f



Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby'

http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg

Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
very very impressive shit!

ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
to what would be in an actual game.

now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
GCNext :)
0
nvidianv55 (71)
4/15/2004 4:33:15 AM
comp.ibm.hardware.video 3481 articles. 0 followers. nvidianv55 (71) is leader. Post Follow

50 Replies
1643 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 29

On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55@mail.com (NV55) wrote:

>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
>
>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
>very very impressive shit!
>
>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
>to what would be in an actual game.
>
>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
>GCNext :)


Wow............. I am impressed !!  Must ask for an advanced 
payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should 
sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing 
non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100% 
emulate  nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
that work well with legacy software on the PC.

Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped, 
now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.

At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope, 
unless it is designed in.

John Lewis

0
john
4/15/2004 5:46:12 AM
John Lewis wrote:

> Both should
> sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing
> non-Next software.

Like the SNES was backwards compatible with the NES? Like the Dreamcast was
with the Saturn? Like the Gamecube was with the N64? Like the PSX was with
anything?

The PS2 is the only mainstream backwards compatible console, and if you ask
PS2 owners how many of them actually PSX games on their machines, you'll
find the answer is very few.

Besides, I you're actually allowed to KEEP your current console after you
buy a new one! Seriously! I know, too bizarre to be true.

> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.

The "wily consumer" would probably love to have more electronics that are
exactly as functional and relevant and non-obsolete fives years after their
launch as they were the first day they came out. A PS2 game you buy next
year will play on the exact same hardware as the PS2 game you bought three
years ago, and it will run exactly as intended by the developers. How many
other pieces of consumer electronics have a five year lifespan during which
time owners don't need to worry about a better version of the hardware
coming out? Certainly not PC components.

> For the consoles, no hope,
> unless it is designed in.

Backwards compatiblity looks good on paper, but in reality it's a
non-feature. Why buy that next-gen hardware and then waste it on crappy
looking old-gen games? As soon as there's a large enough library of next-gen
games, nobody who buys a new console is going to care or even necessarily be
aware about the last generation's games. As sales figures clearly show, the
vast majority of people do not buy a new console the first day (or even the
first year) it comes out, and a huge number of people who bought PS2s never
owned original Playstations. So why build in a feature that most owners
aren't going to want or need?

-Z-


0
Zackman
4/15/2004 6:20:58 AM
John Lewis wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55@mail.com (NV55) wrote:
> 
> 
>>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
>>
>>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
>>very very impressive shit!
>>
>>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
>>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
>>to what would be in an actual game.
>>
>>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
>>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
>>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
>>GCNext :)
> 
> 
> 
> Wow............. I am impressed !!  Must ask for an advanced 
> payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should 
> sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing 
> non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
> for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
> if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100% 
> emulate  nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
> that work well with legacy software on the PC.
> 
> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped, 
> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
> 
> At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
> with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
> then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope, 
> unless it is designed in.
> 
> John Lewis
> 

Maybe so, but...
Take the latest drivers from nVidia for the nForce2,
the very same chipset used in the XBox now. The newer
versions of these drivers, ARE worse than the drivers they had out in 
2002! The bugs are jumping out at me here, BSOD's from the Memory 
Controller Driver in XP, DD 5.1 audio is broken, etc.
Not happy at all and it isn't a operator error *8) You think nVidia 
would have this sorted by now. All they have to do is place each bit 
that worked from each set of drivers, into one 'working set'. But guess 
I am going to have to do it manualy still...

0
Minotaur
4/15/2004 7:11:21 AM
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>John Lewis wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55@mail.com (NV55) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
>>>
>>>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
>>>very very impressive shit!
>>>
>>>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
>>>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
>>>to what would be in an actual game.
>>>
>>>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
>>>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
>>>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
>>>GCNext :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Wow............. I am impressed !!  Must ask for an advanced 
>> payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should 
>> sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing 
>> non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
>> for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
>> if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100% 
>> emulate  nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
>> that work well with legacy software on the PC.
>> 
>> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped, 
>> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
>> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
>> 
>> At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
>> with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
>> then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope, 
>> unless it is designed in.
>> 
>> John Lewis
>> 
>
>Maybe so, but...
>Take the latest drivers from nVidia for the nForce2,
>the very same chipset used in the XBox now.

Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel  P3
733MHz, not an AMD processor.

> The newer
>versions of these drivers, ARE worse than the drivers they had out in 
>2002! The bugs are jumping out at me here, BSOD's from the Memory 
>Controller Driver in XP, DD 5.1 audio is broken, etc.
>Not happy at all and it isn't a operator error *8) 

Which motherboard ? It is a nForce2 motherboard, not a nForce ?
The original nForce did have some bad problems.

John Lewis


>You think nVidia 
>would have this sorted by now. All they have to do is place each bit 
>that worked from each set of drivers, into one 'working set'. But guess 
>I am going to have to do it manualy still...
>

0
john
4/15/2004 7:47:34 AM
> Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
> very very impressive shit!
>
> ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
> however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
> to what would be in an actual game.

I like the Ruby demo much better :) As for Nalu, that same character can be
made with 50000-90000 polygons without sacrificing any quality. So just to
showoff nv40, nvidia should have made the scene more complex, or the Nalu a
bit different.


0
Asestar
4/15/2004 10:36:40 AM
"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:407e1d38.26175864@news.verizon.net...
>
> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
>

No they won't, consumers want better hard/software.

> At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
> with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
> then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope,
> unless it is designed in.

I hope that there is very limited hardware compatibility for future pc
standards, holding onto isa, pci and irqs for compatibility has held the pc
back a lot more than most people realise.  I agree with your point about
emulation, I still play Mario on a snes emulator, but compatibility really
does cripple the development of hardware, the pci bus should be dead
already, for example.

-- 
Ian


0
Apollo
4/15/2004 12:29:06 PM
I think he meant, "GForce".  I have a GForce FX5900 and once I installed all
my BIOS updates and motherboard drivers (Intel chipset), my system is
rock-solid!  What a machine.

But now after re-reading Minotaur's post, I am totally confused!

-- 
malberto - XBL: "Art Vandolay"


"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:407e3c6e.34167783@news.verizon.net...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Lewis wrote:
> >> On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55@mail.com (NV55) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
> >>>
> >>>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
> >>>very very impressive shit!
> >>>
> >>>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
> >>>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
> >>>to what would be in an actual game.
> >>>
> >>>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
> >>>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
> >>>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
> >>>GCNext :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow............. I am impressed !!  Must ask for an advanced
> >> payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should
> >> sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing
> >> non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
> >> for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
> >> if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100%
> >> emulate  nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
> >> that work well with legacy software on the PC.
> >>
> >> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
> >> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
> >> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
> >>
> >> At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
> >> with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
> >> then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope,
> >> unless it is designed in.
> >>
> >> John Lewis
> >>
> >
> >Maybe so, but...
> >Take the latest drivers from nVidia for the nForce2,
> >the very same chipset used in the XBox now.
>
> Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel  P3
> 733MHz, not an AMD processor.
>
> > The newer
> >versions of these drivers, ARE worse than the drivers they had out in
> >2002! The bugs are jumping out at me here, BSOD's from the Memory
> >Controller Driver in XP, DD 5.1 audio is broken, etc.
> >Not happy at all and it isn't a operator error *8)
>
> Which motherboard ? It is a nForce2 motherboard, not a nForce ?
> The original nForce did have some bad problems.
>
> John Lewis
>
>
> >You think nVidia
> >would have this sorted by now. All they have to do is place each bit
> >that worked from each set of drivers, into one 'working set'. But guess
> >I am going to have to do it manualy still...
> >
>


0
malberto
4/15/2004 1:25:37 PM
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:20:58 -0400, "Zackman"
<zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

>The PS2 is the only mainstream backwards compatible console, and if you ask
>PS2 owners how many of them actually PSX games on their machines, you'll
>find the answer is very few.

Sorry but you forgot Gameboy.  GBA is backward compatible with every
GB games ever made and GBC is also backward compatible with older GB
games.

Also Atari 7800 can play 2600.  (5200, Colecovision, and
Ilntellivision also plays 2600 via adapter but that's not the same
thing)

Sega Master System also worked with Mark III, SG-1000 and SC-3000 with
an adapter as the cart slot is different but the hardware is the same.
-- 
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
0
Impmon
4/15/2004 4:02:18 PM
ZackCryBaby wrote:

> [W]hy build in a feature that most owners aren't going to want or need?

I think I've played less than five PSX games on my PS2 since launch day.

And I've kept my modded PSX for *one* reason only: To play Internal
Section (and maybe Vib-Ribbon).

-- 
What would Jeremiah say if he knew
what they�re doing to his wife today?
0
Man
4/15/2004 4:24:51 PM
"Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

>Backwards compatiblity looks good on paper, but in reality it's a
>non-feature. Why buy that next-gen hardware and then waste it on crappy
>looking old-gen games? 

While I think that all of your points have merit, I don't agree that
it's a total non-issue.  For example, the consumer whois making a
choice between, say, the fading but game-rich N64 or the new-fangled
GameCube.  If the new machine is backwards compatible, it's a
no-brainer.  If it's not, some will opt for the older machine, denying
the new machine of some of those critical first-year sales.

0
chrisv
4/15/2004 5:23:07 PM
> I think he meant, "GForce".  I have a GForce FX5900 and once I installed
all
> my BIOS updates and motherboard drivers (Intel chipset), my system is
> rock-solid!  What a machine.

No he meant Nvidia's "nForce" brand. Its a chipset embedded on to the
motherboard that uses a AMD processor.



0
speed
4/15/2004 6:43:33 PM
"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:407e3c6e.34167783@news.verizon.net...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel  P3
> 733MHz, not an AMD processor.

You are indeed correct, but the XBox still uses the NForce chipset.

-- 
somnambulist


0
somnambulist
4/15/2004 6:48:22 PM
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ivgt709j98ku69ptj1rusjp8btnd30p4qd@4ax.com...
> "Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
>
> >Backwards compatiblity looks good on paper, but in reality it's a
> >non-feature. Why buy that next-gen hardware and then waste it on crappy
> >looking old-gen games?
>
> While I think that all of your points have merit, I don't agree that
> it's a total non-issue.  For example, the consumer whois making a
> choice between, say, the fading but game-rich N64 or the new-fangled
> GameCube.  If the new machine is backwards compatible, it's a
> no-brainer.  If it's not, some will opt for the older machine, denying
> the new machine of some of those critical first-year sales.

I would say that's going to be even more of a factor this time around.  The
PSX and N64 had some serious flaws that made the jump to this generation a
huge one.  Not so this time.  Of course, there will be a substantial overall
improvement in graphics, and in what developers can do with real time
lighting, effects, and number of objects on the screen in particular, but
none of that will make P22, GC, or XBox games look really bad in comparison.
They'll still sport very clean images and will still look nice on popular
large TV's, which was not the case with the low res N64 and PSX systems.
The difference will still be obvious, of course, and people will begin to
upgrade and eventually will abandon the old systems, but I think not nearly
as quickly this time.  There will still be a lot of interest in playing old
libraries, and filling out collections with games that weren't bought the
first time around.


0
El
4/15/2004 7:02:35 PM
> > While I think that all of your points have merit, I don't agree that
> > it's a total non-issue.  For example, the consumer whois making a
> > choice between, say, the fading but game-rich N64 or the new-fangled
> > GameCube.  If the new machine is backwards compatible, it's a
> > no-brainer.  If it's not, some will opt for the older machine, denying
> > the new machine of some of those critical first-year sales.

Very true indeed. In many countries where gamers don't own a gold mine, the
cost of upgrading a console alone is noticable. So most people would love to
either trade in their existing console, or at least play their existing
games on new console, or both. So yes, it will be an issue, sinse there are
sooo many good PS2 and Xbox games around.

> I would say that's going to be even more of a factor this time around.
The
> PSX and N64 had some serious flaws that made the jump to this generation a
> huge one.  Not so this time.  Of course, there will be a substantial
overall
> improvement in graphics, and in what developers can do with real time
> lighting, effects, and number of objects on the screen in particular, but
> none of that will make P22, GC, or XBox games look really bad in
comparison.
> They'll still sport very clean images and will still look nice on popular
> large TV's, which was not the case with the low res N64 and PSX systems.
> The difference will still be obvious, of course, and people will begin to
> upgrade and eventually will abandon the old systems, but I think not
nearly
> as quickly this time.  There will still be a lot of interest in playing
old
> libraries, and filling out collections with games that weren't bought the
> first time around.

Totally agree there as well. This is also an issue.
Try connecting your radeon96/9800 or Fx57/5900 to tv, enable all goodies in
Nfs-U and run in 800*600 mode. Then switch back to monitor, up the res to
1280 or 1024 and see the huge difference! Try a FPS game like UT2004, and
see even bigger difference. While running on tv, your 2000$ pc with ultimate
hardware looks/perform very similar to 200$ Xbox!

I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set and
i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display
higher res, than new xbox2 would be much more attractive than xbox1, since a
better/faster gfx chip.

So in order to attract a market, new consoles better be backward compatible,
or have VERY cheap games (highly unlikely).


0
Asestar
4/15/2004 7:39:15 PM
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:48:22 GMT, "somnambulist"
<somnambulist@simplybeinglove.not> wrote:

>
>"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:407e3c6e.34167783@news.verizon.net...
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel  P3
>> 733MHz, not an AMD processor.
>
>You are indeed correct, but the XBox still uses the NForce chipset.
>

Huh ?

The Xbox uses the NV2A GPU and the MCPX multifunction 
interface (including audio)  both from nVidia. They were custom-built 
parts for the console and any resemblance of the NV2A combo 
GPU- Northbridge to the nForce IGP stops at the sharing of some
common internal design ideas.

See:-

http://hackingthexbox.com/

John Lewis


>-- 
>somnambulist
>
>

0
john
4/15/2004 7:50:11 PM
> Ati can't even write drivers
> that work well with legacy software on the PC.

Hell, ATI can't even write drivers that work well with current software!


0
Mr
4/15/2004 8:08:47 PM
Impmon wrote:

> Sorry but you forgot Gameboy.

I was talking about home consoles, not handhelds.

> Also Atari 7800 can play 2600.  (5200, Colecovision, and
> Ilntellivision also plays 2600 via adapter but that's not the same
> thing)

True, but I said mainstream consoles. I know there were some old consoles
that had backwards compatibility, but the Atari 7800 was barely more than a
blip in the history of game machines. And it sure as heck didn't do anything
to help the 7800, did it?

-Z-


0
Zackman
4/15/2004 10:34:39 PM
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:39:15 GMT, "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t
.. n o> wrote:

>I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set and
>i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display
>higher res, than new xbox2 would be much more attractive than xbox1, since a
>better/faster gfx chip.

HDTV does display higher res but very few people have those TVs.
Current NTSC TV is capable of max of 720x480 so no amount of tweaking
on the system would get past that, and that type of TV is still in
just about every homes.

This does presents a delimia for game developer.  Of they try to use
the newer TV standard with higher resolution, very few will buy
becauser not everyone's ready to blow $2000 for a new HDTV.  So the
game developers would have to stick with older standard with lower
graphic resolution..
-- 
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
0
Impmon
4/16/2004 1:03:05 AM
NV55 wrote:

> http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
> 
> Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
> very very impressive shit!
> 
> ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
> however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
> to what would be in an actual game.
> 
> now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
> up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
> to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
> GCNext :)

Nvidia's characters seem to have more "life" to them, more subtle 
nuances and personality.  ATI's always seem flat and "anime" like.
0
duralisis
4/16/2004 2:02:05 AM
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:34:39 -0400, "Zackman"
<zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

>Impmon wrote:
>
>> Sorry but you forgot Gameboy.
>
>I was talking about home consoles, not handhelds.
>
>> Also Atari 7800 can play 2600.  (5200, Colecovision, and
>> Ilntellivision also plays 2600 via adapter but that's not the same
>> thing)
>
>True, but I said mainstream consoles. I know there were some old consoles
>that had backwards compatibility, but the Atari 7800 was barely more than a
>blip in the history of game machines. And it sure as heck didn't do anything
>to help the 7800, did it?

But how much of a radical change was the 7800 compared to the 2600? I
suspect considerably less than the XBox -> XBox 2. Atari had a
tendancy to do very small increments when releasing computers &
consoles.

Personally I don;t think anyone will give a flying feck if its
compatible or not within a few months of release. Except for the
journalists of course who make a carer out of whinging about pointless
things that no one else gives a stuff about.
-- 
GSX600F - Matilda the cracked teapot, gaffer tape included
Wipe up catpoo to reply

Wipe off cat poo to reply
0
Bagpuss
4/16/2004 6:32:59 AM
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:03:05 -0400, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:39:15 GMT, "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t
>. n o> wrote:
>
>>I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set and
>>i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display
>>higher res, than new xbox2 would be much more attractive than xbox1, since a
>>better/faster gfx chip.
>
>HDTV does display higher res but very few people have those TVs.
>Current NTSC TV is capable of max of 720x480 so no amount of tweaking
>on the system would get past that, and that type of TV is still in
>just about every homes.
>
>This does presents a delimia for game developer.  Of they try to use
>the newer TV standard with higher resolution, very few will buy
>becauser not everyone's ready to blow $2000 for a new HDTV.  So the
>game developers would have to stick with older standard with lower
>graphic resolution..

On top of that America is not the center of the universe and not every
country runs on NTSC (thankfully) so you have to support other video
formats too.

In terms of game development the higher resolution (given the console
has enough renedering head room to do it) is little more than alowing
a player option to select resolution then calling the library function
to change resolution with different paramters at the appropriate
points. Its not that difficult to do, the only consideration is that
higher resolutions take up more rendering time.
-- 
GSX600F - Matilda the cracked teapot, gaffer tape included
Wipe up catpoo to reply

Wipe off cat poo to reply
0
Bagpuss
4/16/2004 6:36:42 AM
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:32:59 +0100, Bagpuss
<bagpuss.net@ntlcatpooworld.com> wrote:

>But how much of a radical change was the 7800 compared to the 2600? I
>suspect considerably less than the XBox -> XBox 2. Atari had a
>tendancy to do very small increments when releasing computers &
>consoles.

7800 has a completely different CPU (backward compatible with 6507
used by 2600), addition of extra RAM, and a separate video chip.  2600
mode used the Stella chip while 7800 mode used the Maria chip.

Probably the least radical of all bacward compatible console and on
par with Gameboy Color (different CPU but worked with older games)
-- 
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
0
Impmon
4/16/2004 6:42:56 AM
Zackman <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
>The "wily consumer" would probably love to have more electronics that are
>exactly as functional and relevant and non-obsolete fives years after their
>launch as they were the first day they came out. A PS2 game you buy next
>year will play on the exact same hardware as the PS2 game you bought three
>years ago, and it will run exactly as intended by the developers. How many
>other pieces of consumer electronics have a five year lifespan during which
>time owners don't need to worry about a better version of the hardware
>coming out? Certainly not PC components.

	Consoles win out vs PCs, yes.  I think every other home appliance
or consumer electronic device has less obsolescence than consoles.  But 
then again, that's the nature of computing progress.

-- 
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow.  They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'.  So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.          -Patrick J. LoPresti
0
archang
4/16/2004 8:32:24 AM
"Mr. Brian Allen" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message
news:107tque3unq2icd@corp.supernews.com...
> > Ati can't even write drivers
> > that work well with legacy software on the PC.
>
> Hell, ATI can't even write drivers that work well with current software!

Now this is just plain meaningless. Have you actually tried catalyst
drivers? And if so, which software did they not work on?


0
Asestar
4/16/2004 8:36:18 AM
Well, Nvidia has whole team devoted to making demos. ATI has just a few
persons who do a lot of other things as well, so yeah. But think Nvidia has
to pay demo develop teams pay from their graphiccard sales, hence the high
prices :)


"duralisis" <NOduralisisSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5nejm$3niut$1@ID-189213.news.uni-berlin.de...
> NV55 wrote:
>
> > http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
> >
> > Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
> > very very impressive shit!
> >
> > ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
> > however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
> > to what would be in an actual game.
> >
> > now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
> > up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
> > to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
> > GCNext :)
>
> Nvidia's characters seem to have more "life" to them, more subtle
> nuances and personality.  ATI's always seem flat and "anime" like.


0
Asestar
4/16/2004 8:38:10 AM
nvidianv55@mail.com (NV55) wrote:
> http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
> 
> Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
> very very impressive shit!
> 
> ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
> however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
> to what would be in an actual game.
> 
> now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
> up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
> to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
> GCNext :)

The one thing that nVidia might win is the demo department.  If Ati
will release another multibillion-polygon monkey demo, it'll hurt the
sales.  When you can see the pink color of Nalu's nipples, who the
hell wants to see a monkey peeling a banana?
0
nada_says
4/16/2004 8:39:23 AM
Asestar <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote:
>I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set and
>i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display

	I would say they are /nowhere near/ that limit.  Consider how 
not-real even the best (realistic-looking) games look compared to real 
scenes broadcast on TV.  The lighting, detail, and sheer amount of stuff 
and crowds that can be easily filmed is far, far beyond what an XBox or 
PS2 can do.  Resolution is not the limiting factor.


-- 
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow.  They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'.  So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.          -Patrick J. LoPresti
0
archang
4/16/2004 8:41:15 AM
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <archang@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c5o67b$76$1@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Asestar <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote:
> >I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set
and
> >i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display
>
> I would say they are /nowhere near/ that limit.  Consider how
> not-real even the best (realistic-looking) games look compared to real
> scenes broadcast on TV.  The lighting, detail, and sheer amount of stuff
> and crowds that can be easily filmed is far, far beyond what an XBox or
> PS2 can do.  Resolution is not the limiting factor.

Well, keep telling that to nvidia and ati, who are aiming at fluid gaming @
1600x1200. Also a tv-broadcast is interlaced. Watch how blurry and faded
most of the images look.
It's not just the resolution that's limiting it, it's the overall quality
itself! Sure enough you don't notice anything while playing on 30"LCD tv,
but for most other tv's, picture is just plain bad. Colors are not that
sharp, hence little difference between 16bit dithered and 32bit textures.
While this difference can be spot-on clear on a monitor.

As for the being realistic, this is a game issue, rather than hardware
issue.
Tell me, how many developers are willing to put huge effort into a game that
may be sold for only 2-3 months? Not many. Look at SplinterCell. It can
deliver some amazing light and shadow effects on xbox. Does that mean all
xbox games have same quality of visuals? No.
Now a days, it come down to games themself, not the consoles.
Also no matter what, realtime games will never be completely real looking,
without having higher res.


0
Asestar
4/16/2004 9:45:38 AM
> When you can see the pink color of Nalu's nipples, who the
> hell wants to see a monkey peeling a banana?

eh.. all of the ATI owners? But you're right. They don't *want* to see it,
they're just stuck with it.
Sad tough, nvidia is using now cheap tricks! Adding sex appeal to their
product line. First Dawn, then Dusk and now Nalu... hmm... what would be
next, Lola? :)


0
Asestar
4/16/2004 9:52:06 AM
"Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
news:a1Ofc.79744$BD3.9272741@juliett.dax.net...
> > When you can see the pink color of Nalu's nipples, who the
> > hell wants to see a monkey peeling a banana?
>
> eh.. all of the ATI owners? But you're right. They don't *want* to see it,
> they're just stuck with it.
> Sad tough, nvidia is using now cheap tricks! Adding sex appeal to their
> product line. First Dawn, then Dusk and now Nalu... hmm... what would be
> next, Lola? :)

    Would that be a suspicious bump mapping demonstration?


0
Eric
4/16/2004 10:38:11 AM
"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:c00v70p54crdp87i35sa8lq77nclsrrngj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:32:59 +0100, Bagpuss
> <bagpuss.net@ntlcatpooworld.com> wrote:
>
> >But how much of a radical change was the 7800 compared to the 2600? I
> >suspect considerably less than the XBox -> XBox 2. Atari had a
> >tendancy to do very small increments when releasing computers &
> >consoles.
>
> 7800 has a completely different CPU (backward compatible with 6507
> used by 2600), addition of extra RAM, and a separate video chip.  2600
> mode used the Stella chip while 7800 mode used the Maria chip.
>
> Probably the least radical of all bacward compatible console and on
> par with Gameboy Color (different CPU but worked with older games)


    The difference was very substantial. The Atari 400/800 computers and
Atari 5200 (same chipset in console and computers) were a major jump in
power over the 2600 but the 7800 had distinct advantages over those. It had
the same 256 color palette as the GTIA (one of the co-processor pair in the
Atari 800) but supported modes allowing more colors onscreen before
resorting to special programming tricks (like changing the color registers
as the screen was drawing so that different horizontal bands could have
different groups of four colors), supported larger and much more numerous
sprites. Oddly the sound in the 7800 relied on the same chip from the 2600.
Some 7800 games had better audio by including a POKEY chip from the 400/800
in the cartridge.

    It was a bit of a mystery why Atari didn't instead produce a more
powerful version of the ANTIC, GTIA, and POKEY chips so they could made a
major upgrade to their computers as well as a new console platform. further
down the road they could have done as Apple did with the ][GS, creating a
16-bit backward compatible system using the 65816. (Also used in SNES.) Part
of the reason may have been that Atari had made a substantial cash
investment in Amiga before they were acquired by Commodore and were
expecting the new system to be sold under an Atari label and eliminate most
interest in a improved 800 series system.

    Not long after the 7800 was announced Atari was sold to the Tramiel
family that had founded Commodore and were ousted from that company. The
Tramiels weren't interested in putting up the capital for marketing a game
system, so the 7800, games and everything else that had already been
manufactured just sat in a warehouse for years. They eventually dumped it
all on the retail market for a small fraction of what it had cost Time
Warner to make. There were a few third party titles but only a small number
of the available games ever made good use of the system.

    The 7800 was doomed for reasons other than technical abilities. Even if
it had been released as scheduled and beat the NES to market it would have
lacked Nintendo's most important contribution to the console business: the
business model that made third party publishers a source of revenue rather
than competitors. Interestingly both game systems would have several of the
same titles since Atari had licenses for several of Nintendo's hits like
Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., and the original Mario Bros. game. All of
these had very poor version on the 7800 though, which was surprising
considering the very good version on the Atari computers and other computers
through the Atarisoft brand.

    I'd say the 7800 is somewhat less of a leap than that from GBC to GBA.
The GBA is a completely different ISA while all of the Atari 8-bit products
used some form of 6502 or derivative.


0
Eric
4/16/2004 10:40:13 AM
"Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:c5n9nc01itm@news1.newsguy.com...
> Impmon wrote:
>
> > Sorry but you forgot Gameboy.
>
> I was talking about home consoles, not handhelds.
>
> > Also Atari 7800 can play 2600.  (5200, Colecovision, and
> > Ilntellivision also plays 2600 via adapter but that's not the same
> > thing)
>
> True, but I said mainstream consoles. I know there were some old consoles
> that had backwards compatibility, but the Atari 7800 was barely more than
a
> blip in the history of game machines. And it sure as heck didn't do
anything
> to help the 7800, did it?

    To be fair, the 7800 was pretty much strangled in its cradle. At the
time it was intended to be launched the 2600 was still being supported and
the installed base was among the largest by the day's measure. It made sense
at the time to give all those 2600 owners something significantly stronger
than everything that had been seen at that point.

    It have made even more sense to do a major upgrade to the Atari 800/5200
chipset and take advantage of the much larger base of experienced
programming talent and third party support. I've never heard any explanation
of how the people running Atari then came to decide it was better to be
backward compatible to the 2600 than 800/5200.


0
Eric
4/16/2004 10:55:13 AM
"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:d0cu7092468jlg616qcdh5b7ct626vjrr1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:39:15 GMT, "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t
> . n o> wrote:
>
> >I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set
and
> >i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display
> >higher res, than new xbox2 would be much more attractive than xbox1,
since a
> >better/faster gfx chip.
>
> HDTV does display higher res but very few people have those TVs.
> Current NTSC TV is capable of max of 720x480 so no amount of tweaking
> on the system would get past that, and that type of TV is still in
> just about every homes.
>
> This does presents a delimia for game developer.  Of they try to use
> the newer TV standard with higher resolution, very few will buy
> becauser not everyone's ready to blow $2000 for a new HDTV.  So the
> game developers would have to stick with older standard with lower
> graphic resolution..


    HDTV is by no means a $2,000 investment any longer. There are good tube
models starting well under $1,000. (I remember when a good 17" SVGA monitor
was almost $1,000, now good units are under $100.)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat03005&type=category&_DARGS=/site/en_US/catalog/fragments/product/olslinelistingsortfilter.jsp

    These prices will only continue to drop and analog models will offer a
decreasing range of choices as the point of price overlap with digital sets
keep dropping. Already the bulk of new big screen TV sales are for HD
capable models. They are increasingly the only choice one you exit the
bargain basement. By the time the first of the next-gen consoles ships the
installed based will have increased well over a million units at the current
rate of sales.

    Another big factor is who is buying the sets. Since video games are
luxury items the companies are looking to target affluent (not necessarily
rich) shoppers who'll be able to indulge in frequent game purchases. Owning
and HD capable screen is a good way to target affluence. Some people will
make sacrifices to have the best screen for their home but for most
consumers it is dependent on it being a relatively casual purchase.

    It's extremely unlikely that anyone will produce a game for the next-gen
consoles exclusively requiring a 1080i display but expect all of the new
consoles to support HD and a substantial number of games to exploit that
capability and growing along with the installed base.


0
Eric
4/16/2004 11:53:48 AM
Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote:

>HDTV does display higher res but very few people have those TVs.
>Current NTSC TV is capable of max of 720x480 so no amount of tweaking
>on the system would get past that, and that type of TV is still in
>just about every homes.

720x480 on a widescreen TV with component video input, which is not
NTSC.  No chance for that with S-video or composite video.

>This does presents a delimia for game developer.  Of they try to use
>the newer TV standard with higher resolution, very few will buy
>becauser not everyone's ready to blow $2000 for a new HDTV.  So the
>game developers would have to stick with older standard with lower
>graphic resolution..

There's no reason why they can't allow the user to switch resolutions.
I don't think that HDTV quality is even needed for games.  IMO,
widescreen DVD-quality (720x480) is pretty good, for now.  This is
especially nice for multi-player games, where, on a widescreen TV,
each player can have a half of the TV that's almost as large as a
normal TV.

0
chrisv
4/16/2004 1:48:45 PM
archang@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:

>Asestar <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote:
>>I mean there is a limit on how good graphics can be enjoyed on a tv set and
>>i must say Xbox and PS2 are damn near that limit. If tv's could display
>
>	I would say they are /nowhere near/ that limit.  Consider how 
>not-real even the best (realistic-looking) games look compared to real 
>scenes broadcast on TV.  The lighting, detail, and sheer amount of stuff 
>and crowds that can be easily filmed is far, far beyond what an XBox or 
>PS2 can do.  Resolution is not the limiting factor.

Of course, normal video is, by nature, already fully anti-aliased.

0
chrisv
4/16/2004 1:50:32 PM
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:38:11 GMT, "Eric Pobirs" <epobirs@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>> > When you can see the pink color of Nalu's nipples, who the
>> > hell wants to see a monkey peeling a banana?
>>
>> eh.. all of the ATI owners? But you're right. They don't *want* to see it,
>> they're just stuck with it.
>> Sad tough, nvidia is using now cheap tricks! Adding sex appeal to their
>> product line. First Dawn, then Dusk and now Nalu... hmm... what would be
>> next, Lola? :)
>
>    Would that be a suspicious bump mapping demonstration?

More like a delibrate "software malfuction"  ;-)
-- 
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
0
Impmon
4/16/2004 3:47:31 PM
Where are all these demo's at?

I was able to find Lava Caves and the Chimp demo on the ATI site and that
was it.

: (

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:fuvv701cak7vfbvr5t3b1rm95fo0op13rq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:38:11 GMT, "Eric Pobirs" <epobirs@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > When you can see the pink color of Nalu's nipples, who the
> >> > hell wants to see a monkey peeling a banana?
> >>
> >> eh.. all of the ATI owners? But you're right. They don't *want* to see
it,
> >> they're just stuck with it.
> >> Sad tough, nvidia is using now cheap tricks! Adding sex appeal to their
> >> product line. First Dawn, then Dusk and now Nalu... hmm... what would
be
> >> next, Lola? :)
> >
> >    Would that be a suspicious bump mapping demonstration?
>
> More like a delibrate "software malfuction"  ;-)
> -- 
> To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net


0
Noozer
4/16/2004 4:57:23 PM
Impmon wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:32:59 +0100, Bagpuss
> <bagpuss.net@ntlcatpooworld.com> wrote:
>
>> But how much of a radical change was the 7800 compared to the 2600?
>
> 7800 has a completely different CPU (backward compatible with 6507
> used by 2600),

If it's backwards compatible, it's hardly completely different, from a
compatibility standpoint :-p

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


0
Ben
4/16/2004 5:04:13 PM
> Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
> very very impressive shit!
>
> ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
> however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
> to what would be in an actual game.
>
> now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
> up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
> to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
> GCNext :)

Tech demos like these are a load of garbage with only limited appeal, but
there's no doubt in my mind ATi's are utter pants.
Nvidia's are far better.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion but hey.


0
Danny
4/16/2004 5:13:55 PM
chrisv  <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>archang@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
>>	I would say they are /nowhere near/ that limit.  Consider how 
>>not-real even the best (realistic-looking) games look compared to real 
>>scenes broadcast on TV.  The lighting, detail, and sheer amount of stuff 
>>and crowds that can be easily filmed is far, far beyond what an XBox or 
>>PS2 can do.  Resolution is not the limiting factor.
>
>Of course, normal video is, by nature, already fully anti-aliased.

	True enough!  But it's not just current generation rendering's
aliasing that bugs me.

-- 
I had a stereo that was very decent, a wardrobe that was getting
respectable -- I was almost complete.
	-- Narrator, FIGHT CLUB (1999)
0
archang
4/16/2004 9:57:27 PM
On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55@mail.com (NV55) wrote:

>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
>
>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
>very very impressive shit!
>
>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
>to what would be in an actual game.
>
>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
>GCNext :)

Thank God they can finally render realistic skin! I hope I'll notice that when
I am blowing the faces of Nazis in Wolfenstein 2! :-)
0
Memnoch
4/17/2004 3:21:33 PM
> Thank God they can finally render realistic skin! I hope I'll notice that
when
> I am blowing the faces of Nazis in Wolfenstein 2! :-)

Just thinking.. with so realistic graphics, where you can see REAL
expressions on face of your enemy while killing them, it's kind of
disturbing. I mean there might be some people who actually show mercy due to
this..

However, back in old Soldier Of Fortune days things were different. After
playing a multiplayer map with 4 bots for about 10 minutes, made the whole
screen look like tomato soup, without you ever feel a grain of pitty or
guilt :)

Just a tought..


0
Asestar
4/17/2004 4:53:33 PM
I mean with so realistic graphics, games just might get a new dimension to
them.

I can remember countless games where i'm supposed to protect someone /
rescue a hostage. Only those ill-fated moron "victums" were so stupid or bad
looking that i ended up replaying the level, just because I shot them
myself.

One such example is Soldier Of Fortune 2 , single player campaign. I still
can't forget those horribly big/terrified (or sometimes missing...) eyes of
hostages I was suppose to protect :)


0
Asestar
4/17/2004 4:58:27 PM
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:04:13 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Impmon wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:32:59 +0100, Bagpuss
>> <bagpuss.net@ntlcatpooworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But how much of a radical change was the 7800 compared to the 2600?
>>
>> 7800 has a completely different CPU (backward compatible with 6507
>> used by 2600),
>
>If it's backwards compatible, it's hardly completely different, from a
>compatibility standpoint :-p

On top of that is the maria or what ever just a superset of the
stella. In which case the same applies. Its just another Atari
iteration, just as they did with the whole of the 8 bit and 16 bit
range. The only really out there progressions were the first units of
the type, the Jag, ATW & Lynx (PC clones aside).
-- 
GSX600F - Matilda the cracked teapot, gaffer tape included
Wipe up catpoo to reply

Wipe off cat poo to reply
0
Bagpuss
4/17/2004 5:10:50 PM
"Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
news:Tmdgc.79853$BD3.9313456@juliett.dax.net...
> I mean with so realistic graphics, games just might get a new dimension to
> them.
>
> I can remember countless games where i'm supposed to protect someone /
> rescue a hostage. Only those ill-fated moron "victums" were so stupid or
bad
> looking that i ended up replaying the level, just because I shot them
> myself.
>
> One such example is Soldier Of Fortune 2 , single player campaign. I still
> can't forget those horribly big/terrified (or sometimes missing...) eyes
of
> hostages I was suppose to protect :)
>
It's just to bad that we are probably not going to see any of this latest
technology for a long time in our PC games. It's always cracks me up when a
new demo like Nalu comes out and everyone goes nuts and starts taking about
how great the new games are going to be. The demos are just that, tech demos
to show off what the cards can do. That sure doesn't translate into us
gamers actually seeing any of this stuff in our games. Think about how long
the  "Dawn" has been around, or any of the cool looking ATI demos for that
matter. Do we have any games yet that look anything as good as say ATI's
"Nature" demo? Sure we have "Farcry" that looks great, but it's also killing
off most mid level PC's. And it is a long way from what some of the 2 year
plus demos look like. The problem is that for few game makers that are not
afraid to push the envelop, there's many more that want to sell as many
games as they can as cheaply as possible. So we are left playing games that
still are built around 4 year old code. JLC


0
JLC
4/17/2004 7:33:29 PM
"Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
news:Tmdgc.79853$BD3.9313456@juliett.dax.net...
> I mean with so realistic graphics, games just might get a new dimension to
> them.
>
> I can remember countless games where i'm supposed to protect someone /
> rescue a hostage. Only those ill-fated moron "victums" were so stupid or
bad
> looking that i ended up replaying the level, just because I shot them
> myself.
>
> One such example is Soldier Of Fortune 2 , single player campaign. I still
> can't forget those horribly big/terrified (or sometimes missing...) eyes
of
> hostages I was suppose to protect :)

Thats where YOU stop playing games becuase YOU might hurt somebody in real
life. Anyone who cannot differ between virtual reality and reality should
not be watching movies or playing games.

Give me a game where you shoot at Mario that has millions of expressions and
ligaments that fly off, i'll glady buy it and play it with out feeling any
guilt what so ever. :)


0
speed
4/19/2004 2:01:37 AM
> Thats where YOU stop playing games becuase YOU might hurt somebody in real
> life. Anyone who cannot differ between virtual reality and reality should
> not be watching movies or playing games.
>
> Give me a game where you shoot at Mario that has millions of expressions
and
> ligaments that fly off, i'll glady buy it and play it with out feeling any
> guilt what so ever. :)
>

Strangly enough, I was saving planning to buy new rims for my car, and so
saving some money. But after playing SoF games, well, i had this strange
urge to buy an M4 :)
Just a replika, not the real shit!


0
Asestar
4/19/2004 12:33:27 PM
GameBoySP is backwards compatible and so was the Atari 7800

Even with the release of the PSP it will be nearly impossible for Sony 
to take a large chunk of the Gameboy market share simply due to 
backwards compatibility.

Also, PC's are backwards compatible.

People don't buy new video cards because they don't work with older games.
0
KillZoneBigNuts
4/21/2004 3:54:17 AM
KillZoneBigNuts wrote:
> People don't buy new video cards because they don't work with older games.

Often they do these days.  A mate of mine is upgrading from a GeForce4 MX
because it doesn't support DX9 and the games he wants to play require it.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


0
Ben
4/21/2004 8:05:49 AM
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:01:37 GMT, "speed of a cheetah"
<jinkazama@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> One such example is Soldier Of Fortune 2 , single player campaign. I still
>> can't forget those horribly big/terrified (or sometimes missing...) eyes
>of
>> hostages I was suppose to protect :)
>
>Thats where YOU stop playing games becuase YOU might hurt somebody in real
>life. Anyone who cannot differ between virtual reality and reality should
>not be watching movies or playing games.

People who cant tell reality from fantasy who are dangerous don't need
games to make them into killers...

Hitler &  Nazis
Jeffry Dahlmer
The dark ages...
Arabs (all of them have been killing each other for centuries)

They rape, mass murder and torture...  they did not have MTV, Marylin
Manson, GTA or other violent games or porno videos for them to review
and come up with the sick shit they did other humans.


Guess what... there were never the "good ole" days that people talk
about.... think they'e gonna get somehow.


-- 
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!
0
Darthy
4/22/2004 10:55:46 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

'is not' or '!='
A newbie question to you; what is the difference between statements like: if x is not None: and if x != None: Without any context, which one should be preferred? IMHO, the latter is more readable. On 2014-08-18 21:35, ElChino wrote: > A newbie question to you; what is the difference between statements > like: > if x is not None: > and > if x != None: > > Without any context, which one should be preferred? > IMHO, the latter is more readable. > "x == y" tells you whether x and y refer to objects that are equal. "x is y&qu...

It's on-it's off-it's on, it's off -WHY?
IS THIS THE CORRECT FORUM? Hope so. We have three computer networked at home...all with Windows XP. one of those is a laptop. Some mornings all 3 can see each other and transfer files...then mysteriously one or more will disappear. No contact....then later it's back. The laptop is the worst. Most often it won't let us in...but sometimes it will. No obvious reason. The most INFURIATING part is the message "see your administrator". Dammit Bill Gates...don't you realize that most networks are small offices without a Majestic Royal Administrator sitting his i...

'^=' and '~='?
Hello, What is the difference between '^=' and '~='? Thanks, Duckhye ...

Error? s = assignin('base','s',tf('s'));
Hi, I need a little help here. Could anyone please tell me what is wrong with this command? s = assignin('base','s',tf('s')); The matlab syntax is -- assignin(ws, 'var', val) Basically I just want to add s=tf('s') into the base workspace. Jack "Jack" <Jack@Jill.com> wrote in message news:ef3e449.-1@webcrossing.raydaftYaTP... > Hi, > I need a little help here. Could anyone please tell me what is wrong > with this command? > > s = assignin('base','s',tf('s')); > > The matlab syntax is -- as...

How to turn off 'N', 'S', 'E', 'W'
in the map lat and lon labels? I'm doing a final figure and I really don't need an 'N' after every latitude label, jus the number would suffice. How do I turn of the letters followin the number? What function / toolbox are you refering to?!? Being a little more specific would sure help to get an answer ... Sebastian ...

'!' vs. '.'
Is there an advantage to using the '!' notation to represent form/ control relationships? (eg. Me!text1 vs Me.text1) I am currently using the '.' notation exclusively (for code completion in the VB Editor), but much of the high-quality code that I've seen (in Duane Hookom's Query-by-Form db, for example) uses the other. Here's one opinion for you: http://doc.advisor.com/doc/05352 robert.waters wrote: >Is there an advantage to using the '!' notation to represent form/ >control relationships? (eg. Me!text1 vs Me.text1) > >I am currently using...

'''''''''''''The Running Update/Append Queries Using VBA code Ordeal''''''''''''''
Hello fellow programmers, I am trying to run an append/update query from code, a command button on a form initiates the queries. the format i am using is; _____________________________________________________ SELECT "criteria" FROM "criteria" WHERE "criteria" UPDATE/APPEND "field selections" RecordSource "qryExample" = above text strings" _______________________________________________________________________ When i am running a SELECT query in this manner it works fine with no problems, and accepts the values of specified linked for...

There's 'new' but no 'delete'
Hi, If I use: "myobject = new MyObject" do I just delete it with "myobject = nil"? There's no "delete", how do I free any memory used within myobject? Thanks, Paul On 15.04.2005 05:35 Mat, in 425e45ff$0$30370$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au, �pf� <paulfredlein@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > If I use: "myobject = new MyObject" do I just delete it with "myobject = > nil"? There's no "delete", how do I free any memory used within myobject? > > Thanks, > > Paul ...

'''''''''''''The Running Update/Append Queries Using VBA code Ordeal'''''''''''''' #2
Hi, Thanks for ur help there HJ. I know how to do the tasks you specified there. I would like for the update query to use field values from some of the fields on the form (frmInvoices) such as InvoiceNumber, DateFrom, DateTo. My problem is that an append/update query can't find the values in the open Form (frmInvoices) when I specify them as; [Forms]![frmInvoices]![InvoiceNumber] a select query has no problem finding the field values on a form. please help. Aaron Hi Aaron, Could you post the entire code that you are having trouble with? Now it is not possible to see what goes wron...

if str_mo not in ('','.') and str_da not in ('','.') and str_yy not in ('','.') Any shorter ?
Hi, there. =20 I'm just curious if it ever dawned on anybody how to abbreviate this line : if str_mo not in ('','.') and str_da not in ('','.') and str_yy not in ('','.')=20 =20 Igor Kurbeko Clinical Programmer Analyst 678 336 4328 ikurbeko@atherogenics.com =20 no brain no pain =20 how about: if not (str_mo in ('','.') or str_da in ('','.') or str_yy in ('','.')) OR if not (missing(str_mo) or missing(str_da) or missing(str_yy)) Eric On 22 Oct 03 21:13:37 GMT, ikurbeko@ATHER...

conventions/requirements for 'is' vs '==', 'not vs '!=', etc
I'm wondering what is the canonical usage of the keywords 'is' and 'not' when you're writing conditionals and loops. The one I've been following is completely arbitrary--I use the symbols '==', '!=' for numerical comparisons and the words 'is', 'not' for everything else. Thanks in advance! On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:39:36 -0700, destroooooy wrote: > I'm wondering what is the canonical usage of the keywords 'is' and > 'not' when you're writing conditionals and loops. The one I've been > following is ...

A function with 'and' , 'not' , 'null' , 'car' and 'cdr'
What's this ? (defun enigma (x) (and (not (null x)) (or (null (car x)) (enigma (cdr x))))) "I suppose I should learn Lisp, but it seems so foreign." - Paul Graham, Nov 1983 On Wed, Oct 07 2015, CAI GENGYANG wrote: > What's this ? > > > (defun enigma (x) > (and (not (null x)) > (or (null (car x)) > (enigma (cdr x))))) Bad taste? It returns T if the list X contains nil as an element. It would be clearer to write (some #'null x). Helmut CAI GENGYANG ...

Re: if str_mo not in ('','.') and str_da not in ('','.') and str_yy not in ('','.') Any shorter ?
OR you could use ARRAY data new; set old; array igor $ (*) str_mo str_da str_yr; do over igor; if igor ~in (' ','.') then do; end; run; Prasad Ravi Igor Kurbeko <ikurbeko@ATHEROGENIC To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU S.COM> cc: Sent by: "SAS(r) Subject: if str_mo not in ('','.') and str_da not in ('','.') and str_yy ...

Web resources about - Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' - comp.ibm.hardware.video

Resources last updated: 2/8/2016 6:29:17 PM