Past a certain point, you're not going to notice a difference in framerate. The threshold depends on the viewer - I usually hear quotes of 60fps, although I prefer around 90 to get a smooth game. That threshold isn't hard to hit with current hardware.
I agree with the second poster - the 3D card should emulate the environment. Wouldn't it be stupid if the card tryed to account for the fact that your peripheral vision is blurrier than your central vision?
All you people who say this is dumb are the ones that keep the output of 3d hardware looking shitty.
No, the fact that Voodoo cards have only had a stencil buffer for a few MONTHS has kept things looking shitty, whereas the rest of the industry has had it, and other elementary features that 3Dfx 'forgot' so it could get higher fillrates, since 1998.
I don't care what any of you say, when compared to a real world scene or a raytraced rendering GeForce2 output looks like shit.
That's because it's generated several times faster. If you could track down a hardware raytracer board, you'd probably be pleasantly surprised by the performance level.
Current games don't contain enough information to warrant raytracing anyway. "Ooh - there's another shadow on the intersection of those two walls!" There's very little difference.
but the T-buffer from 3dfx was an attempt at being able to simulate such things
No, the T-buffer was an attempt by 3Dfx to market itself into a good position. It failed miserably. It doesn't offer anything at all to programmers except narrowing the potential market to Voodoo users.
Do you all want to look at unrealistically sharp corners and harsh angles in your games forever?
I guess you haven't seen Quake III recently - or any other game to come out in the last year.
Sure I'm being obnoxious
You sure are. And clueless. And a lot of other adjectives that would be suitably preceded by the word 'fucking'.
their T-buffer tech is the only innovative thing to come out of the video card industry in recent years
It's not innovative. It's not even new, and it's not properly done. It's too restrictive to be useful - do you see Carmack running around extolling the virtues of T-Buffer? No. He's focusing on what people actually have - the GeForce line. I believe he described T-Buffer as a 'simple accumulation buffer' - ie. something that any old 3D card can do.
As evidence, notice that the Motion Blur Q3 also runs on Voodoo 3's - which don't have T-Buffer. Coincidence?
Unfortunatly FPS stats sell video cards these days, not image quality.
Damn right. We want our games fast, smooth and sharp. FSAA all three points worse, and supposedly 'improves' image quality. It's pathetic. And now we're expected to believe that blurry images are better. What next? "Black screen, the ultimate high! Discover intellectual wonders in an empty screen on your NEW IMPROVED *(compared to S3 Virge) Voodoo 8 With External Power Supply And 128 Processors! And No T&L So If You Don't Have A Quad Athlon 2GHz, You're Fucked!"
Sorry. I can readily pick the difference between 60fps and 90fps, unless the monitor refresh is already at 60. It does make a difference - it means my mouse sampling rate is better synchronised with the monitor refresh.
why people wouldn't want T-Buffer features
I've got news for you. There's nothing special about T-Buffer. Everything that can be done with T-Buffer can be done with standard OpenGL calls with no significant performance losses. It's just marketing.
No, no-one will support T-Buffer now that 3Dfx is gone. Practically no-one was supporting it anyway (I can't think of anyone). It simply wasn't worth losing a chunk of the potential audience, especially when the benefits are minimal and the vast majority are using NVIDIA cards anyway.
... this is nothing that can't be done on 'normal' hardware at similar performance levels to what 3Dfx hardware is getting.
The blur would seriously piss me off while playing - I'd try to rail someone, and hit their shadow instead. Looking at some of the 'hardcore competitive' players in my area, with GeForce II's, etc, who play 640x480, minimum texture detail and vertex lighting - I really don't think they give a damn about the enemy models being smeared all over the screen.
I've said it many times before. Death to 3Dfx! I finally got my wish!
... had the same idea. The novel is around 8-10 years old (?), and aimed at a fairly young reading level (12-14 year olds). In the book, the ball rolled on a sort of ball bearing treadmill, and individual balls could be moved up and down to simulate floor textures.
(this is about as far as the book is worth reading, because after that dinosaurs start being created by some little turd's mind.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that's what a TFT display is.
For us to see blur, something has to be moving pretty damn fast - ie. much faster than what happens in 99% of games. Quake III is pretty slow-paced.
I'm not an NVIDIA bigot. I just can't stand 3Dfx.
I agree with the second poster - the 3D card should emulate the environment. Wouldn't it be stupid if the card tryed to account for the fact that your peripheral vision is blurrier than your central vision?
No, the fact that Voodoo cards have only had a stencil buffer for a few MONTHS has kept things looking shitty, whereas the rest of the industry has had it, and other elementary features that 3Dfx 'forgot' so it could get higher fillrates, since 1998.
I don't care what any of you say, when compared to a real world scene or a raytraced rendering GeForce2 output looks like shit.
That's because it's generated several times faster. If you could track down a hardware raytracer board, you'd probably be pleasantly surprised by the performance level.
Current games don't contain enough information to warrant raytracing anyway. "Ooh - there's another shadow on the intersection of those two walls!" There's very little difference.
but the T-buffer from 3dfx was an attempt at being able to simulate such things
No, the T-buffer was an attempt by 3Dfx to market itself into a good position. It failed miserably. It doesn't offer anything at all to programmers except narrowing the potential market to Voodoo users.
Do you all want to look at unrealistically sharp corners and harsh angles in your games forever?
I guess you haven't seen Quake III recently - or any other game to come out in the last year.
Sure I'm being obnoxious
You sure are. And clueless. And a lot of other adjectives that would be suitably preceded by the word 'fucking'.
their T-buffer tech is the only innovative thing to come out of the video card industry in recent years
It's not innovative. It's not even new, and it's not properly done. It's too restrictive to be useful - do you see Carmack running around extolling the virtues of T-Buffer? No. He's focusing on what people actually have - the GeForce line. I believe he described T-Buffer as a 'simple accumulation buffer' - ie. something that any old 3D card can do.
As evidence, notice that the Motion Blur Q3 also runs on Voodoo 3's - which don't have T-Buffer. Coincidence?
Unfortunatly FPS stats sell video cards these days, not image quality.
Damn right. We want our games fast, smooth and sharp. FSAA all three points worse, and supposedly 'improves' image quality. It's pathetic. And now we're expected to believe that blurry images are better. What next? "Black screen, the ultimate high! Discover intellectual wonders in an empty screen on your NEW IMPROVED *(compared to S3 Virge) Voodoo 8 With External Power Supply And 128 Processors! And No T&L So If You Don't Have A Quad Athlon 2GHz, You're Fucked!"
Have a nice day.
Sorry. I can readily pick the difference between 60fps and 90fps, unless the monitor refresh is already at 60. It does make a difference - it means my mouse sampling rate is better synchronised with the monitor refresh.
why people wouldn't want T-Buffer features
I've got news for you. There's nothing special about T-Buffer. Everything that can be done with T-Buffer can be done with standard OpenGL calls with no significant performance losses. It's just marketing.
No, no-one will support T-Buffer now that 3Dfx is gone. Practically no-one was supporting it anyway (I can't think of anyone). It simply wasn't worth losing a chunk of the potential audience, especially when the benefits are minimal and the vast majority are using NVIDIA cards anyway.
The blur would seriously piss me off while playing - I'd try to rail someone, and hit their shadow instead. Looking at some of the 'hardcore competitive' players in my area, with GeForce II's, etc, who play 640x480, minimum texture detail and vertex lighting - I really don't think they give a damn about the enemy models being smeared all over the screen.
I've said it many times before. Death to 3Dfx! I finally got my wish!
... had the same idea. The novel is around 8-10 years old (?), and aimed at a fairly young reading level (12-14 year olds). In the book, the ball rolled on a sort of ball bearing treadmill, and individual balls could be moved up and down to simulate floor textures. (this is about as far as the book is worth reading, because after that dinosaurs start being created by some little turd's mind.)