be out in late 97) and the father buys it.
I bet the kid will have to turn some of the graphics off because of slow
down!!!!
The PSX and Satturn came outt 06-10 of 95 and they still have great FAST
games to play. I can't seeing either system dying until 98/99..theat 4-5
years out of a system for 200-300 bucks. Say that about a PC..NO WAY. I
think upgrading a PC for games is really going way to far.
Chris
Agammemnon wrote:
>
> In article <32B4BF...@dircon.co.uk>, unc...@dircon.co.uk says...
> :Chris wrote:
> :>
> :> >
> :> > [Brantley Jones bjo...@iamerica.net (bjstone) wrote:]
> :> >
> :> > >These console manufacturers need to start
> :> > >concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest
> hardware.
> :> >
> :> > The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with
> new,
> :> > not by supporting old hardware).
> :> Just like ID did by making Quake Pentium only. A consle last MUCH
> longer
> :> than the standard PC. A PC needs to be upgrade EVERY year in order
> to
> :> stay with new games. Have you ever read the req. of games lately on
> the
> :> PC
> :> Min 486 66 (yeah right it won't even crawl at thatt speed)
> :> 40 meg hard drive(75 req)
> :>
> :> Just to name a few.
> costs a lot more to upgrade a PC than it does a console. A 3d-card
> costs as much as a PSX. Sure, I could upgrade my P-90 to play the
> newest PC games, but I don't want to spend $500, only to have to
> upgrade to a Pentium 200 1 or 2 years down the road. Instead, I'll
> just buy the latest console.
My point exactly.
Grant Schoep
> It comes down to who the games are for. If they're for your kids, get
> a console system, where you get fantastic graphics at a reasonable
> price. If the games are for dad or mom, or even a teenager, then PC
> games are the natural choice, where more mentally challenging
> interactive games can be found that require less horsepower.
>
> But dad shouldn't be surprised if he get's addicted to Mario too :).
> I can't wait for Christmas to open up the N64!!!!
>
pet peaves, but this last message ticked me off. Whats wrong with
mentally challenging games for kids? It is basically what type of
game you prefer. My 7 year old brother loses interest in Nintendo, and
Genisis systems I have in about 5 minutes. But he will play with a
stupid word processor for hours. Can't figure it out. :> THough I think
I remeber doing that years back too.
-Grant
--
**********************************************************************
* Grant Schoep Computer Science Major *
* bi...@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu Bemidji State University *
* -Education is the key to progression of life and advancement of *
* humankind. Communication is the the key to education. *
Paul Choi
bill plem wrote:
>
> In article <5921oh$din$1...@news3.microserve.net>, Louc...@ezonline.com says...
> >
> >Agame...@juno.com (Agammemnon) wrote:
> >
> >>costs a lot more to upgrade a PC than it does a console. A 3d-card
> >>costs as much as a PSX. Sure, I could upgrade my P-90 to play the
> >>newest PC games, but I don't want to spend $500, only to have to
> >>upgrade to a Pentium 200 1 or 2 years down the road. Instead, I'll
> >>just buy the latest console.
> >
> >because the latest console is so new. I can play every game ever made
> >for an IBM PC compatable computer on my P-166.
> >
Yes, and that's what the industry is hoping to change, and that's what
the PC users are hoping to change. N64 has superior graphics, and
respectible share of games. SEGA's entry into the PC market is great
and I hope it will go well. We need to see VF2 PC and VF3 PC sometime
in my life. BTW, I think VO is coming out for PC soon, according to an
unconfirmed rumor I heard from a friend.
PC does have its initial cost, and the learning curve is obviously
infinitely steeper than a console. Plug in the console, plug in the
cartridge or insert the cd, turn on the power...my God, that's
difficult. But a PC is not intended to be a 100% game machine, and I
use my PC for more than games, although I do spend a substantial amt. of
its resources playing games.
I never had a console, but played some console games. One major problem
with console games is that the replayability is severely limited to the
PC. Depth of the gameplay is severely limited and you're playing solo
until you get a second player. The trend for PC is network gaming, esp.
on the internet. "Long legs" they call it.
Jason Chong
I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
PCs can never do 3D graphics at 60 frames per second. To achieve
even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
But I notice even 3D games for PSX have degraded a lot. Frame rates
of many new 3D games barely even achieve 30 fps unlike Tekken 2.(60 fps)
Maybe because non-Japanese game programmers are really too lazy. :)
I prefer Anime/Manga style games. But Tomb Raider is an exception
though.
(But its frame rate still sucked compared to the PSX version.)
And I practically haven't touched PC games for at least 2 years coz
what's the use of Good pentium speeds when tons of garbage are released
for the PC everyday. Pentium is good, but err, the software for the PCs
need a lot of improvement. But as a game programmer, I still prefer
to make PC games. You don't pay tons of money to some big monopolistic
individual if you wanna make games. Not like Saturn and PSX machines,
you need $$$$$ to get the dev kit. Then you need their permission to
sell your game and they can reject it without a reason if they want to.
Hmmm. Looks like Microsoft isn't that all a big baddie. :)
Jason.
Bill Spencer
[newsgroups trimmed to those somewhat relevant]
Eric Pobirs wrote:
> Paul Maynard wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
> > not by supporting old hardware).
> >
> Profit from video game hardware is close to nil. The hardware
> companies make net revenue from production and sales of new software.
> Backward compatibility primarily benefits second-hand sales and thus
> isn't very attractive to hardware makers.
Except they forget that the current market is a war ... and any advantage
you can get should be grabbed. Maybe I overestimate the effects, but I'd
guess that Sega would be the market leader if Saturns could play Sega CDs
(providing an immediate software resource at time of the Saturn's release,
for little more than the price of a Sega CD system).
No other maker had an opportunity as golden. But then they couldn't have
dumped losses on Sega CD on retailers, could they?
Bill
Andrew Ariens
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:38:00 -0800, Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my>
wrote:
>I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
>have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
>My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
Just curious, but does anyone out there actually believe this?!
--
Andrew Ariens
ari...@aiinc.com
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase1/ariens/index.html
"There's a lot of love in this room and I don't like it!"
-- James Hetfield
Paul Choi
Andrew Ariens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:38:00 -0800, Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
> >have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> >My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
>
> Just curious, but does anyone out there actually believe this?!
Eh, somewhat. I somewhat got sick of playing the PC games I have. So
many of them are either Doom rip-offs or alleged Quake killers. Then
there are Warcraft II and C&C wanna-bes. That's pretty much all you see
out there. With the apparent lack of good RPGs, esp. Ultima 9, I find
myself at the arcade quite often.
I don't have a console, although I would like to own one. The problem
is that longevity of the average console game is not very long. Most of
the popular games that were originally designed for a console don't do
very well on the PC market, even if the translation is quite good. I
find myself avoiding PC games that were originally designed for the
Playstation.
But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
distinguish more than 24 frps.
Scott Dudley
> >And then you have to buy all new games and you have less to pick from
> >because the latest console is so new. I can play every game ever made
> >for an IBM PC compatable computer on my P-166.
> >
> but they still don't compare to the N64 :P
I'd play Quake over Mario64 anyday...
Earthman
Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my> wrote in article
<32B64D...@pc.jaring.my>...
> I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
> have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
> even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
> PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
>
> But I notice even 3D games for PSX have degraded a lot. Frame rates
> of many new 3D games barely even achieve 30 fps unlike Tekken 2.(60 fps)
> Maybe because non-Japanese game programmers are really too lazy. :)
> I prefer Anime/Manga style games. But Tomb Raider is an exception
> though.
> (But its frame rate still sucked compared to the PSX version.)
>
> And I practically haven't touched PC games for at least 2 years coz
> what's the use of Good pentium speeds when tons of garbage are released
> for the PC everyday. Pentium is good, but err, the software for the PCs
> need a lot of improvement. But as a game programmer, I still prefer
> to make PC games. You don't pay tons of money to some big monopolistic
> individual if you wanna make games. Not like Saturn and PSX machines,
> you need $$$$$ to get the dev kit. Then you need their permission to
> sell your game and they can reject it without a reason if they want to.
>
> Hmmm. Looks like Microsoft isn't that all a big baddie. :)
>
> Jason.
>
What? Since when do console games get 60 fps!? Bullshit! A tv's framerate
is 30fps, you can't go beyond that! Even so, only systems I know to get 60
fps in 3d is the Silicon Graphics Onyx family.
Your eyes hurt if a game's framerate goes below 60? I think you mean
monitor refresh rate. And pcs with better-than-worst monitors go way beyond
that at 640x480, a resolution which consoles can only dream of!
Ed Giangrande
>It is just as expensive, if not more, to keep up with PC games, and
>when your thru the PC game still requires tying up your PC to play a
>game. I.E. dad can't use the PC when little Johnny wants to play.
>
>It comes down to who the games are for. If they're for your kids, get
>a console system, where you get fantastic graphics at a reasonable
>price. If the games are for dad or mom, or even a teenager, then PC
>games are the natural choice, where more mentally challenging
>interactive games can be found that require less horsepower.
>
>But dad shouldn't be surprised if he get's addicted to Mario too :).
>I can't wait for Christmas to open up the N64!!!!
>
>
>Dave
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with that. I think for just a pure
"gamer", the PC may not be the most modest choice... I mean there is so
much more to a PC than just games... Though for $999 you can basically
pick up a fairly adequate P133 system w/ monitor if you make it
yourself or slightly over $1500 if you buy a Compaq all in one presario
deal. I mean sure, PCs are expensive... but I think PC are no less
subject to upgrades than Consoles.. I think the difference is that with
my 486 66 that we got 3.5 years ago I can still run Red Alert, arguable
one of the best PC games to date. Sure, something tells me it will be
about 3 years or more before Pentium 133s become the bare minimum for
most new games. And even once the games pass the system, there will
still be many other uses for the 133mhz PC that will still be
available, just like there are still plenty of programs I can use on
this 486. Sure, it costs more, but you are getting more than a game
machine for your money. But for the games that a PC can produce, it is
also a very powerful console of its own. I mean there are many strong
family oriented PC titles beyond these so called 'stratedgy games'.. I
think of all of Sega's games on the PC, Quake, NFS, Rayman, etc among
others... sure there are a lot of thinking games, but there are plenty
of console-like and sports games as well..
The PC is not cheap... but in my case, it is the best system. We have
an IPX network hooked up here, which allows for 8 player Red Alert, 16
player Quake, network sports games, and all around multiplayer titles
just not possible on a console... Not everyone has this set-up,
granted, so I can understand why one may say Consoles are the more
conservative choice as better. But for anyone who experiences the PC te
way I do, there is little doubt that the PC easily makes up for at
times mediocre graphics (though recently it has outdone Saturn and PSX
in games like Tomb Raider) with multiplayer fun.
Solomon Peachy
In article <32B64D...@pc.jaring.my>, c...@pc.jaring.my says...
>I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
>have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
>My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
>PCs can never do 3D graphics at 60 frames per second. To achieve
>even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
>PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
60 Fps? Pretty good considering TVs refresh at 30 Fps (NTSC) or 24 Fps (PAL).
Anthing over 30 Fps is beyond the capabilities of the Television.
(Yes, I know that there are 60 fields per second, but a field is 1/2 the frame)
I have a Reactor 3D, and I hit 30fps in Quake. (In 640x480!)
Performance drops a tad in Win'95 (and when networking it) though.
Dave Ripberger
tig...@ix.netcom.com(Ed Giangrande) wrote:
>way I do, there is little doubt that the PC easily makes up for at
>times mediocre graphics (though recently it has outdone Saturn and PSX
>in games like Tomb Raider) with multiplayer fun.
I agree.
Dave
cali
Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my> writes: > I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
> have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
> PCs can never do 3D graphics at 60 frames per second. To achieve
> even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
> PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
>
> of many new 3D games barely even achieve 30 fps unlike Tekken 2.(60 fps)
> Maybe because non-Japanese game programmers are really too lazy. :)
> I prefer Anime/Manga style games. But Tomb Raider is an exception
> though.
> (But its frame rate still sucked compared to the PSX version.)
>
> And I practically haven't touched PC games for at least 2 years coz
> what's the use of Good pentium speeds when tons of garbage are released
> for the PC everyday. Pentium is good, but err, the software for the PCs
> need a lot of improvement. But as a game programmer, I still prefer
> to make PC games. You don't pay tons of money to some big monopolistic
> individual if you wanna make games. Not like Saturn and PSX machines,
> you need $$$$$ to get the dev kit. Then you need their permission to
> sell your game and they can reject it without a reason if they want to.
>
> Hmmm. Looks like Microsoft isn't that all a big baddie. :)
>
> Jason.
Don't tell that to my Monster 3D......I like it too much.
Timothy Terriberry
Intel will not be releasing a 100% RISC processor. And why do you think
RISC processors are inherently faster than C(R)ISC processors anyway?
Sure they can get more ops, but they sacrifice many important commands
that must instead be done in software (most notably multiply and
divide). In fact, with current optimizations, the majority of Pentium
instructions only take 1 clock cycle, or 2 at the most. The Pentium also
has a five stage pipeline and branch prediction, just like that used in
the RISC processors. Yes, the Pentium does not have that notorious cache
of on-chip registers that increases RISC performance, but this is due
mostly to x86 compatibility. Chip sizes for successive version of the
Pentium processors are drastically decreasing. The Pentium's real speed
comes from a bus twice as large as that of a 486 and an on-chip cache
twice as large (actually, it has two of the same size, one for code and
one for data), plus the second stripped-down pipeline that allows
parallel execution of two instructions simultaneously barring
register/memory/timing conflicts. But what Intel MAY do is relase a
completely INcompatible chip based on a new VLIW (Very Long Instruction
Word) architecture. Very Long Instruction Word will supposedly be to
RISC what RISC was to the (original) CISC. This chip would operate
approximately ten times as fast as current P90's, and _emulate_ the x86
architecure approximately three times faster than current P60's (yeah,
big whoop for todays standards, but its still EMULATION, mind you) in
order to ease the transition from one line to the next. Release time was
originally planned for 1997, but that was several months ago so I don't
know the story now. But since most of the 3D effects now are going to be
done in hardware, you're going to see framerates soar on the PC
regardless (well, not entirely) of the processor. That and the PC's
ability to refresh somewhere up to 75hz (depending upon model and
graphics mode), much better than that of a televsion, which is around
30hz, conceivable framrates for the PC are already higher than that of
your conventional console with current hardware.
Rob Dunlop
Oh golly! Could you be any less well informed?
Jason Chong wrote:
> have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
TV's can display a maximum of 30 FPS! 25 here in the UK. Although the TV
flickers 60 times a second, it's not actually updating the image every
time. It's interlaced. OK, that's about as far as my technical knowledge
goes, I'll leave it to the Dave Glues of this world to go into detail.
> PCs can never do 3D graphics at 60 frames per second. To achieve
> even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
> PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
Exactly how old is the technology you're looking at? Tell you what, I
can't be shagged to talk about the 3dfx or verite or PowerVr cards that
perform significantly better than your Playstation. Instead I'll just
say go to www.3dfx.com, or read a little comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video.
> I prefer Anime/Manga style games. But Tomb Raider is an exception
> though.
> (But its frame rate still sucked compared to the PSX version.)
hello, 3dfx?
> And I practically haven't touched PC games for at least 2 years
It shows.
> But as a game programmer, I still prefer
> to make PC games.
LOL - you must really be on the cutting edge! You and Carmack are best
buddies, right! If you're a programmer how come you know so little about
the performance of today's pcs?????? And how can you make pc games
without, er.. touching pc games. The word "contradiction" mean anything
to you?
If anyone can be bothered to tell this guy what's going on with pcs at
the moment, then please do.
Take it from me, you've got it arse over tit mate.
Rob / Picasso
Jason
> My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
> even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
> PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
umm, you must have some bug in your pc, cause even on MY pentium 60, with
no special graphics card, (in fact, its got some cheesy generic card built
onto the motherboard) with directX 3.0 installed, i can get about 70-80 FPS
in DooM 95. and 40-50 in DooM for dos. of course, that's just DooM. i get
about 40 FPS in Need For Speed in 640x480 mode. i get about 50 fps in
WarCraft 2. the only one that bombs out is Quake. i get 10-20 fps in Quake,
but quake is so much MORE demanding on a processor. make sure you're
statments are true before you go saying that PC's cant do graphics.
--
-RockinDude-
take the *** out of the email address to reply,
to avoid spambots.
<email address Rocki...@bbs.phantasy.com>
Amaury Acosta
Until Intel releases a fast, 100% RISC processor for computers,
consoles will always be faster. I don't care if you have 128 megs of ram
or a high powered 3d video card. And Microsoft releases a 64-bit or
higher operating system (Windows 2000) that will be optimized to run
with the RISC chip. I'll take the N64 and PSX any day over the PC. The
OS and processor are the 2 biggest bottlenecks for PC games.
Joe Ottoson
In article <32B622...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
paul...@uclink4.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> distinguish more than 24 frps.
That's dead wrong. (where did this fallacy ever begin?) Try 70fps for the
*human* limits ;-)
Always remember,
Real faith is objective
Rob Dunlop
Chris wrote:
>
> Mike McLean wrote:
> >
> > >And then you have to buy all new games and you have less to pick from
> > >because the latest console is so new. I can play every game ever made
> > >for an IBM PC compatable computer on my P-166.
> > >
> >
All in all a very reasonable post. I would say maybe that buying a pc
for games is a little extreme, but upgrading, well why the Hell not! Let
me spend my 300 on either a consol or a P133+3d card ok!
Having said that, there are quite a few of us that WOULD buy a PC JUST
for games (ok, me included). The reason is I like to play pc games. They
are fun. I don't like consol games. I don't have to discuss upgrades,
cost, graphical capabilities to anyone. I know that if I want to play
Quake, Red Alert, Descent over the net or modem then I need a pc. Very
few games take my interest, and those that do are ALL multiplayer games.
Why wank when you can have sex, if you see the metaphor..
Yes, I end up paying shit loads, but I am willing to get throw money at
something I really enjoy. I had a consol once, for SF2, but now I can't
think of any game that I wouldn't get bored of on a consol after 2
hours. And I don't care if they put an arcade standard chip inside them
and they come with a free 60 inch projection tv. One player games just
don't entertain me personally. Split screen huh? Wahay.
I fully admit that all gaming is kind of sad, so I'm not calling my
taste better than anyone else's. We are all wasting our time, consol and
pc users alike. But there are loads of people like me who would never
touch a consol and it ISN'T just pig-headedness.
Rob / Picasso
BTW I need my PC for the artwork I do, OK!
oh, that second pentium on the null modem? Er, you got me;)
Jason Chong
Paul Choi wrote:
>
> But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> distinguish more than 24 frps.
I can! :) You can too! Just play the PC VERSION of DAYTONA or VIRTUA
FIGHTER
or VIRTUA COP and compare them to the arcade version. The arcade version
is a lot smoother. Only ppl who don't really indulge in arcade games
can't
seem to tell the difference. Ppl who played a lot of arcade games will
tell
you the difference. Anyway, TVs DO refresh at 60/50 hz. NTSC refreshes
at 60hz wheres PAL is at 50hz. That's why games like Tekken2 can get
smooth
and you don't see 'ghost' trails. If any games that you play leaves
ghost
trails, then it isn't running at the refresh rate of the output device.
For the PC, you need to get at least 70hz/fps to elimate ghost trails
of games. So requirements to get ultra smooth animation is somewhat more
demanding on the PC. But I guess nobody wants to agree with me, since
they
don't have the 'extra' sensory nerves that my eyes have. >8)
Or they probably treat PCs as their religion. I'm neutral tho'. Prefer
to have both Consoles and PCs. ;)
Ordinary humans CAN differentiate between 30 and 60 fps. Period. :)
Don't flame me for this. I'm just expressing my views. :)
Jason.
Earthman
Chris <crod...@total.net> wrote in article <32B5E5...@total.net>...
Yes uhm, but at least on the PC it is fairly easy to get games the cheap
way, no? And besides, the idea of consoles is to give away the hardware at
low prices, and make all the profit on the games. And on the PC it is a lot
easier to get expansion stuff.
Chris
Ed Giangrande wrote:
>
> >Just like ID did by making Quake Pentium only. A consle last MUCH
> longer
> >than the standard PC. A PC needs to be upgrade EVERY year in order to
> >stay with new games. Have you ever read the req. of games lately on
> the
> >PC
> >Min 486 66 (yeah right it won't even crawl at thatt speed)
> >40 meg hard drive(75 req)
> >
> >Just to name a few.
>
> having to buy a new one every 2 years when it becomes outdated, or
> suffer with having last year'stop item as well. I mean look, Saturn and
> PSX became somewhat graphically outdated once N64 came out, as did
> Genesis when SNES came out, as did Game Boy when TGE and Game Gear Came
> out, etc.... That was only less than 2 years later in each of those
> cases.. What about PCs? Sure, they get outdated too, but frankly a
> Pentium 133 is about the standard PC purchased in the major chain
> stores today.. in that case, Quake would run fine on it.. Most chains
> carry Pentium Pros and Pentium 200s... and I highly doubt that there
> will be any game that has a Pentium 133 minimum req in the next year
> and a half. Sure, PC get outdated faster, but the only reason for that
> is because more people want bigger and better PCs than consoles... a
> SNES has been outdated for years graphically ever since 3DO and Jaguar,
> it is just a different syndrome because Nintendo etc are still going to
> make games for the outdated technology to get as much as they can out
> of it... Whereas on a PC, since everyone is always buying newer stuff
> and everyone makes games on the same platform, the game makers can
> afford to keep raising the minimum reqs. every now and then and not
> have to worry about it...
I think you lost my point. My point was a console...new top of the line
is 200 US. Right? A computer top of tthe line 166, sound card,
CD....monitor 2000-3000. Sure PC's have MUCH better Strat, adv., and
sims but they also cost a hell of a lot more. Also you can't rent a PC
game at blockbuster can you? You have to play a demo( which doesn't
exsist most of the time) or prey it's a good game instead of renting it
at BB and trying it. To prove my point look at the computers I have
owned for games
Apple IIc
Atari 520ST
Amiga (best game machine ever!!!!!)
386/16 SX
486 33 DX
486 66 DX
Pentium 90
Pentium 166
Game machines I have owned
Atari 2600
Colecovision
Genesis
SNES
Saturn
PSX
N64
Notice that I didn't bother with the NES because I had an Amiga at the
time. I'm just saying it seems that there is no standard in the PC
market. You buy a system and next year you can't play the newest games
because of slowdown. I have a 166 32 megs and WC4 is slow in certain
parts and this games is almost a year old!!!!! That's why I loved Duke3d
compare tto Quake. Duke is fast on a P75 while Quake crawls along.
My final point being and most important point is that games designed for
console are made for that specific machine. ie Wipeout XL is fast as
hell. I don'tt need a PSX /133 to run it. It runs on my PSX I bout a
year ago just great. The programmers don'tt anticipate the market like
tthe PC market. The programmers for the PSX, Saturn, N64 KNOW the
machines limits and advantages. While guys proogramming for the PC will
say"ok this game is going to be out chistmas 97...and the standard PC
will be a pentium 200..." THIS IS MY POINT.
Sorry to run off like this but I feel that the PC gaming market has LOST
touch with the average gamer. Notice Origin, EA(the same), ID,
Activision, Interplay and others just push to far. make games that work
on both low and high end machines!!! Like Apogee.
Chuck Rinker
Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>I can! :) You can too! Just play the PC VERSION of DAYTONA or VIRTUA
>FIGHTER
>or VIRTUA COP and compare them to the arcade version. The arcade version
>is a lot smoother.
I personally believe that's more of a function of the implementation
of the animation and response of the joystick/buttons on the dedicated
arcade system.
>you the difference. Anyway, TVs DO refresh at 60/50 hz. NTSC refreshes
>at 60hz wheres PAL is at 50hz.
True, however, NTSC is an interlaced signal meaning you're really
still only getting a fully updated frame 30 times a second....
The NTSC is also an analog system and because it displays with
scanlines instead of pixels, you get a "blurred" or "anti-aliased"
effect that smooths out the image (especially is fast animation).
I, too, like both console and PC games. Although I disagree with
Jason's thoughts on distinguishing 60 fps, I do agree that there's a
noticible difference, but it's not related to whether arcade players
have developed an affinity to higher frame rates!, it's related to the
display technologies behind the games. PC games are harder to get to
look smooth when animated and arcade & console games don't have as
sharp an image (typically).
Just my two-cents worth...
Chuck Rinker
8th Wonder Games
Andrew Ariens
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 21:51:51 -0800, Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my>
wrote:
>you the difference. Anyway, TVs DO refresh at 60/50 hz. NTSC refreshes
>at 60hz wheres PAL is at 50hz. That's why games like Tekken2 can get
But it's interlaced, so the maximum framerate is abut 30fps for NTSC
and about 25fps for PAL.
Uh oh, now I bet your eyes will start "hurting" when you play console
games now. ;-)
Chris
card..at 150 dollars. For 1 game...no sorry.
Sérgio Carvalho
Jason Chong wrote:
>
> I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
> have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
> PCs can never do 3D graphics at 60 frames per second. To achieve
> even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
> PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
Please explain me how ca you get 60 fps from a console hooke up to a TV
whose max frame rate is 25/30 fps (wether you live in USA/EUROPE) ...
I guess yu can't, coz consoles don't go 60 fps (they don't go 640x480
also, in case you don't know).
Sergio Carvalho lei...@tom.fe.up.pt
--------------------------------------------------------
http://alf.fe.up.pt/aefewww/leic94/Welcome.html
avender
different inventions that are made to do different opperations.
A. Vender
ave...@primenet.com
Joe Ottoson
In article <01bbeb8a$cab515a0$0e2e...@pawel.xs4all.nl>, "Earthman"
<eart...@dds.nl*> wrote:
> What? Since when do console games get 60 fps!? Bullshit! A tv's framerate
> is 30fps, you can't go beyond that! Even so, only systems I know to get 60
> fps in 3d is the Silicon Graphics Onyx family.
>
Sigh... You really are that ignorant aren't you? Consoles can draw with
every screen refresh which will always net you a 60fps rate...
Eponymity
In article <32B5E5...@total.net>, Chris <crod...@total.net> wrote:
} My point being, I a guy goes out to buy a PC for his son....for
} games...he will pay 2000-3000 dollar P200(loaded). They get it home and
} everything works great. They get a game, install it...find out their
} sound card is incompatiable, IRQ conficts and finally get it to run. The
} next Christmans comes and the new game are out. The boy sees a game NHL
} 98(not out but probably will be out in late 97) and the father buys it.
} I bet the kid will have to turn some of the graphics off because of slow
} down!!!!
}
} The PSX and Satturn came outt 06-10 of 95 and they still have great FAST
} games to play.
This is an apples-and-oranges argument. The reason the PC games keep
getting "slower" is that they keep getting *better*. The reason NHL97
requires so much hardware is that it is running in a very high resolution
mode, whereas 2 years ago it was not. Your PSX and Saturn are not going
to improve unless you buy more hardware either. What resolution do they
run at? Probably the same 320x240 that is now considered "unacceptable"
by PC gamers. It is the *players* that are dictating the increase in the
minimum requirements for games, to a large extent.
If you want your system not to degrade in speed then don't buy the (relatively
few) titles that require tons of hardware horsepower. Or turn them down a
notch or two.. you don't *have* to run Quake at 800x600. Meanwhile, there are
*hundreds* of PC titles that will run very well on 1995 technology PCs,
and most of them are now available for as little as 10 bucks, unlike new
console games.
PS I saw the N64 version of some sort of hockey game, it isn't fit to carry
NHL97's jock strap.
cheers,
-*-
charles, who swore to himself he wouldn't post in this thread... sigh :)
Kooler
It's useful to state obvious.
Remember that PCs and Macs were toys of 70ies and 80ies.
Some of the toys of 90ies will take over the future...
*8)
Amaury Acosta <ama...@webspan.net> wrote in article
<32B64B...@webspan.net>...
Dave Ripberger
Grant Schoep <bi...@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu> wrote:
>> It comes down to who the games are for. If they're for your kids, get
>> a console system, where you get fantastic graphics at a reasonable
>> price. If the games are for dad or mom, or even a teenager, then PC
>> games are the natural choice, where more mentally challenging
>> interactive games can be found that require less horsepower.
>>
>> But dad shouldn't be surprised if he get's addicted to Mario too :).
>> I can't wait for Christmas to open up the N64!!!!
>>
> I can't beleive I am posting to this thread, seeing as it is one of my
>pet peaves, but this last message ticked me off
I wonder how many dads are trying to justify spending for the computer
cause of PC games when they really want the hardware for other
reasons. And at the same time denying the kid what he/she really
wanted all along. If it ticks you off, then maybe you have some
guilt.
Dave
Charlie Savko
Paul Choi wrote:
>
> Andrew Ariens wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:38:00 -0800, Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my>
> >
> > >I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
> > >have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> > >My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
> >
>
> Eh, somewhat. I somewhat got sick of playing the PC games I have. So
> many of them are either Doom rip-offs or alleged Quake killers. Then
> there are Warcraft II and C&C wanna-bes. That's pretty much all you see
> out there. With the apparent lack of good RPGs, esp. Ultima 9, I find
> myself at the arcade quite often.
>
> I don't have a console, although I would like to own one. The problem
> is that longevity of the average console game is not very long. Most of
> the popular games that were originally designed for a console don't do
> very well on the PC market, even if the translation is quite good. I
> find myself avoiding PC games that were originally designed for the
> Playstation.
>
> high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> distinguish more than 24 frps.
Good point. When I got the 3D Bench program, it gave me 25 fps, and it
was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
from the faster fps, right?
-Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
sa...@epix.net
Charlie Savko
> Sorry to run off like this but I feel that the PC gaming market has LOST
> touch with the average gamer. Notice Origin, EA(the same), ID,
> Activision, Interplay and others just push to far. make games that work
> on both low and high end machines!!! Like Apogee.
I agree with you on Origin and EA. But when ID made doom/doom 2, they
both could run on a high end 386. If ID made Quake to run on a low end
machine, you would have doom style graphics. Interplay released Descent
1 after the Pentium was out for 2 years, but it could still run on a
486. Descent 2 was released when most people owned a Pentium, but it
could still run on a 486.
-Charlie Savko
sa...@epix.net
Rob Dunlop
Joe Ottoson wrote:
>
> In article <32B622...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
> paul...@uclink4.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > distinguish more than 24 frps.
>
> *human* limits ;-)
>
>
> Real faith is objective
Actually, he is right. There is a tiny computer inserted into our heads
at birth which goes "click" at 24fps, and this prevents us from seeing
stuff like a TV flickering or a stuttering effect when we wave our hands
in front of our monitors.
Thank God for sarcasm;)
Rob / Picasso
WCA_Phoenix
Andrew Ariens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:38:00 -0800, Jason Chong <c...@pc.jaring.my>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
> >have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
> >My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
>
> Just curious, but does anyone out there actually believe this?!
Heh...his eyes must hurt at the movies, since motion pictures are not
more than 30 frames per second!
===================================================
Kevin "Phoenix" Scholl ksc...@rica.net
http://home.rica.net/kscholl/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------
"The Operating System of choice is your own..."
===================================================
Jason Chong
The other Jason wrote:
> umm, you must have some bug in your pc, cause even on MY pentium 60, with
> no special graphics card, (in fact, its got some cheesy generic card built
> onto the motherboard) with directX 3.0 installed, i can get about 70-80 FPS
> in DooM 95. and 40-50 in DooM for dos. of course, that's just DooM. i get
> about 40 FPS in Need For Speed in 640x480 mode. i get about 50 fps in
> WarCraft 2. the only one that bombs out is Quake. i get 10-20 fps in Quake,
Oh puhleezz, Doom never achieves more than 30fps. It will lock its
frame rate at 30fps. This applies to both DOS and Win95 version.
Need for speed? Bullshit. I know it's fast but it can never achieve
that speed on the lowest-end Pentium. What more under un-accelerated
SVGA graphics.
> but quake is so much MORE demanding on a processor. make sure you're
> statments are true before you go saying that PC's cant do graphics.
Err, you should be saying this to yourself. :)
Jason Chong.
Sage Phoenix
gt5...@prism.gatech.edu (Solomon Peachy) wrote:
>In article <32B64D...@pc.jaring.my>, c...@pc.jaring.my says...
>>I don't play PC games but I have a pc. I play arcade games but I don't
>>have a console. I prefer console games coz the frame rates are high.
>>My eyes hurt if any games don't update at least 60 frames per second.
>>PCs can never do 3D graphics at 60 frames per second. To achieve
>>even 30, you need some high end 3D card, not the whole lot of crap
>>PC 3D cards in the market. And that's for Low-res tho.
Oh ho? I have achieved 110fps in QUAKE on my PPRO, at 320x200. And a
good 30fps at 640x480. Plus the Computer Monitor with it's much
faster refresh rate will let you see some of this.......... IF ONLY
THE HUMAN EYE could tell the difference.
>60 Fps? Pretty good considering TVs refresh at 30 Fps (NTSC) or 24 Fps (PAL).
>Anthing over 30 Fps is beyond the capabilities of the Television.
>(Yes, I know that there are 60 fields per second, but a field is 1/2 the frame)
>I have a Reactor 3D, and I hit 30fps in Quake. (In 640x480!)
>Performance drops a tad in Win'95 (and when networking it) though.
Sean Aschen
>Sorry to run off like this but I feel that the PC gaming market has LOST
>touch with the average gamer. Notice Origin, EA(the same), ID,
>Activision, Interplay and others just push to far. make games that work
>on both low and high end machines!!! Like Apogee.
All valid points. I believe that PC gaming has left the cash-strapped
teenager behind. Most people who own nice computers are
professionals, or have parents who can afford to keep them in
up-to-date hardware. I think the PC game and the Console game markets
are diverging.
Rob Dunlop
Charlie Savko wrote:
> > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > distinguish more than 24 frps.
>
> Good point. When I got the 3D Bench program, it gave me 25 fps, and it
> was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
> second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
> from the faster fps, right?
> -Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
> sa...@epix.net
This is the perfect example of misinformation just GETTING OUT OF HAND!!
Real life moves at an infinite frame rate. When I look at someone do I
see a horrid blurry mess?
Oh, BTW, films and TV being displayed at 24-30 fps has bugger all to do
with what the eye can detect. It's just what the industry can GET AWAY
WITH. We aren't machines. We can detect a VERY high frame rate, much
higher than 24fps, but there isn't an exact figure. We are all
different. (Someone shout "I'm not!")
Rob / Picasso
Rob Alexander
Chris wrote:
> Wrong! In order for the PC to out do the consoles in TR you need a 3d
> card..at 150 dollars. For 1 game...no sorry.
Uuh, try $299 for an Orchid or Diamond 3Dfx Voodoo based card for Tomb
Raider. However, that card will be useful for more than just one game.
Rob Alexander
Charlie Savko wrote:
[snip]
> > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > distinguish more than 24 frps.
>
> Good point. When I got the 3D Bench program, it gave me 25 fps, and it
> was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
> second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
> from the faster fps, right?
> -Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
> sa...@epix.net
Aren't the movies 24 fps? I don't hear anyone complaining that Return
of the Jedi was too choppy or gave them headaches :)
Rob Alexander
Jason Chong wrote:
>
> Paul Choi wrote:
> >
> > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > distinguish more than 24 frps.
>
> FIGHTER
> or VIRTUA COP and compare them to the arcade version. The arcade version
> is a lot smoother.
Sure the arcade versions are MUCH smoother, but the PC versions don't
run at 24+ fps. Probably more like 15 or so.
Rob Alexander
> umm, you must have some bug in your pc, cause even on MY pentium 60, with
> no special graphics card, (in fact, its got some cheesy generic card built
> onto the motherboard) with directX 3.0 installed, i can get about 70-80 FPS
> in DooM 95. and 40-50 in DooM for dos. of course, that's just DooM. i get
> about 40 FPS in Need For Speed in 640x480 mode. i get about 50 fps in
> WarCraft 2. the only one that bombs out is Quake. i get 10-20 fps in Quake,
> statments are true before you go saying that PC's cant do graphics.
Umm, could you tell us all how you got these numbers. These games don't
have fps counters built in. Duke 3D does - try "DNRATE". The 28 or so
FPS I get at 640x480 is in practice very smooth. Obviously you are
making up these numbers. You need acurate numbers before you can use
them to prove a point.
FYI, the Win95 version runs slower than the DOS version, not faster.
David Matiskella
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Rob Alexander wrote:
> Charlie Savko wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> > > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > > distinguish more than 24 frps.
> >
> > Good point. When I got the 3D Bench program, it gave me 25 fps, and it
> > was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
> > second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
> > from the faster fps, right?
> > -Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
> > sa...@epix.net
>
> Aren't the movies 24 fps? I don't hear anyone complaining that Return
> of the Jedi was too choppy or gave them headaches :)
>
>
And cartoons use something like 8fps and people don't complain. One of
these years people are going to realize comparing video games to tv/movies
is comparing apple to oranges. Things like motion blurr do make a
difference. And of course motion pictures are not always accurate with the
classic example being the wagon wheels turning the wrong way in cowboy
movies due to them being sample below the nyquist frequency. There is also
the problem in 3d games that the frame rates tend to vary considerably
which is also disconcerting to the viewer. Ordinary humans have know
problem determing between 30/60fps. A couple years ago some posted a
program that clearly showed this. Now if a person is concentrating on the
game rather than the frame rate its a lot tougher to notice.
Agammemnon
In article <32B7CD...@dircon.co.uk>, unc...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>Charlie Savko wrote:
>
>> > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
>> > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
>> > distinguish more than 24 frps.
>>
>> Good point. When I got the 3D Bench program, it gave me 25 fps, and it
>> was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
>> second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
>> from the faster fps, right?
>> -Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
>> sa...@epix.net
>
>Real life moves at an infinite frame rate. When I look at someone do I
>see a horrid blurry mess?
>
>Oh, BTW, films and TV being displayed at 24-30 fps has bugger all to do
>with what the eye can detect. It's just what the industry can GET AWAY
>WITH. We aren't machines. We can detect a VERY high frame rate, much
>higher than 24fps, but there isn't an exact figure. We are all
>different. (Someone shout "I'm not!")
>
>Rob / Picasso
Movies are shot at 24fps. Each frame is exposed twice, effectively
giving 48fps. Don't ask me how it was done. I watched a documentary
on TLC and this is what they said!
Paul David Fox
Grant Schoep wrote:
>
> > It comes down to who the games are for. If they're for your kids, get
> > a console system, where you get fantastic graphics at a reasonable
> > price. If the games are for dad or mom, or even a teenager, then PC
> > games are the natural choice, where more mentally challenging
> > interactive games can be found that require less horsepower.
> >
> > But dad shouldn't be surprised if he get's addicted to Mario too :).
> > I can't wait for Christmas to open up the N64!!!!
> >
> I can't beleive I am posting to this thread, seeing as it is one of my
> mentally challenging games for kids? It is basically what type of
> game you prefer. My 7 year old brother loses interest in Nintendo, and
> Genisis systems I have in about 5 minutes. But he will play with a
> stupid word processor for hours. Can't figure it out. :> THough I think
Errr...hang on. Mario is one of the best games ever. Its about
as relaxing as watching paint dry but darn more interesting. Not only
that theres none of this blood'n'guts stuff and all the family can enjoy
it. It is a calming game.
I would (might) buy an N64 solely for this game. Most PC games are utter
crap - but then I am no longer a teenager >sob< and my tastes are
different to the rest of the worlds.
Nintendo have a beautiful and envious monopoly. Its a shame that
Mario is the one and only game of interest they can make....
_______________________________________________________
| Paul David Fox Lehman Brothers. |
| ###################### E-mail: pf...@lehman.com |
| # This space for rent# Home: f...@crisp.demon.co.uk |
| ###################### Tel: +44 171 601 0011 x6397 |
** I do not speak for Lehmans. Everything I say is my own stupid fault.
**
Earthman
Agammemnon <Agamm...@juno.com> wrote in article
<598bqa$f...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> In article <32B7CD...@dircon.co.uk>, unc...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> >Charlie Savko wrote:
> >
> >> > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism
is
> >> > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> >> > distinguish more than 24 frps.
> >>
> >> Good point. When I got the 3D Bench program, it gave me 25 fps, and
it
> >> was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
> >> second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
> >> from the faster fps, right?
> >> -Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
> >> sa...@epix.net
> >
> >This is the perfect example of misinformation just GETTING OUT OF HAND!!
> >Real life moves at an infinite frame rate. When I look at someone do I
> >see a horrid blurry mess?
Depends on who you're looking at...
> >
> >Oh, BTW, films and TV being displayed at 24-30 fps has bugger all to do
> >with what the eye can detect. It's just what the industry can GET AWAY
> >WITH. We aren't machines. We can detect a VERY high frame rate, much
> >higher than 24fps, but there isn't an exact figure. We are all
> >different. (Someone shout "I'm not!")
> >
> >Rob / Picasso
>
Up to 16 fps humans can distinguish seperate frames. Above that things
start to become smoother, but not completely. Even at 24 fps in movies you
can see that it's not smooth, especially on a big screen when the point of
view is moving up and forward and at the same time turning. Like in
overview shots, when some things are moving very fast. You don't see that
on the TV because the resolution is way lower. A jump of three pixels seems
smooth, but at the cinema, that's 50 centimeter!
Of course, when there is little movement, you can get away with a lower
framerate...
George Bryant
Just a little thing I'd point out. Console machines
always run at low res. (TV's can't display HI-Res) It just
looks worse on PCs because monitors are of higher quality than
Tvs. So the "you need a 2400$ PC to have console graphics" is
un true. A $800 (or less) 486 75-100 can run almost any game
at low res and you can do a hell of a lot more with a PC.
George
Dave Potts
Rob Dunlop wrote:
> This is the perfect example of misinformation just GETTING OUT OF HAND!!
> Real life moves at an infinite frame rate. When I look at someone do I
> see a horrid blurry mess?
Ever drive a car? Try looking down at the road or the grass along
side it (while the car is moving, and someone else is driving). What
do you see? Horrid Blurry Mess! So much for infinate frame rate.
I agree that the eye can detect high frame rates, but not infinate.
If it was infinate, you could see bullets and other very high speed
objects when they are close to you; but you can't. Oh well, guess
the human eye just isn't perfect.
Dave
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
-- David Potts Views and Beliefs are my own, and do not --
-- Lucent Technologies represent Lucent Technologies in any way --
-- (Bell Labs Innovations) shape or form. --
-- dav...@lucent.com --
-- --
-- Remove the _ in my address to reply, it is there to stop --
-- automatic mailers --
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
Robert Rodgers
Dave Potts <dav...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Rob Dunlop wrote:
>> This is the perfect example of misinformation just GETTING OUT OF HAND!!
>> Real life moves at an infinite frame rate.
Real life moves at an infinite frame rate, but your visual system only
processes information at a *discrete* frame rate under 30 frames a
second. In fact, the discovery that vision occurred in discrete steps
was one of the big discoveries that contributed (in the long term) to
the development of neurology.
If vision wasn't quantized, you wouldn't be able to watch movies or
TV, and flourescent lighting would drive people out of their minds (so
would modern incandescent, for that matter).
>I agree that the eye can detect high frame rates, but not infinate.
>If it was infinate, you could see bullets and other very high speed
>objects when they are close to you; but you can't. Oh well, guess
>the human eye just isn't perfect.
The human eye detects high frame rates indirectly -- because of the
lack of blur, for instance, or due to presentation effects
(interlacing doesn't produce 30 *static* frames a second, which is why
it appears to flicker, especially on [computer] displays where the
non-static effect is much more visible).
You can do 72fps and still have the motion look herky-jerky, but
pushing up the frame rate isn't the fix -- providing frame to frame
continuity is the solution, and can be done at less than half that
frame rate.
I continue to suspect that many games programmers are seeking higher
and higher frame rates because they have no idea how to provide
continuity between frames (hint: lower the changes between frames) and
instead do so indirectly and accidently (they're pursuing"more frames"
-- but do they know why? Nope) by providing lots expensive (CPU-wise)
tween frames.
rsr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
words were just sounds -- genes made them bludgeons
Da pimp
Rob Alexander wrote:
>
> Jason Chong wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But if your eyes hurt at any less than 60 frps, God your metabolism is
> > > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > > distinguish more than 24 frps.
> >
> > FIGHTER
> > or VIRTUA COP and compare them to the arcade version. The arcade version
> > is a lot smoother.
>
> Sure the arcade versions are MUCH smoother, but the PC versions don't
> run at 24+ fps. Probably more like 15 or so.
That's what I think. I've seen several posts claiming that tekken 2
runs at 60fps. Someone once said that after watching a t.v, I should
look at tk2 and I would see how much smoother it was. When I first saw
tk2, it was after watching a movie in the movie theater. It looked
strangely choopy. Pieces of the floor moved independent of other
pieces. I then made the conclusion that if tk2 ran at 60fps, then my
t.v must be at least doing 120fps. Either that, or someone must be
lying to us all.
Chris
Se
> All valid points. I believe that PC gaming has left the cash-strapped
> teenager behind. Most people who own nice computers are
> professionals, or have parents who can afford to keep them in
> up-to-date hardware. I think the PC game and the Console game markets
> are diverging.
at F1, Wipeout XL, Sega Rally and VF2 all were programmed for the
console. These games fly. PC equals can't compare in speed. I have Grand
Prix 2 on my pentium 166, 32 megs, Mach 64 card with SB16 and I can't
run itt in SVGA because it's slow. I set it lower and itt runs great BUT
look at the machine I'm running it on.
Chris
Charlie Savko wrote:
>
> > Sorry to run off like this but I feel that the PC gaming market has LOST
> > touch with the average gamer. Notice Origin, EA(the same), ID,
> > Activision, Interplay and others just push to far. make games that work
> > on both low and high end machines!!! Like Apogee.
>
> both could run on a high end 386. If ID made Quake to run on a low end
> machine, you would have doom style graphics. Interplay released Descent
> 1 after the Pentium was out for 2 years, but it could still run on a
> 486. Descent 2 was released when most people owned a Pentium, but it
> could still run on a 486.
> -Charlie Savko
> sa...@epix.net
All are great games but my point was programmers programming for console
KNOOW what hardware they are programming for. ie Resisdent evil was made
for a PSX.....if was for a PC it would run on a 486..pentium..pentium
pro but the game WOULDN'T be the same on all machine. The CPU, sound
card and video card would alter graphic quality, sound quality and
playabilitty thus making the game VASTLY differnt from machine tto
machine. Play Quake on a Pentium 75 then try it on a pentium 200 the
game is much different. This happened to me when I played DESCENT. I had
a DX2 66 and tried it. It was slow and uncontrolable. I then got a
pentium 90 upgrade as well as a 16 meg upgrade. I tried it again and
found it to be a great game...awesome in fact. But games for consoles
THERE IS 1 standard. They know the limits unlike the pc's.
Ryan Farisslaw
Da pimp <wea...@udel.edu> wrote:
: look at tk2 and I would see how much smoother it was. When I first saw
: tk2, it was after watching a movie in the movie theater. It looked
: strangely choopy. Pieces of the floor moved independent of other
: pieces. I then made the conclusion that if tk2 ran at 60fps, then my
: t.v must be at least doing 120fps. Either that, or someone must be
: lying to us all.
Uh, what? TK2 does run at 60fps...Sorry.
--
(Ryan Fariss-Law)
und...@primenet.com
The Executioner
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:14:29 -0500, Chris <crod...@total.net> wrote:
>Mike McLean wrote:
>>
>> >And then you have to buy all new games and you have less to pick from
>> >because the latest console is so new. I can play every game ever made
>> >for an IBM PC compatable computer on my P-166.
>> >
>>
>> Same here. The last console I owned was a Super NES. It now sits in
>> my closet collecting dust. I could do everything the SNES could do on
>> a 486. There are more and more games for a PC anyways. total
>> backwards compatibilty, and the ability to create your own games if
>> you want to like I do
>
>Yes but the SNES came outt in 90-91 so the standard at tthe time was a
>286 maybe a 386. These machines are now used as door stops. At least you
>could sell you SNES for 100 with 8 games...try and sell a 286!
>
Excuse me?? The 386 was around when I was in high school in 1988. By
90-91 we had 486's. Hell the 65816 CPU in the SNES was in the Apple
//GS's in 87' a 286 was standard in 1984-1985 not 90-91 you idiot!
>Would yoou really want to play a PC game made 5 years ago. Wing
>Commander 1...I don't think so.
>
Sure Why not, Wing commander I was/is a great game and realy fly on a
Pentium.
>I love PC games! But games like Tomb raider, Quake, Wing Commander 4,
>any flinght sim, Daytona USA (PC!) and other require you to have a
>high-end machine. A PSX, N64, Saturn and M2(not out yet) require 200-300
>dollars and offer JUST as good graphics and gameplay while only cost
>little.
>
Just as good of graphics???? Can a console do 1600x1280 like my PC
can??? No I didn't think so, besides if you already have a low end PC,
it doesn't cost all that much to upgrade. I've seen p133 cpu & MB for
$259, 16 megs for $80, and a Diamond Stealth 3D for $109.
So for $450 bux you can blow away the PSX and such. And I don't have
to pay 20 bux a pop for every fucking memory card to save my games.
besides how many games/carts/cds does one usually have for their
console?? I don't know anyone that has more than 15. The pc on the
other hand I have over 200 CD's for it.
>My point being, I a guy goes out to buy a PC for his son....for
>games...he will pay 2000-3000 dollar P200(loaded). They get it home and
>everything works great. They get a game, install it...find out their
>sound card is incompatiable, IRQ conficts and finally get it to run. The
>next Christmans comes and the new game are out. The boy sees a game NHL
>98(not out but probably will be out in late 97) and the father buys it.
>I bet the kid will have to turn some of the graphics off because of slow
>down!!!!
If you buy a 2000-3000 p200 and find out your sound card isn't
compatable, your a fucking idiot. 95 percent of the soundcards out
there are 100 percent sound blaster compatable. No fucking console can
touch my SB16/Yamaha waveforce DX50B combo for sound. Hell even my 4
year old Gravis Ultrasound(classic) blows any console away for music.
My 133 is almost 1 year old I have haven't found much that doesn't run
on it. A brand new system shouldn't have IRQ conflicts, it isn't until
you add a device that you get conflicts. Besides all you have to do is
find a free IRQ, Win 95 tells you which one are avaliable and which
ones are not. It isn't that hard. If you buy a p200 now you should be
able to run everything well for at least a year with no worries.
>
>The PSX and Satturn came outt 06-10 of 95 and they still have great FAST
>games to play. I can't seeing either system dying until 98/99..theat 4-5
>years out of a system for 200-300 bucks. Say that about a PC..NO WAY. I
>think upgrading a PC for games is really going way to far.
You can't see either system dying out till 98-99. Helloooooo Nintendo
64 is going to kill/destroy both of these systems. Everyone I know
want's to get rid of thier PSX and get a Nin 64. besides at 320x200
it's not all that hard for a game to look fast, and they only look
good becuase they are hooked up to a shitty low-res television. I ran
Screamer 2 in lo-res on my TV and it looked incredible. It blew away
anything I've seen for PSX.
David Matiskella
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Robert Rodgers wrote:
> Dave Potts <dav...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >Rob Dunlop wrote:
> >> This is the perfect example of misinformation just GETTING OUT OF HAND!!
> >> Real life moves at an infinite frame rate.
>
> Real life moves at an infinite frame rate, but your visual system only
> processes information at a *discrete* frame rate under 30 frames a
> second. In fact, the discovery that vision occurred in discrete steps
> was one of the big discoveries that contributed (in the long term) to
> the development of neurology.
>
> If vision wasn't quantized, you wouldn't be able to watch movies or
> TV, and flourescent lighting would drive people out of their minds (so
> would modern incandescent, for that matter).
May I ask what this mechanism that quantizes vision? I don't
remember seeing a shutter in my biology discussions of the eye. The best
image for the actual eye (vision is a lot more complex that just having
the eye looking at the proper object) is as a bunch of photocells. They
are an analog system which takes x amount of time to react to light (X
depends on a lot of factors). Think of it as dynamic memory were you
charge it, it decays, and you refresh it again. As long as you refresh it
fast enough you are fine it smooth animation. If you don't refresh it fast
enough you lose info ie get jerk animation.
> >I agree that the eye can detect high frame rates, but not infinate.
> >If it was infinate, you could see bullets and other very high speed
> >objects when they are close to you; but you can't. Oh well, guess
> >the human eye just isn't perfect.
>
> The human eye detects high frame rates indirectly -- because of the
> lack of blur, for instance, or due to presentation effects
> (interlacing doesn't produce 30 *static* frames a second, which is why
> it appears to flicker, especially on [computer] displays where the
> non-static effect is much more visible).
>
> You can do 72fps and still have the motion look herky-jerky, but
> pushing up the frame rate isn't the fix -- providing frame to frame
> continuity is the solution, and can be done at less than half that
> frame rate.
Depends on the application. Flight sims can play perfectly fine at
less than 15 fps. Arcade games tend to be unplayable at that low of speed.
> I continue to suspect that many games programmers are seeking higher
> and higher frame rates because they have no idea how to provide
> continuity between frames (hint: lower the changes between frames) and
> instead do so indirectly and accidently (they're pursuing"more frames"
> -- but do they know why? Nope) by providing lots expensive (CPU-wise)
> tween frames.
lower the change per frame results in slower action. Motion
blurring for a lot of applications is more expensive than just cranking
out more frames.
Pooh Pooh
Joe Ottoson wrote:
>
> In article <01bbeb8a$cab515a0$0e2e...@pawel.xs4all.nl>, "Earthman"
> <eart...@dds.nl*> wrote:
>
> > What? Since when do console games get 60 fps!? Bullshit! A tv's framerate
> > is 30fps, you can't go beyond that! Even so, only systems I know to get 60
> > fps in 3d is the Silicon Graphics Onyx family.
> >
> Sigh... You really are that ignorant aren't you? Consoles can draw with
> every screen refresh which will always net you a 60fps rate...
>
> Always remember,
>
> Real faith is objective
What the heck are you people talking about? You are mixing up frame
rates with refresh rates.
A TV, which a console hooks up to, has a fixed refresh rate of 60Hz,
meaning it refreshes the screen at 60 times a second (interlaced). If
you have a fixed image on the screen, the TV is still refreshing at
60Hz. A computer monitor, on the other had, will run anywhere from 56Hz
to 120Hz refresh, depending on the video card and monitor.
Frame rates, on the other hand, refers to the number of individual
frames that can be generated per second, hence frames per second (or
fps). In video games, the higher the frame rate, the smoother the
animation. Most human eye will see 30 fps as continuous motion
Frames per second also depend heavily on the frame's resolution.
Graphics on a console is generally running 320 x 240 resolution, which
is interlaced on your TV to 640 x 480. On a computer, 320 x 240 is
considered poor resolution, but animation at this resolution is
generally very smooth (depending on the computer). When a computer goes
to 640 x 480 resolution, it is 4 times 320 x 240 (2x horizontally and
vertically). That means the computer is processing 4 times as much
information when switching from 320 x 240 to 640 x 480 resolution.
Whoops! Sorry, people... got carried away there for a bit... carry on...
Timothy Terriberry
> Movies are shot at 24fps. Each frame is exposed twice, effectively
> giving 48fps. Don't ask me how it was done. I watched a documentary
> on TLC and this is what they said!
pixel anti-aliasing in that more frames than are displayed are averaged
together. BTW: temporal aliasing is what causes those wagon wheels to
turn backwards in the westerns, and anyone who has stared out the
windows of their car at other car's wheels will realize that what our
eyes see is indeed aliased. The same sort of thing is done for
professional computer graphics (not real-time) since they can calculate
as many frames as they want to wait for during production, and then
average them together to get an acceptable number during playback.
Tony Belding
ain> From: asc...@ix.netcom.com (Sean Aschen)
>> I think you lost my point. My point was a console...new top of the line is
>> 200 US. Right? A computer top of tthe line 166, sound card, CD....monitor
>> 2000-3000. Sure PC's have MUCH better Strat, adv., and sims but they also
>> cost a hell of a lot more.
It shouldn't be that way. It's only because the PC architecture is so old
and creaky, and because the Wintel $cam keeps jacking up specs and prices.
In 1982 a "next generation" game machine (Colecovision, Atari 5200, or
Vectrex) cost right around $200. You could buy an Atari 800XL computer for
$250, but a floppy drive was another $400 to make it a practical system. So,
you were looking at $650 for a basic home computer system -- and it played
*great* games. The 8-bit Atari computers were the best game machines of
their era.
New game consoles are still around $200. (Quite a bargain when you consider
inflation between 1982 and today!) But, can you imagine going to Sears
and getting a $650 computer system today? Not likely!
Nobody makes home computers today! The last one was the Amiga 1200. Since
then there's been nothing except costly, klugey, over-powered Wintel
behemoths.
Part of the problem with consoles is, you are comparing new state-of-the-art
game consoles with a computer platform that began in 1982. If you compare the
Playstation or N64 against a new state-of-the-art home computer platform, it
will be a different story. Problem is, there ARE NO new computer platforms.
Wintel dominance has made sure of that. Nobody is making home computers
these days. (Although the Apple Pippin seems to represent a sort of half
hearted attempt at one.)
>> Also you can't rent a PC game at blockbuster
>> can you? You have to play a demo( which doesn't exsist most of the time)
>> or prey it's a good game instead of renting it at BB and trying it.
I don't know about rental. I live in the middle of nowhere, so I can't rent
anything here.
>> prove my point look at the computers I have owned for games
>> Apple IIc
>> Atari 520ST
I remember some 520ST goodies like Oids, Dungeon Master, Arkanoid.
>> Amiga (best game machine ever!!!!!)
Excellent, yes! Turrican II, NY Warriors, Populous II, etc...
>> Notice that I didn't bother with the NES because I had an Amiga at the
>> time. I'm just saying it seems that there is no standard in the PC market.
>> You buy a system and next year you can't play the newest games because of
>> slowdown. I have a 166 32 megs and WC4 is slow in certain parts and this
>> games is almost a year old!!!!! That's why I loved Duke3d compare tto
>> Quake. Duke is fast on a P75 while Quake crawls along.
So whose fault is this? It's the whole Wintel $cam. It's the software and
hardware companies and retailers all working together to keep customers on a
never-ending, wallet-draining ride of upgrades. It just might be the biggest
ripoff in business history, but somehow people never seem to catch on. They
just keep forking over thousands of dollars.
Eventually I expect this scam to collapse under its own weight. The cost of
buying and keeping up a Wintel system will grow so great that fewer people
will be able to stick with it. Then someone will produce an INEXPENSIVE and
USER FRIENDLY computer and sell it through Wal-Mart and take over everything.
Sort of like the Commodore 64 did in its time.
You can already see the frustration building against Wintel behemoth systems
as people look at set-top boxes and network computers and such.
ain> All valid points. I believe that PC gaming has left the cash-strapped
ain> teenager behind. Most people who own nice computers are professionals,
ain> or have parents who can afford to keep them in up-to-date hardware. I
ain> think the PC game and the Console game markets are diverging.
All it would take is a basic, user-friendly, PowerPC computer selling for
about $650 in Wal-Mart. Then you would see teenagers getting something they
could play great games on AND use for Internet access, doing their homework,
etc.
-- Tony Belding <http://hamilton.htcomp.net/tbelding/>
--
|Fidonet: Tony Belding 1:3612/42.26
|Internet: Tony.B...@3612-42-26.fido.pen.net
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
dang...@sound.net
David Matiskella <mati...@aa.washington.edu> wrote:
> May I ask what this mechanism that quantizes vision? I don't
>remember seeing a shutter in my biology discussions of the eye. The best
>image for the actual eye (vision is a lot more complex that just having
>the eye looking at the proper object) is as a bunch of photocells. They
>are an analog system which takes x amount of time to react to light (X
>depends on a lot of factors). Think of it as dynamic memory were you
>charge it, it decays, and you refresh it again. As long as you refresh it
>fast enough you are fine it smooth animation. If you don't refresh it fast
>enough you lose info ie get jerk animation.
The quantization actually appears to exist in some experiments. The
mechanism is not well understood, but there is one part of the
structure you are ignoring. The axons essentially act as a binary
cable. An axon is either completely depolarized or polarized. The
information is coded as frequence of pulses not aplitude.
Repolarization rate is limitted by the energy consuming ion pumps in
the cell membrane. This could be the rate limiting step with
essentially "quantifies" or creates a specific frame rate for the eye.
This is just a guess I've been out of the field for about ten years.
It don't matter what you call a dog with no legs.
He won't come.
dang...@sound.net
Carl-Henrik <ca...@funcom.com> wrote:
>My TV can display 1280x512 Amiga screenmode (PAL S-HIRES).
>What are you looking for? 2560x1024?
Very impressive but can you read 80 column text on your TV. I bet the
old VGA monitor in my closet has a clearer display.
Heeheehee.
dang...@sound.net
Agamm...@juno.com (Agammemnon) wrote:
>Well, I guess you got my point. There's no need for your card.
My card does CD quality sound plus my CD is connected to it, imagine
that
>How many polygons can your PC push? How primitive.
With or without my voodoo card?
Dave Ripberger
m...@here.com (The Executioner) wrote:
>besides if you already have a low end PC,
>it doesn't cost all that much to upgrade. I've seen p133 cpu & MB for
>$259, 16 megs for $80, and a Diamond Stealth 3D for $109.
>
So ... we can continue to play on an old 14 in monitor and 200-500 MB
disk drive. Not quite. Mech Warrior II required minimum 50 MB and
recommend 100 MB. That's one game. So add at least another $200.
>besides how many games/carts/cds does one usually have for their
>console??
Most people feel they only need a few, but very good games, so this is
not an issue to them.
>If you buy a 2000-3000 p200 and find out your sound card isn't
>compatable, your a fucking idiot. 95 percent of the soundcards out
>there are 100 percent sound blaster compatable. No fucking console can
>touch my SB16/Yamaha waveforce DX50B combo for sound.
Another thing you forgot to add: the cost of the quality sound card
and speakers. A lot of us have managed to live with 8 bits
un-amplified. So add another $200.
>you add a device that you get conflicts. Besides all you have to do is
>find a free IRQ,
You can't possibly be implying that a PC is as easy to use as a video
console.
> Win 95 tells you which one are avaliable and which
>ones are not. It isn't that hard.
Sure ... just add $50 to $100 and lots of headaches for a Windows 95
upgrade that I would just as soon skip for the next generation OS.
> If you buy a p200 now you should be
>able to run everything well for at least a year with no worries.
Now it's a p200? Add in some more big bucks please.
>
>>
Dave
Sean Aschen
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:50:51 -0500, Chris <crod...@total.net> wrote:
>Se
>> All valid points. I believe that PC gaming has left the cash-strapped
>> teenager behind. Most people who own nice computers are
>> professionals, or have parents who can afford to keep them in
>> up-to-date hardware. I think the PC game and the Console game markets
>> are diverging.
>Yes that is true but I find lame conversions from the PC too much. Look
>at F1, Wipeout XL, Sega Rally and VF2 all were programmed for the
>console. These games fly. PC equals can't compare in speed. I have Grand
>Prix 2 on my pentium 166, 32 megs, Mach 64 card with SB16 and I can't
>run itt in SVGA because it's slow. I set it lower and itt runs great BUT
>look at the machine I'm running it on.
Simply due to nice 3D accelration hardware on the consoles. Polygon
calculating, sorting, and rasterizing is very processor intensive.
Timothy Kelly
Hi All,
Computers have always had the best games, best designed, best sound,
best graphics, best gameplay, more hours of gameplay, best everything.
The best Commodore 64 games are still more fun to play than the
NoBraino 64 stuff. And when you get into todays computer games, many of
which run just fine on a 486, or low end Pentium theres an even bigger
gap.
And high end Pentiums can kick all the new consoles together into
the trash cans where they belong.
A $600 computer even can do everything better than a game console
with $50 worth of parts in it.
The computer game designers have more freedom to work with, more
memory, better graphics options, better sound, and better IQ of the
game players.
It will always be so.
Happy Holidays to All
Timothy Kelly
MidiVox
--
MidiVox - Worlds 1st Real Time Voice to Midi. BioSensor Neckband
+ Rack Mount Brain.
Hum, Sing, Scat, Talk, Rap, Croon. AES Best in Show. EM's
Editors Choice. Keyboard "MidiVox Roars."
Rob Dunlop
David Matiskella wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Rob Alexander wrote:
>
> > Charlie Savko wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > high! Cut down on sugar and caffeine! Ordinary humans cannot
> > > > distinguish more than 24 frps.
> > >
> > > was pretty damn smooth. If 30 fps is what the human eye sees every
> > > second, then after 60, the game would get less smooth and more blurry
> > > from the faster fps, right?
> > > -Charlie Savko, pinhead on kali
> > > sa...@epix.net
> >
> > of the Jedi was too choppy or gave them headaches :)
> >
> >
> And cartoons use something like 8fps and people don't complain. One of
> these years people are going to realize comparing video games to tv/movies
> is comparing apple to oranges. Things like motion blurr do make a
> difference. And of course motion pictures are not always accurate with the
> classic example being the wagon wheels turning the wrong way in cowboy
> movies due to them being sample below the nyquist frequency. There is also
> the problem in 3d games that the frame rates tend to vary considerably
> which is also disconcerting to the viewer. Ordinary humans have know
> problem determing between 30/60fps. A couple years ago some posted a
> program that clearly showed this. Now if a person is concentrating on the
> game rather than the frame rate its a lot tougher to notice.
Good post. I also think that there is a difference between active and
passive viewing. Looking at tv doesn't need as much concentration as
controlling a game - in Quake or Descent you KNOW when the frame rate is
hampering your control. Someone looking at me playing games will always
say "why don't you just play it at a higher resolution - it seems smooth
to me" - but they don't have to move their way around like I do.
Would you agree?
Rob
Rob Dunlop
Rob Alexander wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> > Wrong! In order for the PC to out do the consoles in TR you need a 3d
> > card..at 150 dollars. For 1 game...no sorry.
>
> Uuh, try $299 for an Orchid or Diamond 3Dfx Voodoo based card for Tomb
> Raider. However, that card will be useful for more than just one game.
Actually he was right, the verite cards just got a TR patch. The reactor
is $150.
Rob / Picasso
John Panettiere
Can we agree that "The Final Word" is an inappropriate subject heading
for this thread?!?!
John Panettiere
pmay...@wr.com.au (Paul Maynard) wrote:
>[Brantley Jones bjo...@iamerica.net (bjstone) wrote:]
>>These console manufacturers need to start
>>concentrating on the games instead of who's got the hottest hardware.
>The problem is that they make money, replacing old hardware with new,
>not by supporting old hardware).
>Paul.
>----------------------------------------
>Paul Maynard (cyclist)
>Mail: pmay...@wr.com.au
>WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4915/index.html
Agammemnon
>it doesn't cost all that much to upgrade. I've seen p133 cpu & MB for
>$259, 16 megs for $80, and a Diamond Stealth 3D for $109.
>
>to pay 20 bux a pop for every fucking memory card to save my games.
>other hand I have over 200 CD's for it.
$450?? Not! You forgot about the $1,500 you've already spent on the
computer before upgrade. If you don't have a lot of games for the
PSX, there's no need to have more than one memory card. If you decide
to have a lot of saved games, just buy a datel disk drive and never
buy another memory card again.
>>My point being, I a guy goes out to buy a PC for his son....for
>>games...he will pay 2000-3000 dollar P200(loaded). They get it home and
>>everything works great. They get a game, install it...find out their
>>sound card is incompatiable, IRQ conficts and finally get it to run. The
>>next Christmans comes and the new game are out. The boy sees a game NHL
>>98(not out but probably will be out in late 97) and the father buys it.
>>I bet the kid will have to turn some of the graphics off because of slow
>>down!!!!
>
>If you buy a 2000-3000 p200 and find out your sound card isn't
>compatable, your a fucking idiot.
I think you take this honor, trash mouth.
>95 percent of the soundcards out
>there are 100 percent sound blaster compatable. No fucking console can
>touch my SB16/Yamaha waveforce DX50B combo for sound.
Don't need to. Your card can't touch Redbook, which is what most PSX
games use anyway.
> Hell even my 4
>year old Gravis Ultrasound(classic) blows any console away for music.
Maybe a Genesis or Super Nintendo.
>My 133 is almost 1 year old I have haven't found much that doesn't run
>on it. A brand new system shouldn't have IRQ conflicts, it isn't until
>you add a device that you get conflicts. Besides all you have to do is
>find a free IRQ, Win 95 tells you which one are avaliable and which
>ones are not. It isn't that hard. If you buy a p200 now you should be
>able to run everything well for at least a year with no worries.
I hope a $2,000+ P200 would work well. I guess I can just buy a $200
PSX and know that I will never have an IRQ conflict, and won't have to
rely on Windoze95 or Plug 'n Pray.
Face it. It takes $2,500 for a PC to do what a console does for $200.
Kirin
Dave Ripberger wrote:
>
> tig...@ix.netcom.com(Ed Giangrande) wrote:
>
> >way I do, there is little doubt that the PC easily makes up for at
> >times mediocre graphics (though recently it has outdone Saturn and PSX
> >in games like Tomb Raider) with multiplayer fun.
>
> I agree.
>
> Dave
You seem to have to buy all three consoles PSX, N64, Saturn, to have be
able to play the games you want since each system has their own games
that aren't available on the other systems. At least the PC dominates
the microcomputer area. (very few good games unique to the Mac now..).
So I had to justify 600 bucks for 3 different consoles (thank God they
all went down about 100 bucks each a few months ago!), 100 for
additional joysticks, and 250 for 2 cartridges and 2 disks... I've seen
p90 systems with 14" monitors for that price and can I do ANYTHING AT
ALL besides play games? No... though the sega might have an internet add
on. Beatem'-ups are ok but compared to a deathmatch in quake or doom or
duke.... not much... What they seem to excel best in are in racing
games. You can't alter anything in a console game though Sony may let
you play game developer for $750 more in the future...
Chris
Chris wrote:
>
> Se
> > All valid points. I believe that PC gaming has left the cash-strapped
> > teenager behind. Most people who own nice computers are
> > professionals, or have parents who can afford to keep them in
> > up-to-date hardware. I think the PC game and the Console game markets
> > are diverging.
> Yes that is true but I find lame conversions from the PC too much. Look
> at F1, Wipeout XL, Sega Rally and VF2 all were programmed for the
> console. These games fly. PC equals can't compare in speed. I have Grand
> Prix 2 on my pentium 166, 32 megs, Mach 64 card with SB16 and I can't
> run itt in SVGA because it's slow. I set it lower and itt runs great BUT
> look at the machine I'm running it on.
console games. The developers argued that the PC doesn't have dedicated
graphics card . Hence, it results in slower performance. Do you agree?
--
==========================================
= Visit my homepage now for stuffs on =
= Virtua Fighter, PC games and lots =
= more!!! =
= http://www.cyberway.com.sg/~caliburn =
==========================================
Carl-Henrik
Ed Giangrande wrote:
> Give me a break... a console doesn't last longer, you just end up
> having to buy a new one every 2 years when it becomes outdated, or
> suffer with having last year'stop item as well. I mean look, Saturn and
> PSX became somewhat graphically outdated once N64 came out, as did
> Genesis when SNES came out, as did Game Boy when TGE and Game Gear Came
> out, etc.... That was only less than 2 years later in each of those
N64 is in the same generation as PSX and Saturn, and the quality of
games on Genesis and SNES still stands up to what comes on 32/64-bit
platforms. The Genesis have been here for about 4 years and it is first
this xmas when there are much more next-generation games than
this-generation
games.
> cases.. What about PCs? Sure, they get outdated too, but frankly a
> Pentium 133 is about the standard PC purchased in the major chain
> stores today.. in that case, Quake would run fine on it.. Most chains
Yes, that is the choice for the one who spends a lot of money...
If you want a PC that you can afford, you'd look for a Pentium 90
with a decent graphics card... In other words the cheapest you can
easily find. This computer will last you about a year or so if you
desire the newest games.. Yes, Quake runs fine today, but study the
ever-increasing hardware recommendations of PC games today!
I know lots of people who don't play games that much, but keeps their
386-486 up to 66 MHz for playing at times. I think the PC development
should grow up and realise that it needs to stop and think for a while.
Fine, a maximum detail level can probably require the state-of-the-art
computer, but it should concentrate on machines that were standard
affordable computers at least 2 years ago...
> SNES has been outdated for years graphically ever since 3DO and Jaguar,
That is simply not true. Take a good look on the best games for the
different platforms! SNES has much better graphics than 3DO and Jaguar,
even if it somewhat limited in the 3d department. Name one 3Do or Jaguar
title that runs full framerate (60 Hz)!
> it is just a different syndrome because Nintendo etc are still going to
> make games for the outdated technology to get as much as they can out
> of it... Whereas on a PC, since everyone is always buying newer stuff
> and everyone makes games on the same platform, the game makers can
> afford to keep raising the minimum reqs. every now and then and not
> have to worry about it...
But what about the people who needs to buy a new PC every 2nd year?
/Carl
Michael W. Hicks
>
> Don't need to. Your card can't touch Redbook, which is what most PSX
> games use anyway.
>
Gee, I wonder if PCs can do redbook audio...... Hmmm, I wonder if my
8-speed CD drive can do that. Oh BTW, what speed is the CD drive on your
nice, little PSX? What? Double speed? How primitive=-)
Mike
Andrew Ariens
*cough*Quake*cough*
--
Andrew Ariens
ari...@aiinc.com
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase1/ariens/index.html
"There's a lot of love in this room and I don't like it!"
-- James Hetfield
Carl-Henrik
George Bryant wrote:
>
> Just a little thing I'd point out. Console machines
> always run at low res. (TV's can't display HI-Res) It just
My TV can display 1280x512 Amiga screenmode (PAL S-HIRES).
What are you looking for? 2560x1024?
/Carl
Agammemnon
In article <32B94D...@usit.net>, mik...@usit.net wrote:
>>
>> Don't need to. Your card can't touch Redbook, which is what most PSX
>> games use anyway.
>>
>
>Gee, I wonder if PCs can do redbook audio...... Hmmm, I wonder if my
>8-speed CD drive can do that. Oh BTW, what speed is the CD drive on your
>nice, little PSX? What? Double speed? How primitive=-)
>
Well, I guess you got my point. There's no need for your card. How
Doug Zabel
Your obvious attempt at being so stupid as to be funny was just a bit too
obvious.
Mark Denovich
Agammemnon <Agamm...@juno.com> wrote in article
> Face it. It takes $2,500 for a PC to do what a console does for $200.
Right but no matter how much you spend you can't get a console to do what a
PC can. The fact of the matter is that many people already have PCs and
have already justified their expense for doing work, playing games on them
is a bonus.
The only reason I have a console game system is that I bore so easily of
games it is ridiculous to purchase them, so I rent them from Blockbuster.
I only wish I could do that on a PC.
(And with a little forethought it is easy to keep a PC at near cutting edge
speed for about $200-300 per year. I'm still using parts of the Gateway I
bought in '91 its on its 4th motherboard.)
--Mark
D. B. Brown
Chris wrote:
> Yes that is true but I find lame conversions from the PC too much. Look
> at F1, Wipeout XL, Sega Rally and VF2 all were programmed for the
> console. These games fly. PC equals can't compare in speed. I have Grand
> Prix 2 on my pentium 166, 32 megs, Mach 64 card with SB16 and I can't
> run itt in SVGA because it's slow. I set it lower and itt runs great BUT
> look at the machine I'm running it on.
<Ramble>
The big difference is in resolution and optimization... Most of
those games run in modes far, far superior to what consoles use...
Remember most of those run in 640x480, where on the console it uses
less than 320x200.
Also, it seems to me that a lot of the programmers were originally
optimizing their games for these nice console systems with more
graphics speed than CPU speed, and then decided to cut corners on
the PC conversion.
IMO, Sega has done a rather half-ass job with some of its titles so
far. I've heard that VFPC works nicely, but the others leave
something to be desired. However, Kinesoft seems to be bucking
the curve - check out Activision's EWJ and Pitfall... They seem to
be real, genuine PC programmers as opposed to console porters.
(I myself am greatly anticipating Fatal Fury 3 and Samurai Showdown 2
for Win95... Kinesoft is working with Softbank and Microsoft to port
a number of SNK arcade titles to PC format)
</Ramble>
--
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
|Do you ever get the feeling that the story's|D.B. Brown |
|too damned real and in the present tense? |zep...@spectra.net |
| -Ian Anderson | "..." |
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
James David Huston
Re-check your facts, dude. I dunno about other systems or games, but
KIG on N64 gets 60fps just fine. A TV can handle 60, it's just that
cable can only handle between 24 and 30. And 60 fps is alot easier on
the eyes. And console resolutions higher than 640x480 aren't so
unimaginable with the upcomig HDTV (or whatever it's called now).
Besides, here's something PCs can only dream of. Running Quake in
true color at 640 x 480 and getting upwards of 30 fps!
/\/\atrix
On 16 Dec 1996 19:53:13 GMT, "Earthman" <eart...@dds.nl*> wrote:
>What? Since when do console games get 60 fps!? Bullshit! A tv's framerate
>is 30fps, you can't go beyond that! Even so, only systems I know to get 60
>fps in 3d is the Silicon Graphics Onyx family.
>
>Your eyes hurt if a game's framerate goes below 60? I think you mean
>monitor refresh rate. And pcs with better-than-worst monitors go way beyond
>that at 640x480, a resolution which consoles can only dream of!
>
Agammemnon
In article <01bbedcb$a00a6380$0100...@Titanium.cis.pitt.edu>, "Mark Denovich" <mad...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>Agammemnon <Agamm...@juno.com> wrote in article
>
>> Face it. It takes $2,500 for a PC to do what a console does for $200.
>
>Right but no matter how much you spend you can't get a console to do what a
>PC can. The fact of the matter is that many people already have PCs and
>have already justified their expense for doing work, playing games on them
>is a bonus.
I have a PC and a console. My P-90 does the non-gaming tasks just
fine. Instead of spending the $500 for a P166 w/MB and a faster HD, I
think I'll just buy some games. My $200 for the console will last for
2 or 3 years.
>The only reason I have a console game system is that I bore so easily of
>games it is ridiculous to purchase them, so I rent them from Blockbuster.
>I only wish I could do that on a PC.
>
>(And with a little forethought it is easy to keep a PC at near cutting edge
>speed for about $200-300 per year. I'm still using parts of the Gateway I
>bought in '91 its on its 4th motherboard.)
My $200 for the console will last for 2-3 years, while you spend that
much per year.
> --Mark
>
>
Andrew Ariens
On Thu, 19 Dec 96 15:41:13 GMT, Agamm...@juno.com (Agammemnon)
wrote:
>Well, I guess you got my point. There's no need for your card. How
>many polygons can your PC push? How primitive.
With a Voodoo based card, over a million. How many polygons can your
console push? How primitive. ;-)
Andrew Ariens
>Running Quake in
>true color at 640 x 480 and getting upwards of 30 fps!
It's already here and called VQuake, look into it. And glQuake will
be even faster.
Agammemnon
In article <59bth0$g...@guitar.sound.net>, dang...@sound.net wrote:
>Agamm...@juno.com (Agammemnon) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well, I guess you got my point. There's no need for your card.
>
>that
>
>
>
>
And how many games support it? 5? 10?
Teresa Goodwin
ari...@aiinc.com (Andrew Ariens) wrote:
>Agammemnon <Agamm...@juno.com> wrote in article
>
>> Face it. It takes $2,500 for a PC to do what a console does for $200.
>
>Nah, much cheaper than that. Hmm, lets see, you can get a P100 system
>dirt cheap these days. Probably $1,000 tops. Then, add a $250 Orchid
>Righteous 3D. So basically for $1,250 we have a game machine that
>blows the doors off a Nintendo64, and has almost endless other uses
>besides games (Unlike consoles).
>
>
>--
>Andrew Ariens
>ari...@aiinc.com
>http://www.trailerpark.com/phase1/ariens/index.html
>"There's a lot of love in this room and I don't like it!"
> -- James Hetfield
Very good point, besides the IRS doesn't allow deductions
for Consoles. It sure is nice getting a new PC every year.:-)
Teresa
David Nagy
Timothy Terriberry (sund...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: This sort of thing is called temporal anti-aliasing. It's similar to
: pixel anti-aliasing in that more frames than are displayed are averaged
: together.
Why shoot extra frames? Why not just adjust the shutter and film speed
so that one gets "natural anti-aliasing'? Is it too difficult to futz
around with such things as lighting conditions change?
: BTW: temporal aliasing is what causes those wagon wheels to
: turn backwards in the westerns, and anyone who has stared out the
: windows of their car at other car's wheels will realize that what our
: eyes see is indeed aliased.
Hmmmm. Are you saying that you don't see smoothly blurred wheels?
That's darned odd. Unless I'm viewing the wheels under artificial
lighting, I don't remember detecting any strobe/aliasing effects. I'll
try to pay attention next time I'm out though. :)
: The same sort of thing is done for
: professional computer graphics (not real-time) since they can calculate
: as many frames as they want to wait for during production, and then
: average them together to get an acceptable number during playback.
Yes. In a seperate thread, I had hypothesized that ~50FPS with some sort
of added motion-blurring effects present would be "just about perfect".
I believe it would require framerates well in excess of 100FPS to produce
motion blur "in the eye", and that's really not do-able given the refresh
rates of our monitors. 24FPS movie film looks pretty good--it's got
various degrees of motion blurring--but still doesn't look "real".
I've never seen it, but I believe Dolby Showscan projects at 60-70FPS and
would of course have the normal blurring associated with filmed motion.
I've read that Showscan appears to be 'disturbingly realistic'.
Dave Nagy