| Author |
Message |
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Oct 10, 2003 19:18 Post subject: DOOM³ speculation... |
   |
|
Interestingly enough, I can't help but think about this...
I recently looked at a preview article on DOOM³ at Yahoo... It has an error. It claims the original DOOM was released in 1996, when that is false, as it was released in 1993. QUAKE was released in 1996. However, I think that their misconception comes from DOOM being released COMMERICALLY somewhere around 1996...
Personally, judging from past experience, along with other things, I think that DOOM³ will be released "In two weeks". Just kidding there... 
Actually, I think it very well be released this December 10. That's still two months away, and previous looks show that the game was practically completed when they showcased it, save for the resources (I.e; Maps, textures, models, etc...).
On the contrary to what I have previously said, I actually think it might be a good thing if DOOM³ were released for the Xbox. No, the reason is that I've suddenly acquired one (I haven't). Instead, I believe that DOOM³ will reveal how the Xbox stacks up against the PC, considering that the technology powering the console is sorely obsolete, being PC components... I still hope that Id decides to port it to the Mac, so that, for once, there'll REALLY be a game availible to test the power of the G5...
I'll posts other thoughs as they come to me. Please post your thoughts here, if they would do both the following:
A. Fit with the topic of the board.
B. Not start a flamewar (please!)
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 10, 2003 22:58 Post subject: |
 |
|
Actually Doom III is coming out on X-Box... or is it Half Life 2? Im pretty sure it was Doom III.
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 13, 2003 03:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Half Life 2 will be out in an Xbox version.
It's not as easy as you might think to compare consoles to PCs. As far as pure game-playing capabilities go, consoles are computers that are ultra-streamlined for playing games, and they don't have their system resources bogged down running any OSes or extra PC processes. Processors and GPUs can't simply be compared between PCs and consoles. A good example is my PC vs. an Xbox. My computer has a PIII 1.4 GHz chip, and a Geforce 3 graphics card. The Xbox has basically what equals a 733 MHz PIII chip and a Geforce 3 graphics card. While my system specs clearly top an Xbox, there is no way my system will run Halo or Knights of the Old Republic at the fantastic levels seen on the Xbox, simply because the Xbox is designed to run games, while my PC is not.
I think what would be great would be a PC that could boot into a separate "game mode" that would run independently of normal PC operation. Almost a "console within a PC". I'm sure PC games would have to be programmed to run differently for that to work though.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 13, 2003 05:16 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Patrick Haslow wrote:
Half Life 2 will be out in an Xbox version.
It's not as easy as you might think to compare consoles to PCs. As far as pure game-playing capabilities go, consoles are computers that are ultra-streamlined for playing games, and they don't have their system resources bogged down running any OSes or extra PC processes. Processors and GPUs can't simply be compared between PCs and consoles. A good example is my PC vs. an Xbox. My computer has a PIII 1.4 GHz chip, and a Geforce 3 graphics card. The Xbox has basically what equals a 733 MHz PIII chip and a Geforce 3 graphics card. While my system specs clearly top an Xbox, there is no way my system will run Halo or Knights of the Old Republic at the fantastic levels seen on the Xbox, simply because the Xbox is designed to run games, while my PC is not.
I think what would be great would be a PC that could boot into a separate "game mode" that would run independently of normal PC operation. Almost a "console within a PC". I'm sure PC games would have to be programmed to run differently for that to work though.
Id software stated that they will be porting Doom³ to the Xbox...
Yes, you are very right as far as the Xbox, and how it stacks up against a PC... It very will run perfectly, though... After all, standard TV resolution is a meager 256x224x24bb, and typically is cut down to 30fps; we typically will set our Pc to around 800x600x32bb, and expect 60fps.
On the other hand, nobody has yet to report getting a good framrate for this, on ANY setup, including a complete DUAL-PROC 3Ghz P4, with 1 gig of RDRAM, and the best GeForce 5 card.
Unfortunately, aside from having a monopoly, Windows sucks for gaming. MS-DOS was as close as things got to an optomized gaming OS. Also, the processor in a console is essentially like on found in an acelerator card. The only real flaw in the Xbox is the fact the the moded P3 chip is a mere 32-bit, as opposed to the 128-bit ones in the PS2 and GC.
However, I still dislike the prospect of DOOM³ only being availible under a Microsoft platform. I would very much like to see it avalible for the Mac and GC, which are problably better equiped for the game than the PC and Xbox, respectively. Also, as I stated earlier, it would really provide something to show off those mouth-watering G5s... Not to mention, Nintendo has been my favored console maker for well over a decade; and later games for the same platform will always look better - have you taken a LOOK at F-Zero GX? It just may convince me to get back into console gaming!
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 14, 2003 03:08 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
Yes, you are very right as far as the Xbox, and how it stacks up against a PC... It very will run perfectly, though... After all, standard TV resolution is a meager 256x224x24bb, and typically is cut down to 30fps; we typically will set our Pc to around 800x600x32bb, and expect 60fps.
"very will run perfectly"? Huh? Don't understand.
The consoles actually put out the equivalent of 60+ fps on the better games.
Nottheking wrote:
However, I still dislike the prospect of DOOM3 only being availible under a Microsoft platform. I would very much like to see it avalible for the Mac and GC, which are problably better equiped for the game than the PC and Xbox, respectively.
I think Microsoft's whole draw for making Xbox games was that most of these modern computer games are written to take advantage of Direct X, something that the Xbox makes direct use of, making it easier to run demanding games on the console.
Don't get me wrong, the Mac G5 is a dream machine. But when it comes to games, it still has the PCs fundamental hurdles to get over before it plays a game well
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 14, 2003 19:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Dos works really well, accept for the fact that it limits me to 640K of Memory (Even though I have 128 MBs).
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 02:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Funny, I was just thinking that this topic would bring Mattias out of the woodwork, and Voila! Mattias, what do you think of the idea of a PC that had a separate "game mode"?
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 04:59 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
No. Standard TV resolution is 720x288x24 bpp, 50 fps. American TV resolution is 720x240x24 bpp, 60-- fps.
I was refering to standard game console output for the resolution, and traditional analog TV signal for the framerate. Also, a game "cut" (i.e. the game's maximum fps is 30, not 60) to 30 fps will look just as smooth as 60fps to the average person. This makes no connection with HDTVs, however, which get far more. Also, this number may have changed with today's consoles...
Mattias Welander wrote:
No. In all the years of PC gaming, Windows is the best thing that have happened for it. I do not believe there is a single game programmer in the world who would consider DOS or any competing OS better suited for games.
Then why were Doom, Quake, DN 3-D, GTA, and Daggerfall, among others, made only for DOS, when Windows 3.1/95 were availible? The reason: new versions of DOS were still being made. Also, DOS, unlike Windows, almost completely removes itself from memory when another program takes over. Windows 2000 and XP (which are the only two OSes you have not ruled out as "worthless") make games require an additional 128MB of memory.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Right... DOS works really well... as long as you don't need to access a PCI sound card, a 3D card, an input device or two, more than 16 MB of memory, more than one screen, larger files than 64 kB, and I could go on forever...
The reason for the poor capabilities of DOS today is that there has yet to be a new version made since about 1996. Had Microsoft decided to continue making new versions of DOS, games would very well be written for it, since DOS is practically Windows + Direct X, without the programming shortcuts made by DX.
Do not get me wrong here. I am not saying that Windows sucks for everything. In fact, for most applications (such as "productivity" software), Windows is excelent. I just am stating that the only reason Windows is the dominant game platform is that there's little else to choose from, and Windows is what over 80% of modern computers use.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 10:10 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Patrick Haslow wrote:
Mattias, what do you think of the idea of a PC that had a separate "game mode"?
I don't like having to reboot the computer to play a game. I want to be able to switch between a game, ICQ, email and MSVC whenever I want, without having to reboot. However, from what I can tell, something like that is planned for future Windows versions, that is, a unified method for the OS to interface with games. No need to reboot, though.
Nottheking wrote:
Then why were Doom, Quake, DN 3-D, GTA, and Daggerfall, among others, made only for DOS, when Windows 3.1/95 were availible?
Then why were the Doom, Quake, DN3D and GTA engines all ported to Windows as soon as DirectX came out?
Nottheking wrote:
The reason for the poor capabilities of DOS today is that there has yet to be a new version made since about 1996. Had Microsoft decided to continue making new versions of DOS, games would very well be written for it, since DOS is practically Windows + Direct X, without the programming shortcuts made by DX.
No, the reason for the poor capabilities of DOS is the lack of a unified driver interface. Without it, it is impossible to create mass market games with todays hardware. It was one thing in the dark ages when everyone had a VGA compatible graphics card and a SB8 compatible sound card, and nothing more. But don't take my word for it - ask any other game programmer if they'd rather write a game for DOS or for Windows.
Nottheking wrote:
Windows is what over 80% of modern computers use
Last time I checked, the number was 97%.
|
|
KnighT
Ree-Yees
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 16:43 Post subject: |
|
|
...I thought TVs ran at 640x480i(which I guess whould be 240 since it's interlaced).
_________________
"On a scale of one to awesome, I am super great!"
Strong Bad |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 17:22 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
I don't like having to reboot the computer to play a game. I want to be able to switch between a game, ICQ, email and MSVC whenever I want, without having to reboot. However, from what I can tell, something like that is planned for future Windows versions, that is, a unified method for the OS to interface with games. No need to reboot, though.
I don't know about you, but DOS has never needed to reboot for me; It would immediately come back up as soon as I quit, without delay. The multitasking is nice, but not neccessary for game playing.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Then why were the Doom, Quake, DN3D and GTA engines all ported to Windows as soon as DirectX came out?
Those engines were ported to Windows by licencees, not the makers. Also, Microsoft noted that Direct X debuted in 1995, and it wasn't until about DX 4/5 that Windows became a worthwhile platform for 3-D games.
The best I could find about DX's history in 5 minutes was this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryAddin.mspx
Mattias Welander wrote:
No, the reason for the poor capabilities of DOS is the lack of a unified driver interface. Without it, it is impossible to create mass market games with todays hardware. It was one thing in the dark ages when everyone had a VGA compatible graphics card and a SB8 compatible sound card, and nothing more. But don't take my word for it - ask any other game programmer if they'd rather write a game for DOS or for Windows.
As you said yourself, there was really only one standard. DOS didn't need to have a unified interface; There was no need to do anything about that at all. Were DOS not discontinued after 1996, we'd still be seing a major portion, if not a majority, of advanced games running under it instead of Windows.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Last time I checked, the number was 97%.
I said over 80% purely because I didn't have the exact number, and didn't want to risk being wrong there.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 17:26 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Also, on the regards of the TV resolution, it doesn't matter how high it is, the framerate is determined by the resolution produced by the game.
For example, a 21-Inch (>50cm, the largest standard CRT) monitor can display up to 1600x1200x32bb. However, the same game in the same circumstances will still get the same framerate as one utilizing a monitor that can't exceed 1024x768x24bb, provided the GAME is set to the same resolution.
most consoles are set to produce at 256x224, with a bit-depth varrying from 8 to 32 (There may be higher)
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 18:11 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
I don't know about you, but DOS has never needed to reboot for me; It would immediately come back up as soon as I quit, without delay. The multitasking is nice, but not neccessary for game playing.
I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but in the real world you have to reboot your computer to switch from Windows NT to DOS.
Nottheking wrote:
Those engines were ported to Windows by licencees, not the makers. Also, Microsoft noted that Direct X debuted in 1995, and it wasn't until about DX 4/5 that Windows became a worthwhile platform for 3-D games.
Doom and DN3D were ported by licencess, Quake and GTA by the makers. It does not matter, however, who ported them. What matters is that the people working with them decided they would benefit more from running under Windows.
It's also nice to see that you don't know what you're talking about, when it comes to DirectX. There never was a DirectX 4 at all. Tell me, what versions of DirectX have you programmed against, since you claim to know so much about them?
Nottheking wrote:
As you said yourself, there was really only one standard. DOS didn't need to have a unified interface; There was no need to do anything about that at all. Were DOS not discontinued after 1996, we'd still be seing a major portion, if not a majority, of advanced games running under it instead of Windows.
Not true. Even with only one sound card around card, you still need a unified driver interface, or each game programmer will have to write their own sound card drivers.
|
|
Nimph
Dianoga
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 15, 2003 22:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I sometimes think u guys know tooo much 
Alot of people dont want a seperate "game mode" on their comps, then u cant leave AIM on to tell u when ur girlfriend or some one u want to talk to comes on while ur keeping urself occupied...
I probably will end up having Doom for xbox and pc, just because I wanna do multiplayer without paying for it. (I dont pay for stupid xbox live).
consoles have hit a point where unless the console owner has a HDTV which alot of the console owning community does not, the resolutions and junx dont matter much here...
and I dont like DOS...
_________________
weee! |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 16, 2003 16:06 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but in the real world you have to reboot your computer to switch from Windows NT to DOS.
I thought you said you used XP? In most cases, it's unnecesary to boot out of Windows; I simply run DOS in a shell, as is provided with Windows. When I leav Windows to use true DOS, I still get back into Windows in less time it would take to do even a warm boot.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Doom and DN3D were ported by licencess, Quake and GTA by the makers. It does not matter, however, who ported them. What matters is that the people working with them decided they would benefit more from running under Windows.
That was later, when Windows eventually became able to run those engines. DirectX has never really been at the head of the technology curve. I know QII and QIII DID NOT use DirectX... The DX availible at the time simply wasn't enough in 1997 and 1999. It did get to be enough when they were ported to make games such as JO, though... as far as I know, DOOM3 will also use OpenGL...
Mattias Welander wrote:
It's also nice to see that you don't know what you're talking about, when it comes to DirectX. There never was a DirectX 4 at all. Tell me, what versions of DirectX have you programmed against, since you claim to know so much about them?
The mention of 4 was a wild guess... How many 3-D games have you used that asked for anything less than DX5? I can only name two that aren't RCers, Hexen II and Descent III. Of course, to get hardware acceleration for Hexen II, you need to use OpenGL; I'll have to check again for Descent III, since it only REQUIRES DX3. Also, I am not a programmer; while I do have knowledge in writing a few languages, most of what I know is not in that exact area.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Not true. Even with only one sound card around card, you still need a unified driver interface, or each game programmer will have to write their own sound card drivers.
Even still, it wouldn't be as bad is it would today... There wouldn't be quite as much variation in drivers, making the job much simpler.
(Note to Fenwar: Could you please split this topic, now that it's been dragged into something else? Thanks.)
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 16, 2003 16:36 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
I thought you said you used XP? In most cases, it's unnecesary to boot out of Windows; I simply run DOS in a shell, as is provided with Windows.
No, you don't. You're using the VDM, not DOS. The only similarity between the VDM and DOS is that the VDM respond to most common DOS and DPMI requests, making it possible to run most DOS program. You are, however, not even close to running DOS.
Nottheking wrote:
DirectX has never really been at the head of the technology curve...
Don't be silly. DirectX is at the very front of the technology curve. Let's prove it. DirectInput is *way* ahead of the joy* interface, the WM_CHAR interface and the WM_MOUSEMOVE interface. DirectSound is *way* ahead of the WaveOut interface. DirectShow is far ahead of the Video for Windows interface. DirectGraphics is *way* ahead of the GDI interface and far ahead of the OpenGL interface.
Nottheking wrote:
I know QII and QIII DID NOT use DirectX...
Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about. That's a common misconception among amateurs. Your claim is so stupid I won't even bother to comment any more on it, except point you in the direction of the QII source code. Feel free to try to remove the DirectX source component files and try to compile it...
Nottheking wrote:
The mention of 4 was a wild guess... How many 3-D games have you used that asked for anything less than DX5
Too many to mention here. Even so, what they ask for is beside the point - only what they use is what matters.
Nottheking wrote:
Also, I am not a programmer; while I do have knowledge in writing a few languages, most of what I know is not in that exact area.
So why are you making false claims about those areas when it is painfully obvious you don't know anything about them?
Nottheking wrote:
Even still, it wouldn't be as bad is it would today... There wouldn't be quite as much variation in drivers, making the job much simpler.
Just when I thought you couldn't say something dumber, you do. How in the whole universe could writing one, two, three or more sound card drivers be easier than writing no sound card drivers at all?
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 16, 2003 17:14 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Don't be silly. DirectX is at the very front of the technology curve. Let's prove it. DirectInput is *way* ahead of the joy* interface, the WM_CHAR interface and the WM_MOUSEMOVE interface. DirectSound is *way* ahead of the WaveOut interface. DirectShow is far ahead of the Video for Windows interface. DirectGraphics is *way* ahead of the GDI interface and far ahead of the OpenGL interface.
Of course, most of those interfaces you're mentioning are outdated... An I believe I mispoke myself.
Direct 3-D (which you have failed to mention) has never been the leading 3-D interface (I'm not sure if DX9 took the lead, but earlier ones didn't...); That was what I was trying to convey.
While you are very knowledgeable about programming under Windows, you seem to understand very little outside of that field. DX has never headed the technology curve; it has been the tool to allow Windows to catch up, after somebody else came up with a brilliant idea for an application.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about. That's a common misconception among amateurs. Your claim is so stupid I won't even bother to comment any more on it, except point you in the direction of the QII source code. Feel free to try to remove the DirectX source component files and try to compile it...
Allow me to take back my claim about QII, then. However, The Windows version of Quake, and Quake III, use OpenGl. In Quake III's case, Direct 3-D isn't used at all. the same is probably true for GLQuake.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Too many to mention here. Even so, what they ask for is beside the point - only what they use is what matters.
Use is what I meant by ask for. If so many games use less than DX5 as their 3-D interface, then why don't you list a few (aside from the two I mentioned) that don't use OpenGL at all? After all, there's no post length limit here, and it wouldn't hurt to just post a half-dozen or so. I should try them.
Mattias Welander wrote:
So why are you making false claims about those areas when it is painfully obvious you don't know anything about them?
I do this because I am fairly tired of your close-minded ideas which only accept the most common product as being the only one that works well. And, In fact, I do know a decent amount about what I've said, or else my posts wouldn't have been understandable at all.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Just when I thought you couldn't say something dumber, you do. How in the whole universe could writing one, two, three or more sound card drivers be easier than writing no sound card drivers at all?
You are making an unfair comparison, while I am making a fair one. I state that DOS, while it was the dominant platform, didn't need a unified interface, since most drivers were fairly similar, because virtually all sound cards among the targetted audience were Sound Blaster compatible, and all modern video cards were followed the same VGA standards. Had DOS not been abandonned by Microsoft, they would have added a unified driver interface to it also. You state that today, with so many proprietary forms of hardware in use, it would be a ludicrous task for programmers to write an interface for every single different type of card (be it video or audio) on the market, and Windows's unification makes for far less work on the programmer's end.
While both of the above statements are correct, you fail to put the OSes on an even level; you include the various added on interfaces (such as DirectX) as part of the OS itself.
Oh, one question, which I asked a few months ago, and still haven't gotten an answer to yet: What were we supposed to be useing for an OS before Windows NT came out, when all we had were systems DOS and UNIX, of which both are fake?
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 16, 2003 20:41 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
Direct 3-D (which you have failed to mention) has never been the leading 3-D interface (I'm not sure if DX9 took the lead, but earlier ones didn't...); That was what I was trying to convey.
I have not mentioned Direct3D since it has not existed separately for many years. Ever since the first version of DirectX Graphics came out, it has been ahead of OpenGL. It most certainly has headed the technology curve, since it is the DirectX Graphcis specification that decides what features a graphics chipset will have to export. Those chipsets not exporting the required features are simply not sold. OpenGL tries as best it can to follow, but its specification iss today about two years behind. And not in the last five years has a new hardware feature been introduced in OpenGL first. Thus, DirectX heads the technology curve, and DirectGraphics heads the graphics technology curve.
Nottheking wrote:
Allow me to take back my claim about QII, then. However, The Windows version of Quake, and Quake III, use OpenGl. In Quake III's case, Direct 3-D isn't used at all. the same is probably true for GLQuake.
No one has said "Direct3-D" - which doesn't exist and never has existed - was used. Neither am I claiming Direct3D was used. What I do claim is that both the Windows versions Quake and Quake II use DirectDraw, which is now merged into DirectX Graphics. I also claim Quake, Quake II and Quake III use DirectSound. I further claim Quake, Quake II and Quake II use DirectInput. Thus, I have proven that they all use DirectX.
Nottheking wrote:
Use is what I meant by ask for. If so many games use less than DX5 as their 3-D interface, then why don't you list a few (aside from the two I mentioned) that don't use OpenGL at all?
Oh, no, don't try to change the subtopic now. The topic was games that use DirectX 3, not games that don't use OpenGL. Still, unless I completely remember the version numbers wrong, both Quake, Quake II, Jedi Knight, Tomb Raider, Mech Warrior 2, Hexen 2, Shadows of the Empire, Swiv, Turok, Twisted Metal 2, Age of Empires, Independence Day, Ignition and Incoming use DirectX 3 or earlier interfaces, just to mention a few.
Nottheking wrote:
And, In fact, I do know a decent amount about what I've said, or else my posts wouldn't have been understandable at all.
If you feel that telling the truth is close minded, then I understand why you enjoy telling lies. I don't. As for your posts being understandable, that is a matter of definition. Just because you have a command of the syntax of the English language doesn't mean you know anything about DirectX programming.
Nottheking wrote:
You are making an unfair comparison, while I am making a fair one. I state that DOS, while it was the dominant platform, didn't need a unified interface, since most drivers were fairly similar, because virtually all sound cards among the targetted audience were Sound Blaster compatible, and all modern video cards were followed the same VGA standards.
Once again, you're quite wrong. It does not matter if there was one card or 10, you would still benefit from a unified interface. In the case of DOS, every game programmer had to write their own sound card driver if they wanted SoundBlaster sound, or ten sound card drivers if they wanted to cover the whole field. With Windows, a game programmer does not have to write any sound drivers at all, since they are built into the OS. I can assure you that this was a serious problem that could not be corrected with DOS.
Nottheking wrote:
you include the various added on interfaces (such as DirectX) as part of the OS itself.
Just like they are. Every OS after Windows 95 has been released with DirectX as an integerated part of it, that can not be removed.
Nottheking wrote:
What were we supposed to be useing for an OS before Windows NT came out, when all we had were systems DOS and UNIX, of which both are fake?
Since pretty much only programmers used general purpose computers before Windows NT, any system, or even no system at all, could be used.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 17, 2003 18:17 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
I have not mentioned Direct3D since it has not existed separately for many years. Ever since the first version of DirectX Graphics came out, it has been ahead of OpenGL. It most certainly has headed the technology curve, since it is the DirectX Graphcis specification that decides what features a graphics chipset will have to export. Those chipsets not exporting the required features are simply not sold. OpenGL tries as best it can to follow, but its specification iss today about two years behind. And not in the last five years has a new hardware feature been introduced in OpenGL first. Thus, DirectX heads the technology curve, and DirectGraphics heads the graphics technology curve.
DirectX is an "interface of interfaces". Just because one interface (such as DirectInput) is the best in the field, it doesn't mean that the other components (such as Direct3D) are equally superior.
Mattias Welander wrote:
No one has said "Direct3-D" - which doesn't exist and never has existed - was used. Neither am I claiming Direct3D was used. What I do claim is that both the Windows versions Quake and Quake II use DirectDraw, which is now merged into DirectX Graphics. I also claim Quake, Quake II and Quake III use DirectSound. I further claim Quake, Quake II and Quake II use DirectInput. Thus, I have proven that they all use DirectX.
If Quake uses DirectX, then why don't they even suggest it? Check the following location (Id's official site, nonetheless) to see for yourself:
http://www.idsoftware.com/games/quake/quake/
Also, QuakeII doesn't use truly use it, as would be evidenced here:
http://www.idsoftware.com/games/quake/quake2/
Of course, DX still comes in handy here, because it solves all the driver needs, but it isn't the only way to do it.
Also, Quake III is the only one that actually uses DX at all, for DirectSound 3, as shown here:
http://www.idsoftware.com/games/quake/quake3-arena/
Mattias Welander wrote:
Oh, no, don't try to change the subtopic now. The topic was games that use DirectX 3, not games that don't use OpenGL. Still, unless I completely remember the version numbers wrong, both Quake, Quake II, Jedi Knight, Tomb Raider, Mech Warrior 2, Hexen 2, Shadows of the Empire, Swiv, Turok, Twisted Metal 2, Age of Empires, Independence Day, Ignition and Incoming use DirectX 3 or earlier interfaces, just to mention a few.
I was refering to both requirements(not using OpenGL, and using DX1-3 for 3-D rendering). So for the games I don't have to examine first:
Jedi Knight: Uses DX5, not DX3.
Hexen II: I mentioned it already, and it needs OpenGL to use hardware acceleration.
AOE: Could you tell me of at least ONE part that renders something in 3D?
Quake: Makes no use of DX at all.
Quake II: Also makes no real use of DX at all.
Quake III: only uses DX3 for DirectSound.
The rest I will have to check further on, but I don't know why GLQuake would switch and use both OpenGL and DX3 to use hardware acceleration...
Mattias Welander wrote:
If you feel that telling the truth is close minded, then I understand why you enjoy telling lies. I don't. As for your posts being understandable, that is a matter of definition. Just because you have a command of the syntax of the English language doesn't mean you know anything about DirectX programming.
Also, I enjoy having you tell me that every thing I say is wrong, especially when you leap out and use false information, even when you don't know it's false.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Once again, you're quite wrong. It does not matter if there was one card or 10, you would still benefit from a unified interface. In the case of DOS, every game programmer had to write their own sound card driver if they wanted SoundBlaster sound, or ten sound card drivers if they wanted to cover the whole field. With Windows, a game programmer does not have to write any sound drivers at all, since they are built into the OS. I can assure you that this was a serious problem that could not be corrected with DOS.
I was not saying that a unified interface is not neseccary; please quit putting these words in my mouth. What I am saying is that, if Windows didn't have DirectX at all, or any other unified interface for the various devices (a purely hypothetical nightmare), then yes, it would be a worse scene than programming for DOS was in 1996.
Also, as I understand, DX still requires that drivers be written if the programmer doesn't feel like taking DX's default list of settings, or if they would like their program to especially take advantage of special abilities in some cards. Of course, when using DOS, programmers also had the ability to simply use a free generic driver. All DX and Windows do is come with the generic drivers in place.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Just like they are. Every OS after Windows 95 has been released with DirectX as an integerated part of it, that can not be removed.
Are you going to tell me that you can't even rename the recycle bin, either? There may be no way that you can't remove DX (or IE, for that matter), without upsetting Microsoft, but that doesn't mean that it would be impossible.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Since pretty much only programmers used general purpose computers before Windows NT, any system, or even no system at all, could be used.
But our system, whatever we used before 1993, was fake, right? I'm not a prgrammer (and neither is anybody else in my full family save for my brother), and we've been using computers since around 1980. We found DOS useful for running programs such as MS-Word, Lotus, and others, including games.
So you're telling me that earlier versions of Windows (1-3.1) were meant for programmers? That gives me a laugh, since all were made before NT. Especially since 3.1 got over 1 million advance orders, which could only mean that a good portion of them were not programmers.
In case you doubt any of my data about Microsoft, I assure you that this all came from the company themselves, as put on a small timeline made availible at:
http://www.microsoft.com/museum/KeyEventsMicrosoftHistory.doc
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 17, 2003 19:33 Post subject: Re: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
Just because one interface (such as DirectInput) is the best in the field, it doesn't mean that the other components (such as Direct3D) are equally superior.
Which is why I proved that they were all superior, independent of each other.
Nottheking wrote:
If Quake uses DirectX, then why don't they even suggest it?...Also, QuakeII doesn't use truly use it
Don't ask me, ask ID. But since you even question my statements at all, I must assume you still haven't looked at the source code, which is freely available. I have. They both use DirectX.
Nottheking wrote:
Jedi Knight: Uses DX5, not DX3.
Hexen II: I mentioned it already, and it needs OpenGL to use hardware acceleration.
AOE: Could you tell me of at least ONE part that renders something in 3D?
Quake: Makes no use of DX at all.
Quake II: Also makes no real use of DX at all.
Quake III: only uses DX3 for DirectSound.
It's incredible. You're so stupid I don't even know where to begin. I begin to realize there is really no need to discuss any further with you, since you obviously isn't interested in the truth.
Jedi Knight use DirectInput and DirectSound from DX3. I believe it also use DirectPlay.
Hexen II use DirectSound from DX3.
AoE use DirectInput and DirectSound from DX3.
Quake, as proven above in the source code, use DirectSound from DX3.
Quake II, as proven above.
Quake III, I'm pretty sure use a newer DirectSound interface than is provided in DX3.
Nottheking wrote:
Also, I enjoy having you tell me that every thing I say is wrong, especially when you leap out and use false information, even when you don't know it's false.
Now you just sound like common American vermin. See my statement above.
Nottheking wrote:
Also, as I understand, DX still requires that drivers be written if the programmer doesn't feel like taking DX's default list of settings, or if they would like their program to especially take advantage of special abilities in some cards.
Well, since we already know you don't understand DX programming, it goes without saying that you are once again utterly wrong.
Nottheking wrote:
There may be no way that you can't remove DX (or IE, for that matter), without upsetting Microsoft, but that doesn't mean that it would be impossible.
Sure, you can always remove DX by formatting the hard drive. Other than that, you can't and still leave a functioning OS, since the OS itself use DX.
Nottheking wrote:
Blablabla...
You just can't read what I write, can you? I said that before Windows NT it did not matter what OS you used, and you twist that into meaning that I said Windows 3.1 was unpopular?
Anyway, since everyone with the slightest knowledge of DX programming know everything I have said here has been true, and you've been either wrong or just plain insane all the time, there is no need for any further discussion. Anyone else reading this thread, feel free to contact me outside the board if you have any further questions. With this final proof I have now given, we conclude this discussion.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
|
japh
Gamorrean
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
japh
Gamorrean
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 19, 2003 23:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Anyhowwww, I found some proof about consoles running above 30 fps. I remembered back to reading a preview of Twisted Metal: Black a few years ago and reading that it usually hit 60, now I have found a preview of SSX 3 for all 3 major console systems, in which they said the game runs at 60 fps:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/ssx3/preview_6075289-2.html
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Oct 20, 2003 19:55 Post subject: Insert subject here! |
|
|
Patrick Haslow wrote:
Anyhowwww, I found some proof about consoles running above 30 fps. I remembered back to reading a preview of Twisted Metal: Black a few years ago and reading that it usually hit 60, now I have found a preview of SSX 3 for all 3 major console systems, in which they said the game runs at 60 fps:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/ssx3/preview_6075289-2.html
I apologize for mixing some things up... Yes, consoles DO run at 60fps... some are set lower, and some may be set higher, but 60 is the standard. with the 30fps, I was mentioning the standard broadcast TV signal.
Also, the signal is sent at a resolution of typically 256x224x24bb. The CRT TV monitor has a resolution capacity of up to 768x512x24bb, but the extra size is just there for anti-aliasing, as I that is all I've seen it used for. Also, all of the consoles of which I have worked with (using emulators to get screenshots or cheat codes, or just beat it easier) output a resolution of 256x224x##bb. This includes the Nintendo64.
As for its impacts on DOOM³, I would say that the Xbox will have a serious boost in framerate, compared to the PC. Even though each engine originally used OpenGL for rendering, they are quickly converted to use D3D. Along with that, many people will want to run DOOM³ at 1600x1200x32bb, if their monitor permits. That would probably yield around 5fps for them, though...
The XBox version will probably only render at 256x224x16/24bb, though, which will easily yield a much better framrate, perhaps between 30-60. After all, I know the SNES versions of W3D and DOOM(1) have run at reduced resolutions, 128x80 for W3D, and 128x160 for DOOM. On a TV, it's hard to notice at all.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
|
