PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Bossieman on April 08, 2001, 09:55:53 AM
-
I have a lot of friends that plays PC alot. They love the PC and I join them whenever i can, we play games like Starcraft, AOEII and CS.
A friend of mine bought a AMD- Thunderbird 1200 MHz
with 256 Mb ram and a Geforce 2 Pro card.
He came to me because he needed to download drivers and stuff ( I have broadband).
He showed me some effects that the geforce 2 pro card could do togheter with his 1200 Mhz thunderbird.
There was a demo of a helicopter flying around and shoting down other helicopters, very nice.....
But the world was not like a realworld, nothing was moving in the picture, High resolution but a dead world.
The helicopter didnt look to good either, there was lack of details.
He showed a demo with a tree that he could manipulate in real time, change the hight and the numbers of leafs on it a.s.o.
This computer is way better than his old 400 Mhz with voodoo 2.
he was so proud and really impressed.
After we had downloaded the drivers and stuff, i told him that i had that MGS2 demo that I had been talking about for a long time.
You wanna see it? I asked.
Sure.
I have a sony 32" WIDESCREEN TV.
I turned on my system and turned off the lights.
He did not belive it! This cant bee realtime he keept saying during the intro.
When the game started and I showed him the first person wiew he was really impressed.
After he said that it was the best looking game he had ever played.
Yeasterday I got a phonecall from another PC fanboy saying that he had talked to my other friend about the demo. he asked if I could come over and show him.
I did and He was so impressed that he called over another friend and they were playing the game for 6 hours, then we watch a couple of movies.
They are all going to buy a PS2.
Isnt this cool?
-
lol. I myself have a tbird 1 ghz w/a GeForce 2 and nothing on my PC matches MGS2.
(though I\'ll say nothing on the PS2 matches Black & White) .. things are odd. The PC and consoles are just different, they do what they can do.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
Yeah!! It\'s cool ! ;)
-
Whats Black and White about anyway? I heard it was really cool. I\'ve seen the display at Software ETC, is it an RPG, FPS what?
-
i believe it is more of a strategy game actually
i think you are a god and you create ceatures that will control people and stuff - don\'t know too much - haven\'t played it either
-
It is great, but isn\'t this more of an anecdote than a debate?
-
I have the MGS demo and I am a PC lover and I was very impressed with the effects in MGS. They are the best I have seen. Just too bad I am not a real fan of the game. Dont really like the camera. Now as far as looking better than any PC game I wont say that. Now there are some things the PS2 is bulit to do better like models,CGs and certain effects. While PC can handle massive enviroments better. I dont what it to come to the point where video games stop looking like video games but emulate real live people. Or start looking too real. That might take some of the fun out of it for me. To me cartoons should always be cartoons.
________
Marijuana card (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)
-
I have the MGS demo and I am a PC lover and I was very impressed with the effects in MGS. They are the best I have seen. Just too bad I am not a real fan of the game. Dont really like the camera. Now as far as looking better than any PC game I wont say that. Now there are some things the PS2 is bulit to do better like models,CGs and certain effects. While PC can handle massive enviroments better.
I know what you mean..
UT, Giants, B&W, Tribes/2.. etc. Not to mention the PC usually excells in texture quality. It\'s sad though, that as powerful as video cards are (for PCs).. I doubt any current PC w/a GeForce 2 is capable of doing MGS2 @ 60fps.
Oh well, I don\'t care. That\'s why I have both. :)
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
I personally dont really like pc graphics that much, high res games with low poly counts. Gameplay is good though. I look foward to Halo doom3 and unreal2! :)
-
MetalGearRay,
Yeah that\'s true. Another downside to the PC is that you don\'t see these massive polygon counts.. Theoretically my GeForce should be able to crank ~20-25 mpps.. Though I know that will never happen. Not with current CPUs anyway. It doesn\'t matter how powerful these cards are, in the end, the CPU still plays an important part.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
Well I think high end PC\'s are very capable to produce MGS2+ kind of graphics but just like any other PC game the developers are designing the games with low end systems in mind.
-
My older brother (29) was really impressed when I showed him MGS2 and GT3! :)
He kept saying "wow, nice" and chit like that. ;)
Now he belevies me when I say PS2 can do wonderful graphics :D
/FAST
-
Originally posted by datamage
Yeah that\'s true. Another downside to the PC is that you don\'t see these massive polygon counts.. Theoretically my GeForce should be able to crank ~20-25 mpps
That\'s all changing now!
Low polygon counts were due to the fact that PC developers were not able to take full advantage of cards like the GeForce256/2. This was due to only limited support for T&L in DirectX7, hence no PC game pushes the GeForce like nVidia\'s demos!.
With DirectX8, FULL support for T&L (and pixel/vertex shaders) is finally available to PC developers, meaning they can now take full advantage of cards like the GeForce3. Hence just look at the difference seen in the models and environments in the Doom3 and Unreal2 engines so early in their developement! :)
-
That\'s all changing now!
Low polygon counts were due to the fact that PC developers were not able to take full advantage of cards like the GeForce256/2. This was due to only limited support for T&L in DirectX7, hence no PC game pushes the GeForce like nVidia\'s demos!.
With DirectX8, FULL support for T&L (and pixel/vertex shaders) is finally available to PC developers, meaning they can now take full advantage of cards like the GeForce3. Hence just look at the difference seen in the models and environments in the Doom3 and Unreal2 engines so early in their developement!
So true. I just hope my (by then) measly GeForce 2 and ghz will be able to handle most things. (I doubt it) .. I still have doubts about Doom 3 though.. what they showed was amazing, but I\'d like to see those high-detailed and high polygon-count models in a real game scenario. Since what they showed was technically a tech demo. Unreal 2 though, that looks amazing.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
That\'s all changing now!
Low polygon counts were due to the fact that PC developers were not able to take full advantage of cards like the GeForce256/2. This was due to only limited support for T&L in DirectX7, hence no PC game pushes the GeForce like nVidia\'s demos!.
With DirectX8, FULL support for T&L (and pixel/vertex shaders) is finally available to PC developers, meaning they can now take full advantage of cards like the GeForce3. Hence just look at the difference seen in the models and environments in the Doom3 and Unreal2 engines so early in their developement! :)
The bandwithproblem is not solved.
With only 1,3 Gflops there is no way possible to run MGS2 on a PC, I guess that MGS2 uses about 4-4,5 Gflops, that is a very high number.
The rain and wind is realtime, imagine a 1,2 GHz Thunderbird with a peek of 1,4-1,5 Gflops pushing all that information to the Graphic-card, that is not possible, that is why we dont see realtime movements in PC games, maybe U can do some kind of trick on the PC to make the rain look good, but you cant make it realtime..........yet.
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
The bandwithproblem is not solved.
With only 1,3 Gflops there is no way possible to run MGS2 on a PC, I guess that MGS2 uses about 4-4,5 Gflops, that is a very high number.
Firstly, you cannot really measure a game in terms of GFlops used (and were do you get your *incorrect* figures from anyway! :)).
Anyone who\'s seen the REALTIME graphics demonstrated in 3DMark2001 (especially the realistic nature scene and Max Payne), and the incredibly detailed model seen in the Evolution demo, as well as Doom3 and Unreal2 etc, will know that the PC can not only handle MGS2, it can do it better! (But let\'s not fight over that point :)).
In terms of bandwidth, the only real bottleneck is AGPx4, which is just about sufficient for the GeForce3. Remember, textures are uploaded and stored in the massive onboard memory of PC graphics cards, so MOST of that bandwith is for vertices only!
Soon the PC will have AGPx8 and beyond, hence bandwidth problems are not a real problem anymore.
-
man mgs2 is the best lookign game coming for ps2, its grapics kill everything on the market, and yes, it runs at 60 fps. all thie time.
i have recently played black and white.... the fps are like ... crap! even with a 32mb nivida. 600 mhz processor, and direct x 8, the game runs under 30fps all the time!!! i thought they would fix that by now...
all this upgrade **** is lies... all lies.
its the games.
and thats why i like consoles, the games rock.!
:D:D:D:D:D:D
-
Anyone who\'s seen the REALTIME graphics demonstrated in 3DMark2001 (especially the realistic nature scene and Max Payne),
Umm, that nature scene ran @ about 10fps on my GHZ with my GeForce 2 (PRO 64MB DDR RAM) .. And the Max Payne demo looks nice but MGS2 easily looks better. Not to mention those are useless demos with no real AI, physics/ the works.. tech demos are always pretty, but no real game ever accomplishes those type of graphics.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
agreed! The natural demo ran at 2fps at my dads p4, 128ram,gf2gts. The max payne demo looked clunky, since the characters weren\'t made up of many poly\'s. They looked good in certain areas but in others they lacked detail. I also like those sprite chucks of stone and concrete that are shot off, cant gf3 do that in 3d?..mgs2 has proven that ps2 can do realisticly explodinf objects (the fruits, mags and botttles in the demo)
I have yet to a see a pc game that even has better graphis than shenmue or The bouncer! Dont say halo, doom3 or UT2 because those aren\'t out yet.
-
Originally posted by Metal_Gear_Ray
agreed! The natural demo ran at 2fps at my dads p4, 128ram,gf2gts.
But 30fps+ on the GF3!!! This demo makes extensive use of the powerful vertex shaders, something the GF2 doesn\'t have in hardware. Hence it\'s requires power the GF2 doesn\'t have.
The max payne demo looked clunky, since the characters weren\'t made up of many poly\'s. They looked good in certain areas but in others they lacked detail.[/B]
You can make such comments about any game if you look at them close enough, including MGS2 (such as it\'s average textures and animation). It is the effects like rain and the use of physics which makes the game look so awesome.
But again, does the PS2 or DC have anything close to matching the 3DMark nature demo, either in game or demo form? Nope!
I also like those sprite chucks of stone and concrete that are shot off, cant gf3 do that in 3d?..mgs2 has proven that ps2 can do realisticly explodinf objects (the fruits, mags and botttles in the demo)[/B]
That\'s an irrelevent comparison. For example, are numerous chunks of stone and concrete blown off the walls in the MGS2 demo leaving similar holes?
I have yet to a see a pc game that even has better graphis than shenmue or The bouncer! Dont say halo, doom3 or UT2 because those aren\'t out yet. [/B]
Graphics are a subjective topic, since what looks awesome to you may only seem average to me, and vice versa. IMO, B&W on the PC looks much better, and the realtime Evolution demo (PC+XBox) shows a character which easily blows away ANYTHING I\'ve seen on the PS2 or DC. Sure it\'s a demo (for now), but this is the kind of detail possible on today\'s GF3 equipted PC and the forthcoming XBox!
But before going too far into PC vs PS2 graphics, I\'m sure there are those who feel The Bouncer has better graphics than MGS2, but which is (or will be) the better game? Just a thought! :)
-
Originally posted by Falcon4
i have recently played black and white.... the fps are like ... crap! even with a 32mb nivida. 600 mhz processor, and direct x 8, the game runs under 30fps all the time!
Sorry to break it to you, but your PC is NOT cutting edge anymore!
And before you get angry, I still only have an AMD450Mhz+Voodoo3 :(
However I witnessed B&W being played on my friends P4 and it was just awesome (and very s-m-o-o-t-h).
In a few months, I hope to join the \'high-end owning PC\' club! ;)
-
I think I smell some anger twoards PS2?
Am I right Dr Yassam???
PS2 has the best graphics I\'ve seen anyways!
My friend has a 1.2GHz TB GeF2 (just like Bossiemans friends comp) and his games look like if they were on a Vic20 if you compare them to the 1 year old TTT!
They look like crap if you compare them to MGS2 or GT3!
/FAST
PS: PS2 is da system for me cuz it has da gamez and da graphics ;)
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
Firstly, you cannot really measure a game in terms of GFlops used (and were do you get your *incorrect* figures from anyway! :)).
Anyone who\'s seen the REALTIME graphics demonstrated in 3DMark2001 (especially the realistic nature scene and Max Payne), and the incredibly detailed model seen in the Evolution demo, as well as Doom3 and Unreal2 etc, will know that the PC can not only handle MGS2, it can do it better! (But let\'s not fight over that point :)).
In terms of bandwidth, the only real bottleneck is AGPx4, which is just about sufficient for the GeForce3. Remember, textures are uploaded and stored in the massive onboard memory of PC graphics cards, so MOST of that bandwith is for vertices only!
Soon the PC will have AGPx8 and beyond, hence bandwidth problems are not a real problem anymore.
I dont know about the TB put the PIV has a maximum bandwith of 1,3 gflops. I´ll try to find a link for you.
According to Hideo Kojima, MGS2 AI uses about 30% of the power in the EE, so if the EE is about 3-4 times more powerful than a PIII chip that makes 1 PIII for just calculating the AI, then you have Physics like rain and stuff, so please explain how it is possible to run the MGS2 demo on a PC? The main CPU does all physics and enviroment calculations, not the Geforce 2 or 3.
-
Uh, are they buying PS2 for MGS2 or for the graphics? I\'m getting the impression that they are getting it mainly for graphics...
IMO, that\'s one reason why I believe a lot of PC gamers are attracted to XBox.
-
But 30fps+ on the GF3!!! This demo makes extensive use of the powerful vertex shaders, something the GF2 doesn\'t have in hardware. Hence it\'s requires power the GF2 doesn\'t have.
For a 1000 mhz PC and a $400-500 \'all-powerful\' video card 30fps does not cut it. Considering it\'s just a demo, imagine if it was a real game with physics/ai/etc .. it would never be @ a constant 60fps. I don\'t care how powerful a GeForce 3 is, it will never be used to its maximum potential. Take all the previous 3D cards, none were taken well advantage of. Where\'s my 20mpps on my GeForce 2 with T&L/bump mapping/etc? Doesn\'t happen. Until the PC\'s architecture changes, I don\'t care how powerful the cards are, they will always be limited.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
To Dr Yassam
MGS2 has great animation, better than quake 3 or UT! have you even played it? The movies and screens dont show the power of this game, you need to play it to see it in its full visual glory :)
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
The bandwithproblem is not solved.
With only 1,3 Gflops there is no way possible to run MGS2 on a PC, I guess that MGS2 uses about 4-4,5 Gflops, that is a very high number.
The rain and wind is realtime, imagine a 1,2 GHz Thunderbird with a peek of 1,4-1,5 Gflops pushing all that information to the Graphic-card, that is not possible, that is why we dont see realtime movements in PC games, maybe U can do some kind of trick on the PC to make the rain look good, but you cant make it realtime..........yet.
You will see that on a PC sooner than you think. Think polygons first. The original SOF had 400 polys per character where as SOF 2 will have 3000. Detail? GHOUL 2 will make the game more realistic that will allow the Desert Eagle to take out only chunks of skull leaving oozing brain matter.When you look at MGS you see the PS2 at its best doing what it was bulit to do. But in real time check the backgrounds or look at the middle ground in ZOE. They save polys with that technique. Direct impact viewing where everything before you is highlighted. Also No game on PC comes close to using its full potential. We are talking the high end stuff here,most games can run on a 300mhz cpu! The real test is in the massive online stuff 200 to 3000 players and still render backgrounds effects. MSG is a fixed camera you have no control when in third person and aside from the rain how many models will you see on the screen at once in real time. PS2 is a great 3D monster but it still has llimitations when looking at the PC, otherwise why would Sony develop Planetside and Star Wars Galaxys for PC first and not PS2? Just a thought. Keep playing.
________
Park Royal 2 Condos Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)
-
otherwise why would Sony develop Planetside and Star Wars Galaxys for PC first and not PS2? Just a thought. Keep playing.
Sony has nothing to do with those games. Both of those are made by Verant. (which are owned by Sony, but Sony doesn\'t have anything to do with them) Also, both of those are online-only games. Why would they make that on the PS2 with no online capability (right now) ? Not to mention both of those games have been in production for a long time now. Before Sony purchased Verant.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
I can agree with that but those same folks brought us EVERQUEST and Sony had them then. When are we going to be able to use the PS2 online?
________
JuicyNicky (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/JuicyNicky/)
-
Ugh..
Don\'t mention everqu!@$#$ .. I\'m a recovering addict. Been almost a year now, and ugh well. nm.
Anyhow, Sony didn\'t own Verant when that horrible horrible game first came out.. it wasn\'t until sometime last year that Sony actually purchased them.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
Originally posted by fastson
I think I smell some anger twoards PS2?
Am I right Dr Yassam???
WRONG! :)
I consider the PS2 to be a great, yet disappointing, console. I\'ve always said this (on this and other forums!). It has it\'s strengths, but I\'m not going to ignore it\'s weaknesses. Because of this, I wouldn\'t buy one for myself, but I did do so for my brother last Christmas (well, most of the cost anyway).
That way, I can still enjoy awesome PS2 titles like GT3 and MGS2 when they arrive.
-
great posts Yassam ! ;) I like how you are one of the few members who actually know system specs very well. :)
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
I dont know about the TB put the PIV has a maximum bandwith of 1,3 gflops.
I believe you\'re confusing the terms here, since Gflops refers to floating-point operations per second, not bandwidth.
According to Hideo Kojima, MGS2 AI uses about 30% of the power in the EE, so if the EE is about 3-4 times more powerful than a PIII chip that makes 1 PIII for just calculating the AI, then you have Physics like rain and stuff, so please explain how it is possible to run the MGS2 demo on a PC?[/B]
The EE has the floating point power of approx 3*P3-500Mhz, or alternatively, 2*P3-733Mhz in the XBox.
Most of this power is spread over the two vector units within the EE (vu0 & vu1). The point here is that vu1 is dedicated towards graphics calculations while vu0 can be used for AI and physics. This means the PS2 only has about the same power as a P3-733 for AI and physics!!!
In the XBox and GC, ALL the graphic calculations are handled by dedicated GPUs, leaving the main processors free for other tasks such as AI and physics.
Therefore anyone with more than a P3-733Mhz PC will have a machine MORE powerful than the PS2 for AI and physics, but without a GF2 or GF3, the PS2 will beat most PCs in terms of polygon power.
The main CPU does all physics and enviroment calculations, not the Geforce 2 or 3. [/B]
It depends. For example, look at the trees in that nature demo and notice how the branches and leaves are all realistically swaying in the wind. This movement is handled by the use of vertex shaders on the GF3 card itself, therefore the demo will run just as good even on an average PC!
With the GF2 however, the main CPU will have to handle such processor hungry tasks, hence you\'ll need a MUCH more powerful pentium, and even then you still wouldn\'t match the GF3 performance.
-
Originally posted by Metal_Gear_Ray
MGS2 has great animation, better than quake 3 or UT! have you even played it?
Sorry, don\'t get me wrong, I wasn\'t saying the animation in MGS2 was poor, only that it\'s not the best out there.
The movies and screens dont show the power of this game, you need to play it to see it in its full visual glory :) [/B]
I was hoping to do so, unfortunately my brother isn\'t interested in ZOE....yet! ;)
---
(With reference to your last post...Thanks :))
-
Originally posted by datamage
For a 1000 mhz PC and a $400-500 \'all-powerful\' video card 30fps does not cut it. Considering it\'s just a demo, imagine if it was a real game with physics/ai/etc .. it would never be @ a constant 60fps.
The reason I said 30fps+ was because I\'ve only seen this demo in movie form. The framerate appeared great in the movie, but I wasn\'t going to claim it was 60fps when I do not know this for a fact!
Hence you cannot say 30fps does not cut it without knowing the real framerate or what was actually involved in that demo, i.e how many polygons and what level of calculations were involved.
I don\'t care how powerful a GeForce 3 is, it will never be used to its maximum potential. Take all the previous 3D cards, none were taken well advantage of.
[/B]
As I said in my earlier post, there were numerous reasons why this happened in the past. Things have changed now, hence more and more future PC games WILL be taking full advantage of cards like the GF3.
-
Hmm.. I have some things to write now.
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
I believe you\'re confusing the terms here, since Gflops refers to floating-point operations per second, not bandwidth.
The EE has the floating point power of approx 3*P3-500Mhz, or alternatively, 2*P3-733Mhz in the XBox.
Most of this power is spread over the two vector units within the EE (vu0 & vu1). The point here is that vu1 is dedicated towards graphics calculations while vu0 can be used for AI and physics. This means the PS2 only has about the same power as a P3-733 for AI and physics!!!
In the XBox and GC, ALL the graphic calculations are handled by dedicated GPUs, leaving the main processors free for other tasks such as AI and physics.
Therefore anyone with more than a P3-733Mhz PC will have a machine MORE powerful than the PS2 for AI and physics, but without a GF2 or GF3, the PS2 will beat most PCs in terms of polygon power.
It depends. For example, look at the trees in that nature demo and notice how the branches and leaves are all realistically swaying in the wind. This movement is handled by the use of vertex shaders on the GF3 card itself, therefore the demo will run just as good even on an average PC!
With the GF2 however, the main CPU will have to handle such processor hungry tasks, hence you\'ll need a MUCH more powerful pentium, and even then you still wouldn\'t match the GF3 performance.
1. The G4 has twice as high Gflops performence than a high-end PC, PS2 has twice as much as the G4.
read the article on arstechnica.com to find out that this is a pretty important factor when it comes to 3d graphics.
2. "This means the PS2 only has about the same power as a P3-733 for AI and physics!!!"
And that means in my brain, that a P3-733 calculates and solves a Einstein equation just as fast as PS2. Whooow ,I didnt know a PIII chip was that fast.
3. "For example, look at the trees in that nature demo and notice how the branches and leaves are all realistically swaying in the wind"
I am talking about games, not demos, did you see the realtime water on the PS2 during the tech-demo show, i havent seen realtime water on ANY PC yet.
4. "Most of this power is spread over the two vector units within the EE (vu0 & vu1). The point here is that vu1 is dedicated towards graphics calculations while vu0 can be used for AI and physics. "
Just read the article on arstechnica, ok?
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
The G4 has twice as high Gflops performence than a high-end PC, PS2 has twice as much as the G4.
Do the maths, you\'re saying the PS2 has 4 TIMES the power of a high-end PC! That is completely wrong!
Search the net, Sony THEMSELVES rate the EE\'s power as 3*PIII-500Mhz. It\'s common knowledge!
As for G4 superiority, that is nothing more than Apple\'s pr nonsence! They said the same about the G3 vs PIII. The fact is, the G4 ONLY beats a P4 for applications which benefits from optimised use of the Altivec instructions.
One such application is Photoshop, hence EVERY TIME Apple claim the G3/G4 is superior, they ALWAYS refer to Photoshop benchmarks! The best PCs easily beat the best G4s in 99.999% of all other apps AND games.
read the article on arstechnica.com to find out that this is a pretty important factor when it comes to 3d graphics.[/B]
And read the following, ALSO from arstechnica, which confirms my statement about the P3 and EE;
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q99/playstation2-cpu.html
Check out the diagram near the bottom of the page and notice how it shows that the EE has \'ONLY\' 3 times the performance of a P3-500 for floating-point operations (approx 6GFlops vs 2 GFlops)!!!.
It\'s also worth noting that the diagram shows the P3-500 is twice as powerful as the EE for integer operations (GIPS), hence a P3-733 it about 3 times as powerful as the EE for integer operations.
I am talking about games, not demos, did you see the realtime water on the PS2 during the tech-demo show, i havent seen realtime water on ANY PC yet.[/B]
I see, so NOW you\'re talking about demos. :)
Yes, there are a number of demos featuring water on the PC (just go to http://www.nvidia.com). I\'m not saying they\'re exactly the same, but I would say the PS2 demo demonstrates nothing which couldn\'t be achieved on today\'s PC!
Just read the article on arstechnica, ok? [/B]
I\'ve read that article numerous times since it first appeared on their site last year, and it confirms all that I\'ve said in this thread!
BTW, I\'m not bashing the PS2 here, it\'s just that you\'re exagerating it\'s power.
-
Hence you cannot say 30fps does not cut it without knowing the real framerate or what was actually involved in that demo, i.e how many polygons and what level of calculations were involved.
Sorry pal, but I can say that. 30fps does not cut it. I\'ve seen the demo myself running on my PC, and while it should run better on a GeForce 3, it\'s not going to be 6x better. Demos are just showing graphics, not doing true calculations/physics/ai/collision/etc. Those kind of graphics are not achieved in a real-time game. See the demo for yourself with your own eyes and you will see what I mean.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
Originally posted by datamage
Sorry pal, but I can say that. 30fps does not cut it. I\'ve seen the demo myself running on my PC, and while it should run better on a GeForce 3, it\'s not going to be 6x better. Demos are just showing graphics, not doing true calculations/physics/ai/collision/etc. Those kind of graphics are not achieved in a real-time game. See the demo for yourself with your own eyes and you will see what I mean.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
If you are talking about the winged monster demo (and not just a movie of it you d/l\'d) then it most certainly is doing the math. Plus a two cards, one with "feature"a" supported by hardware while the other without, get vastly different frame rates in aplications that use "feature a". Just pointing that out.
-
Woah didn\'t even check this thread till now.
Anyway I noticed that you were talking about the G4.
The biggest reason people say the G4 beats the other x86 CPU\'s on a clock for clock basis is that the G4 has a 4 stage pipeline whereas most x86 CPU\'s have about 12+ stages.
That is why the G4 calculates more stuff on fewer rotations,this can be both an advantige and a drawback.A lower pipeline means that clock rotations aren\'t wasted,however the biggest drawback is that it causes more stress on the transistors in the CPU leading to a lower clock speed.
Motorola has a newer version of the G4 out (MPC7450) it has a 7 stage pipeline and is reaching speeds of up to 733Mhz.
And they have developed a newer fab process,the ones they are working on are on a .13µ process and use IBM\'s SOI technoligy,so we should be seeing higher clock speeds from Apple :)
-
h03j;
No, I was talking about 3dmark 2001.
People have their own standards, but to me 30fps with a card that costs $300+ is unacceptable.
- dm
- what\'s in the f\'cking box?
-
This thread turned into a TECH "Geek" thread.I cant even participate.
Dr Yassam you have lots of knowledge in technology.Are you self tought or do you study anything that has to do with hardware?
I am impressed
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
Do the maths, you\'re saying the PS2 has 4 TIMES the power of a high-end PC! That is completely wrong!
Search the net, Sony THEMSELVES rate the EE\'s power as 3*PIII-500Mhz. It\'s common knowledge!
As for G4 superiority, that is nothing more than Apple\'s pr nonsence! They said the same about the G3 vs PIII. The fact is, the G4 ONLY beats a P4 for applications which benefits from optimised use of the Altivec instructions.
One such application is Photoshop, hence EVERY TIME Apple claim the G3/G4 is superior, they ALWAYS refer to Photoshop benchmarks! The best PCs easily beat the best G4s in 99.999% of all other apps AND games.
And read the following, ALSO from arstechnica, which confirms my statement about the P3 and EE;
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q99/playstation2-cpu.html
Check out the diagram near the bottom of the page and notice how it shows that the EE has \'ONLY\' 3 times the performance of a P3-500 for floating-point operations (approx 6GFlops vs 2 GFlops)!!!.
It\'s also worth noting that the diagram shows the P3-500 is twice as powerful as the EE for integer operations (GIPS), hence a P3-733 it about 3 times as powerful as the EE for integer operations.
I see, so NOW you\'re talking about demos. :)
Yes, there are a number of demos featuring water on the PC (just go to http://www.nvidia.com). I\'m not saying they\'re exactly the same, but I would say the PS2 demo demonstrates nothing which couldn\'t be achieved on today\'s PC!
I\'ve read that article numerous times since it first appeared on their site last year, and it confirms all that I\'ve said in this thread!
BTW, I\'m not bashing the PS2 here, it\'s just that you\'re exagerating it\'s power.
Okey, i dont want to make this ugly, so let me ask you something else.
When can I play games on my 1 Ghz TB with a geforce 3 card that uses all that power? I look at black and white and see that the recomendation is 450 Mhz and 32 Mb GC.
Minimum is like 266 MHz and 16 Mb GC.
the PC hardware is superior the PC software.
Do you think there is any games that uses all the power in a Geforce 2 card?
Quake 3 uses about 3 Mpolys, and that is the record last time I checked.
My point is.
The consoles are the key to the money, a good PC game sales 2 million copys (diablo II), a good PS game sales 4-5 million copys.
There is more money to make in the console market.
Copy is a big PC problem.
They make the games for the median computer, a 266 MHz computer with 16 Mb GC.
The day that a 1 GHz and a Geforce 3 is median computers, then we may see ordinary games as good as the PS2. I guess in 2004.
Think about Halo. i heard the minimum is like a 933 Mhz PIII, how many copies will this game sell?
I guess the x-box version will sell better than the PC version.
When i look at the latest PC games, I´m really not impressed, are you?
Do you think that B&W will sell that much on the PC to make up for the cost?
I dont think so, so they port it over too PSone, PS2, GBA and x-box, there is the money.
And ofcourse there is things that you can do on the PS2 that you cant do on the PC and things on the PC that you cant do on the PS2.
I havent seen a PC car-game that looks better than GT2 for the Playstation, have you? I know they could do it easily but they just dont do it, maybe because of the lack of interest.
Some of my friends that works as programers on Ericsson, says that those games that I showed them (GT3 and MGS2) was the most impressive thing they have ever seen. they think that that kind of graphics will be on the PC not until 2004.
I am a console-fan, I have had to many troubles on the pc-games.
My old 450 Mhz with a voodoo 2 card works just fine on any PC game, when will we see PC games that will not work on this PC?
-
I have to agree with Bossieman here. It\'s true like Dr Yassam said , the highest high end PC will always outspec a console. ( through tech demo\'s and stuff like that.)
Yet unlike Dr Yassam there\'s lots of gamers who are not
as wealthy as him.
It would be great if all PCs became the same at a standard level, for games that is ! But that makes it into a console and thus XBOX. Problem with XBOX is cost : they have to keep that within console margins and thus opt for the P3 733.
So imo, most gamers are chained due to their limited money on consoles whereas high end pc owners are chained to the low - high spec the gamedev is aiming it\'s game for.
Here\'s the bottom line imo : Console devs strive to push a console to it\'s highest limit and giving console gaming a vast number of impressive games. Further a console can last 5 years and still improve. PC gamers have to improve there sallary income over those 5 years to keep up. :D
Knotter8
-
I agree 110% with Bossieman! ;)
You got my vote pal! :D
/FAST
PS: Min bror jobbar på Ericsson ;)
-
I have to say that it is pretty interesting this console vs PC thing, we cant just look at numbers anymore, this market is exploading, the human race waste more money on games then movies!! and it has just started.
But for every new console and generation every game costs millions of dollars too make, its not like the good old c64 time.
I know from my own experience that the console games just gets better and better, so do the PC games, but not at the same speed, with this new consoles, developers can do things that was just not possible to do before.
I know that a lot of PC developers wants a standard PC.
they dont want to make games that works on a PII 400 MHz, they want to do games for a 1,5 Ghz TB, but they cant because almost every consumer is sitting with PII computers at 400 MHz.
The console market is safer, you now what you are dealing with, you can consentrate too maximum the software for the hardware.
I´m not an PC expert but I read a lot about PC, I know there is several factors in PC that make them not good to maximum software, the GC is superior the main CPU.
The PIV is according to several sources (toms hardware. and more) a joke! I want to see computers with 64 bits or 128 bits proccessors not 32 bits!!
Come with new technology for God sake, we dont want technology from the 70;s (x86).
I´m sick of Microsoft and windows, I dont want to wait 1 minute to boot my computer, 5 sec not more, the year is 2001 for God sake.
I hate my computer! But I need it.
I have played so many PC games that just doesnt work as good as the could.
A friend of mine has problems with B&W, the game goes extremely slow when he walkes near a mountain and stuff. he has a geforce 2 and a PIII 500 Mhz!!
Whats wrong? I can go out and buy B&W for my PC but I wait until the PS2 version arrives, I know it will work every time without slowdowns.
Am I the only one that thinks that the PC is so sad too play on that you think its something wrong when a game works perfectly?
-
Originally posted by datamage
Sorry pal, but I can say that. 30fps does not cut it. I\'ve seen the demo myself running on my PC, and while it should run better on a GeForce 3, it\'s not going to be 6x better.
You cannot judge the performance of that demo based upon your own PC\'s performance. You don\'t know how much better it will or will not be on the GF3, since the GF2 doesn\'t have the programmable pixel shaders and vertex shaders.
A good example is the famous \'Tree\' demo for the original GeForce256 cards. When this demo first appeared it ran great on the GeForce256 but poorly on all other cards, since other cards didn\'t have hardware T&L support. Even my PC with a Voodoo3 will not match the performance of the old GeForce256 for that demo!
Have you seen the Inevitable Evolution demo running on the GF3 and XBox?
http://www.msxbox.com/images/march/inevitable/inevitable1.jpg
http://www.coremagazine.com/movies/xevo.mpg
This demo makes great use of pixel/vertex shaders and will certainly not run smoothly on your GF2 equipted PC.
Demos are just showing graphics, not doing true calculations/physics/ai/collision/etc. Those kind of graphics are not achieved in a real-time game.[/B]
Yes, I know there is a difference between a demo and a game, however demos are great ways of demonstrating the power and features within any new graphics hardware.
-
Originally posted by datamage
People have their own standards, but to me 30fps with a card that costs $300+ is unacceptable.
Sorry, but this arguement over 30fps is nonsence.
Firstly, even if the card was 10 times more powerful, you could still produce a demo which reduces the framerate to 30fps or even less!
Secondly, we do not know the framerate of that nature demo or even how much processing was involved!
Take a complex object like a tree for example. If it\'s static, then the only processing involved would be to render the tree itself. If you want to make the whole tree sway in the wind, then additional processing power will be needed. If you wanted the branches to sway independently, then even more power is needed. Finally, if you wanted each leaf on each branch of that tree to flutter in the breeze, then significantly MORE processing power is required.
The point? Well in each case we have a demo of a tree, but the processing power required for the demo varies greatly!
-
Bossieman, du har sååå rätt ;)
/FAST
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
When can I play games on my 1 Ghz TB with a geforce 3 card that uses all that power?
Have a look at the following;
http://www.nvidia.com/Products/GeForce3.nsf/games.html
And let\'s not forget forthcoming PC games like Doom3 and Unreal2, both of which make extensive use of the GF3!
Also, because of Directx8 and Nvidia\'s technology on the XBox, more and more game developers will have the knowledge and ability to push the graphics technology of the PC even further than before. In otherwords, the XBox will have a positive effect on the PC IMO.
----
And finally -
My comments here are not a claim that PC gaming is superior to console gaming. I enjoy BOTH because each offers a great but different gaming experience. I\'m argueing purely on technical terms, and as such, the PC is superior.
Yes it\'s true that the nature of the PC means that developers cannot \'max out\' the hardware in the way they can with consoles, however this situation is improving each year as new advancements surface for PC owners (Directx8 and the Geforec3 being the latest).
You made some good points here, but in terms of PC vs console gaming, nothing has really changed in the 10 years I\'ve been playing PC games (I was a gamer long before that however)! All the arguements about cost, ease of use, stability, reliability, upgrades etc are basically the same. All the arguements of some that the latest consoles will mark the end of PC gaming is also the same. ;)
5 years from now, the PC market will be bigger than it is today (with the same pros and cons)! But continuing the trend we saw in the 90\'s, the console games market will grow faster than the PC games market.
-
How can the PC be superior dr?...remember you told me xbox would be herald as the graphics champion for years to come because(nvidia being the only source for this) agpx4 can never handle the same "theoretical" polygons xbox can...
fact is...xbox technology is DOA....when compared to the PC graphics we will have fall2001..
Also, nvidia better dust off those gigapixel designs or start useing EDRAM because their current set-up is going no where and is becoming obsolete....they have hit a brick wall with geforce3...expect innovations in PC graphics from bitboys ati and img...
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Dr Yassam you have lots of knowledge in technology.Are you self tought or do you study anything that has to do with hardware?
I am impressed
Thanks Unicron!. :)
In terms of knowing about PC/console gaming technology, I guess I am self taught. Mostly this is from articles in magazines and websites, but I\'ve also learnt alot from participating in newsgroups and forums such as this.
Anyway, I really didn\'t want to get into a technical discussion in this thread (since they take up too much time :)), so this will be my last post in this thread for now.
Happy Easter everyone!
-
Originally posted by Nplayer-2
How can the PC be superior dr?...remember you told me xbox would be herald as the graphics champion for years to come because(nvidia being the only source for this) agpx4 can never handle the same "theoretical" polygons xbox can...
No I didn\'t Nplayer (search my posts and provide a link!) I CLEARLY said that, like MOST consoles, the XBox will have superior polygon power upon release, however the PC should retake the graphics lead once AGP8x and the GeForce4 are available!
Here\'s a thread where we discussed that same point;
http://194.47.16.181/forums/showthread.php?threadid=6448&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
To quote myself "The XBox is no different. It has been designed to obtain the maximum performance out of nVidia\'s NV2A in a way that current PC\'s are unable to do. Once AGP8x and GeForce4 are available, the PC will match/surpass the XBox for polygon pushing power."
You were saying? :)
fact is...xbox technology is DOA....when compared to the PC graphics we will have fall2001.[/B]
Not until AGP8x and the GeForce4.
....they have hit a brick wall with geforce3...expect innovations in PC graphics from bitboys ati and img... [/B]
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
LOL...bull****, you edited your post....
like i said xbox technology is DOA this fall when put up against PC\'s....agpx8 will be here LONG before xbox games will ever have 125mpps...the same number that is(according to it\'s only source: nvidia) is impossible on agp x4...
-
This is interesting, very good.
I will today go down to my local gamestore and check out the newest PC games! Lets hope they dont looks like high reolution PSone games.
-
Since we\'re on the subject of graphics, I\'d just like to ad that PC and PS2 cannot be compared. For example, Unreal Tournament on PC looks a lot better than UT for PS2, but my PC could probably not do such games as Metal Gear Solid 2. It all depends what effects are being used, and what kind of game it is. Usually, FPS games look much better on PC.
Second, to the person who said that MGS2 was the best looking Playstation 2 game. Take a look at the screenshots for The Getaway (also on PS2).
-
You mean take a look at the FAKE screenshots for the Getaway. The first screens were concept art, which they admitted, and I guarantee it won\'t look like that when it comes out. No way.
-
True. They look TOO good. Maybe it\'ll only have on level and one car :)
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
This is interesting, very good.
I will today go down to my local gamestore and check out the newest PC games! Lets hope they dont looks like high reolution PSone games.
I´m back. Nothing that looks good, B&W looks good but there is almost only rts and flightsimulators.
I`ll stick to my PS2, I go and check out the PC games next year.
-
Originally posted by Nplayer-2
LOL...bull****, you edited your post....
Really? And I editted your replies also! You even QUOTE MY STATEMENT IN YOUR OWN REPLY where I said "The XBox (upon launch) will push more polygons than the PC. The PC (within about a year) will overtake the XBox in this area!"
So how did I manage that then!!!
When you\'re wrong Nplayer, have the guts to admit it and grow up!
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
I?m back. Nothing that looks good, B&W looks good but there is almost only rts and flightsimulators.
I`ll stick to my PS2, I go and check out the PC games next year.
Bossieman I respect your feelings and if the PS2 is all you want to play on great. But I have gamed on my PC for three years now and waited for the kind of games to emerge that are avaliable or coming out soon. I wont bother to list some because I dont know thier availability where you live. However my personal satisfaction gaming has been quite enhanced when the PC came into my sphere along with my consoles. Yes its different and with the arrival of consoles like the PS2 the bar has been raised and the games are starting to use the power of the PC better. Flight sims, RTS, FPS, are not the only games on the PC. There is a lot of variety. Perhaps more than on any console. Plus the fact you can Modifiy a game so that its staying power is magnified. Like Half life, look how long that game has lived on long after its original release. I am not trying to sell you on the PC but there is some hot stuff I would not want to miss. Enjoy your gaming.(PS. one wonderful RTS Ground Control I believe was made in your country.)
________
thai girl Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/asian-girls/)
-
Originally posted by jiggs
Bossieman I respect your feelings and if the PS2 is all you want to play on great. But I have gamed on my PC for three years now and waited for the kind of games to emerge that are avaliable or coming out soon. I wont bother to list some because I dont know thier availability where you live. However my personal satisfaction gaming has been quite enhanced when the PC came into my sphere along with my consoles. Yes its different and with the arrival of consoles like the PS2 the bar has been raised and the games are starting to use the power of the PC better. Flight sims, RTS, FPS, are not the only games on the PC. There is a lot of variety. Perhaps more than on any console. Plus the fact you can Modifiy a game so that its staying power is magnified. Like Half life, look how long that game has lived on long after its original release. I am not trying to sell you on the PC but there is some hot stuff I would not want to miss. Enjoy your gaming.(PS. one wonderful RTS Ground Control I believe was made in your country.)
I have played Ground control, its a great game, it really is, but If that game would have been on the PS2 i would have think that the game was not good looking, I know i maybe have been spoild with graphics on the PS2, I just dont get impressed anymore. When I first saw the MGS2 trailer a year ago I was really impressed. Today when i look at the game I think it looks good but not THAT good. I want better, I always want better. And because of the fact that I have not seen any PC games looking better then MGS2, I have just lost my faith in the PC market.
I play a lot of PC games, but not for the graphics I play them for Online.
-
Hmmm, this thread has returned. ;)
Since we\'re discussing future games, again check out some of the future PC games which will make great use of nVidia\'s GeForce3;
http://www.nvidia.com/Products/GeForce3.nsf/games.html
I really don\'t think you can look at the early screen shots for \'Dinosaur Island\', \'Inevitable Evolution\', \'Independence War 2\' and others such as Doom3 and Unreal2 etc and say that MGS2 looks better.
Yes Konami\'s game will be awesome, but it will not match the graphics of such PC games running on the GeForce3 and beyond.
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
Hmmm, this thread has returned. ;)
Since we\'re discussing future games, again check out some of the future PC games which will make great use of nVidia\'s GeForce3;
http://www.nvidia.com/Products/GeForce3.nsf/games.html
I really don\'t think you can look at the early screen shots for \'Dinosaur Island\', \'Inevitable Evolution\', \'Independence War 2\' and others such as Doom3 and Unreal2 etc and say that MGS2 looks better.
Yes Konami\'s game will be awesome, but it will not match the graphics of such PC games running on the GeForce3 and beyond.
Maybe that`s because GF3 is 600$ ?
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
Hmmm, this thread has returned. ;)
Since we\'re discussing future games, again check out some of the future PC games which will make great use of nVidia\'s GeForce3;
http://www.nvidia.com/Products/GeForce3.nsf/games.html
I really don\'t think you can look at the early screen shots for \'Dinosaur Island\', \'Inevitable Evolution\', \'Independence War 2\' and others such as Doom3 and Unreal2 etc and say that MGS2 looks better.
Yes Konami\'s game will be awesome, but it will not match the graphics of such PC games running on the GeForce3 and beyond.
I\'m sorry dr., maybe for you they will look better, but although I won\'t say they look bad, hell they look good, they just have that pc-ish look over them and I hate that, I respect your opinion, but these things just don\'t cut it for me.
-
Originally posted by politiepet
I\'m sorry dr., maybe for you they will look better, but although I won\'t say they look bad, hell they look good, they just have that pc-ish look over them and I hate that, I respect your opinion, but these things just don\'t cut it for me.
Likewise, MGS2 has that "PSX with bi-linear filtering" look about it. It looks great and I\'m looking forward to playing the game, but it just doesn\'t compare to the GF3 graphically. :)
Macabre, $600? Not if you shop around. You will see actual cards going for much less than that. Sure it\'s expensive, but so too was the GF2 and the GeForce256 upon release.
-
good that you mentioned bi-linear filtering, cause I always have wanted to know what exactly it means, since your the tech freak around here, I\'d be most thankful if you could explain,
btw we all have different opinions and I\'d like to make very clear to you I wasn\'t attacking you in any kind of way
-
Originally posted by politiepet
good that you mentioned bi-linear filtering, cause I always have wanted to know what exactly it means, since your the tech freak around here, I\'d be most thankful if you could explain,
btw we all have different opinions and I\'d like to make very clear to you I wasn\'t attacking you in any kind of way
That\'s ok, I didn\'t take it as an attack. :)
Remember games before 1996? If you look at many of the screenshots back then, the first thing that becomes apparent are blocky pixels within textures. The closer you get to a polygon, the bigger the pixels appear!
This was also apparent when you compare Playstation games to those on other systems like the N64 and DC.
Basically, bi-linear filtering is a method for eliminating obvious pixels by taking the average colours of four adjacent pixels within a texture (or texels). Although this results in a slightly blurred look to textures, it is preferable to the blocky look without it.
Tomb Raider without bi-linear filtering;
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ping.de%2Fsites%2Fhomebase%2Ftombswsm.jpg&hash=b3aa7430c3e74eff1a8a2a905a9fe615ebe15c3e)
Tomb Raider with Bi-linear filtering;
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ping.de%2Fsites%2Fhomebase%2Ftomb3dsm.jpg&hash=e5fa9f844ca09758f0942050afe3f1119de9fb3e)
Here\'s some further info;
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/3dguide/part2/
-
Originally posted by macabre
Maybe that`s because GF3 is 600$ ?
GF3 is $399 nowadays. :)
-
Originally posted by Dr Yassam
That\'s ok, I didn\'t take it as an attack. :)
Remember games before 1996? If you look at many of the screenshots back then, the first thing that becomes apparent are blocky pixels within textures. The closer you get to a polygon, the bigger the pixels appear!
This was also apparent when you compare Playstation games to those on other systems like the N64 and DC.
Basically, bi-linear filtering is a method for eliminating obvious pixels by taking the average colours of four adjacent pixels within a texture (or texels). Although this results in a slightly blurred look to textures, it is preferable to the blocky look without it.
Tomb Raider without bi-linear filtering;
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ping.de%2Fsites%2Fhomebase%2Ftombswsm.jpg&hash=b3aa7430c3e74eff1a8a2a905a9fe615ebe15c3e)
Tomb Raider with Bi-linear filtering;
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ping.de%2Fsites%2Fhomebase%2Ftomb3dsm.jpg&hash=e5fa9f844ca09758f0942050afe3f1119de9fb3e)
Here\'s some further info;
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/3dguide/part2/
I thought that was called tri-linear mip mapping, or is that the same?
-
Originally posted by politiepet
I thought that was called tri-linear mip mapping, or is that the same?
Not necessarily for those pics, but the principle is similar (check out the link I provided).
If you read the definition of mip-mapping, you will see that different versions of the same texture are used to reduce memory bandwidth requirements.
However, the problem with mip-mapping is that if you focus on a texture and slowly move forwards or backwards in a game, you can often see the moment when the renderer switches between different versions of the texture.
Tri-linear filtering uses bi-linearly filtered textures, but helps resolves the mip-mapping problem by taking samples from TWO versions of the same texture. That way, instead of seeing a sudden \'jump\' as the renderer switches to a lower or higher res texture, you will see a smoother transition instead.
In static screenshots, only a very keen eye will notice any difference between tri/bi-linear filtering. However, in game, the slight improvement of tri-linear filtering over bi-linear filtering is more noticeable.
-
Oh, now I get it,
did you by any chance ever played the formula 1 game by ubisoft for ps2, it had horrible mip mapping
-
mip mapping is a way of applying more than one texture surface on an object or something. In this way more detailed texturs are used up close and less detailed are used in the distance. Take a look at CS, play the map De_Dust and look at the ground while moving. You can see that more detailed textures are drawed in at a specific distance.
I don\'t really see the difference between tri and bi - linear filtering in q3, whats the difference?
-
Originally posted by politiepet
Oh, now I get it,
did you by any chance ever played the formula 1 game by ubisoft for ps2, it had horrible mip mapping
Unfortunately not. :(
How bad was it? Were the transitions between the different versions of the textures very noticeable? If so, this is where tri-linearly filtering would have helped.
-
yes, that\'s my point, the cars didn\'t look bad, but when you for instance in a replay see a long strip of road, and the cars are coming at you, you can clearly see a sudden change in image,
I think they already tried to hide it by leaving the replay camera\'s always at a far distance, but it was still very noticeable, which sucked, cause for the rest, the game wasn\'t all that bad
-
Originally posted by Metal_Gear_Ray
I don\'t really see the difference between tri and bi - linear filtering in q3, whats the difference?
Unfortunately, tri-linear filtering is either poorly supported or even not supported within many of the Opengl drivers for PC graphics cards, drivers required for iD\'s game engines. Only a few support this feature fully (nVidia?), hence many will see no difference in Quake3. :(
When implemented properly, it eliminates the problem you described regarding CS, where you can see an obvious line between texture detail levels on the ground/walls.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
GF3 is $399 nowadays. :)
64MB DDR Models are $500-600 (Elsa Gadiac920).
-
Originally posted by macabre
64MB DDR Models are $500-600 (Elsa Gadiac920).
Well, I haven\'t really investigated much as I\'m not in need of a new graphics card right now, but Anandtech said you could get GF3 at $399 now. Which means cards like GT2 Ultra should be a lot cheaper too... yum. :)
-
What games out in the PC market are using the
geforce 3?
I havent seen any yet. When the games comes out that will only work with a geforce 3 card, then we will see.
I dont think that the GF3 will be as a good seller as the GF2. The price is way to high.
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
I dont think that the GF3 will be as a good seller as the GF2. The price is way to high.
Well, the price on a GT2 Ultra is way to high already, as it is with all high end hardware. Once GF3 starts selling the \'lower\' cards will get more reasonable in price.