1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index

Jan 6, 1999, 10:33pm

[View Quote]
I'm beginning to think your AMD is the cause, Eep... I had a Cyrix 686/PR150
(now a P2/450 :) ) and AW ran "ok" on it... got sluggish (<2fps) in Tyrell's
area but then Tyrell's area is slow even on the 450... most of the time I
got a fairly decent 4fps at 40-50m vis... And AW *flies* on the 450, assuming
I'm, again, not in an area like Tyrell's where it's about the same as the
150 was anywhere else (but with higher vis - 60).

duh!
>
>Right, and in this case, the car is AW, not a computer. Changing analogies
to try and prove your point ain't gonna work...


grover meant you could buy a better real-time 3D building environment. Of
course, there doesn't seem to be much of a supply...

1-cylinder
Celerons/300+
RAM
>

Jan 6, 1999, 10:35pm

oh, BTW, all of this was using the regular non-MMX non-D3D non-DirectDraw
Renderware drivers, on both computers. I agree Renderware ain't a *decent*
3D engine, but it's *tolerable*, for now.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 1999, 10:37pm

[View Quote] >
> Shyea right. AW ran like shit on your P100 and you know it. I have a Pentium-class AMD-K5-PR133 (99MHz) and AW runs like shit on it. Why are you defending AW so much? You know its 3D engine sucks so get off the debate stint, eh? CPU is the most important part in 3D rendering (and if AW supported 3D hardware better, the 3D CPU would be next important). RAM is secondary (or triary).

I'm not defending AW in that respect; I concur that it's slower than Quake or TR. I'm simply disagreeing with you that speed is the *only* factor worth considering for this envoronment. Bells and whistles count for a lot more than rote speed for an application like this, and *that* is what I'm arguing.

>
>
>
> Right, and in this case, the car is AW, not a computer. Changing analogies to try and prove your point ain't gonna work...
>

How is that changing the analogy??? If you're comparing AW's 3D engine to the motor, and options like a sunroof to the extra little nicities in AW, than you're saying that the AW-car is a certain combination of engine, styling and options. And if in RL you don't like the combination of engine/styling and options, and the dealer says "sorry, that's the only engine we offer" than you
just hit the road and buy a sports car. Just as in RL, there are tons of other 3D programs out there with different combos of rendering engines and bells & whistles for you to choose from... By your own arguments you say that other programs out there are pure speed at the omission of the nicities. So if speed is your only concern, why not switch software to something more your
liking?

Well, that was a rhetorical question, but I think I know the answer: it's the nicities that make AW. TR III has a fast engine and good graphics. But lacks such fundamental nicities as a simple chat interface! Which pretty much cripples it's usefulness. Same with Quake.

grover

Jan 6, 1999, 10:43pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] that's not fair, Eep- Within the context, most people would have assumed you simply contracted DirectX to DX, unless they've heard of the DX brand. Which, considering the DX isn't exactly the most touted product in the world, is understandable! I *am* a native english speaker, btw. Perhaps it's
YOU that need to work on your communication skills if people constantly misunderstand what you're trying to say?

grover

Jan 6, 1999, 10:45pm

Sorry, <8fps and the jerky movement and slow rendering bothers me. I
think, on a P233mmx (overclocked to 266) w/64M, I think the AW performance
at GZ's (3-8fps) is pretty pathetic.

Paul

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 1999, 10:55pm

Everyone can't afford to upgrade there computer once a year. I upgraded
mine in the fall of ' 97 from a DX4-100 to my P233mmx (running at 266) w/64M
and voodoo rush video. I can't afford to do it all over again. And I
shouldn't have to just because COF chooses to live in the "old days" of
software 3D rendering. They should get their technology up to date, then if
necessary, I'll try to get my hardware up to date.

Paul

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 5:46am

[View Quote] Read more carefully! I never claimed it was neurosurgery or I would have
said so, eh?

>The Diamond V330 is too supported (just not well in the >RenderWare
Direct3D driver)

That's what I meant. Awb doesn't yuse all the powers of video-cards. I i put
d3d *on* in my cfg awb won't run anymore...

>The Riva 128 chip can't do rendering in a window? I thought only >3Dfx
Voodoo/Voodoo² chips
>had that problem...

I'm affraid *most* cards have that problem. Only a few cards *do* render in
a window.

communication.
>
>I communicate fine. You're the one who has problems with basic reading
comprehension. And I >offend when offended. Your ignorance and idiocy offend
me. :)

Yeah right...
Appearantly you're offended easily then... ;-)

Jan 7, 1999, 5:49am

[View Quote] How am I supposed to know? If you say 'dx' *most* ppl will read 'directx'

> They are VERY cheap (in price AND quality) but >they are still 3D
nonetheless. You seem to have >extrapolation problems. Is English your
native >language?

No but that's not the problem here.
The problem is that you think you have to right to call ppl idiots when they
don't understand or misunderstand what you say.
Maybe explaining would be a better help...

Jan 7, 1999, 5:54am

[View Quote] Well said!
That's my point too: Aw *could* be faster but appearantly COF doesn't
consider this necessary.
They seem to think 3fps will do. Well not for me! Especially when the only
reason is that COF is laying back.

Jan 7, 1999, 5:57am

[View Quote] Yeah but the 'bells and whistles' are already there. Now why is COF not
planning to do s.th. about the speed? Quake doesn't run slow either does it?
Well I think quake is more intensive then Aw....
So appearantly s.th. else seems to be the bottleneck here... ;-)

duh!
analogies to try and prove your point ain't gonna work...
>
>How is that changing the analogy??? If you're comparing AW's 3D engine to
the motor, and options like a sunroof to the extra little nicities in AW,
than you're saying that the AW-car is a certain combination of engine,
styling and options. And if in RL you don't like the combination of
engine/styling and options, and the dealer says "sorry, that's the only
engine we offer" than you
>just hit the road and buy a sports car. Just as in RL, there are tons of
other 3D programs out there with different combos of rendering engines and
bells & whistles for you to choose from... By your own arguments you say
that other programs out there are pure speed at the omission of the
nicities. So if speed is your only concern, why not switch software to
something more your
>liking?
>
>Well, that was a rhetorical question, but I think I know the answer: it's
the nicities that make AW. TR III has a fast engine and good graphics.

Good graphics?? Lara still looks like a LEGO-puppet I think...

>But lacks such fundamental nicities as a simple chat interface! Which
pretty much cripples it's >usefulness. Same with Quake.

Jan 7, 1999, 6:00am

[View Quote] Indeed it is...
And the bandwith is surely not the problem. Ok, I have a 33k6... But even
when I'm on my own in an area where all the present objects are downloaded
and visible it runs like shit. No matter how few ppl there are..

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 2:27pm

DX, not DirectX!

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 2:30pm

Again such a logic error:

it's "not everyone can afford", not "everyone can't afford", which equals
"no one can afford".

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 2:45pm

Why not let COF make some more and better 'bells and whistles' and first of all
better GUI (graphical user interface) so they attract users wich "fall in love" with
all the extras, THEN they can concentrate more on the engine as the hardware
developes.. That would at least be better than having a better engine and no one to
ride it, since the program isn't good enough.
And Eep and cubiac.. There's no need to say that I'm not enjoying AW, since I am! I
love AW, but I didn't fell in love with the engine. It did play an important part,
but that wasn't before after a while!

So I'm saying that COF sould make a better sunroof, car stereo and maybe even mobile
phone to attract new users, then they can develope the engine as they get more money
and more users.
When testers from for example magazines open AW and see a over 3 year old layout,
they get a bad impression.. AW's new component (forgot the name) got WAY to many
extras, and they got a very bad engine, so it's important to find a baance but still
don't scare the new users off!

When you come in to a car store, do go right to the Monstertruck or the el-car?

-Joakim, one of the CyberTwins

Jan 7, 1999, 9:10pm

[View Quote] As I said: how was I supposed to know?

>The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
>
[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 9:11pm

[View Quote] IMHO 'everyone can't afford' equals 'not everyone van afford'.
So IMO Paul *was* right...

>The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
>
[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 9:36pm

Well, let's turn your question around: why think it's directX? Just because
DX is a nice abbreviation?

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 9:37pm

IYO, maybe.... but even in English, this is a LOGIC error. I'll have to be
in the library next Tuesday.... do I really have to throw a studybook on
mathematical logic in your face?

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 1999, 10:08pm

This was an upgrade from a 150 that was bought two years ago, just so you
know.

[View Quote]

Jan 8, 1999, 2:59pm

[View Quote] > I'm beginning to think your AMD is the cause, Eep... I had a Cyrix 686/PR150
> (now a P2/450 :) ) and AW ran "ok" on it... got sluggish (<2fps) in Tyrell's
> area but then Tyrell's area is slow even on the 450... most of the time I
> got a fairly decent 4fps at 40-50m vis... And AW *flies* on the 450, assuming
> I'm, again, not in an area like Tyrell's where it's about the same as the
> 150 was anywhere else (but with higher vis - 60).

A PR150 is better than a PR133 so of course AW will run a little better on it, Dth.

> to try and prove your point ain't gonna work...
>
> grover meant you could buy a better real-time 3D building environment. Of
> course, there doesn't seem to be much of a supply...

Exactly. Grover's analogy was irrelevant in this discussion. AW is THE best online 3D VR chat-build environment out there at this time. And that's not saying much...

Jan 8, 1999, 3:02pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] When did I say speed was the ONLY factor worth considering? I never did. I said it was the most IMPORTANT. Bells and whistles are fine, providing they attract people to a car that can actually run adequately...

>
> How is that changing the analogy??? If you're comparing AW's 3D engine to the motor, and options like a sunroof to the extra little nicities in AW, than you're saying that the AW-car is a certain combination of engine, styling and options. And if in RL you don't like the combination of engine/styling and options, and the dealer says "sorry, that's the only engine we offer" than you
> just hit the road and buy a sports car. Just as in RL, there are tons of other 3D programs out there with different combos of rendering engines and bells & whistles for you to choose from... By your own arguments you say that other programs out there are pure speed at the omission of the nicities. So if speed is your only concern, why not switch software to something more your liking?

Speed ISN'T my only concern so your confusion about what I meant negates your new car analogy.

> Well, that was a rhetorical question, but I think I know the answer: it's the nicities that make AW. TR III has a fast engine and good graphics. But lacks such fundamental nicities as a simple chat interface! Which pretty much cripples it's usefulness. Same with Quake.

Actually I could care less about that chat interface. All I'm concerned about is being able to build an environment in 3D. AW offers this but TR doesn't. However, TR's environment is much more advanced (and better performance) than AW is...and both were created at about the same time.

Jan 8, 1999, 3:05pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Fairness is relative. Within the context, only idiots assume without further research. Cubic knew I was already talking about 3D cards so why would I bring up a special DirectX-based vid card?? Hello...look at Cubic's responses to anything on 3D. He doesn't know what he's talking about. In my mind, all things point to him being an idiot (at least in terms of computer 3D experience/knowledge), so... :)

Jan 8, 1999, 3:08pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] No, most IDIOTS will ASSUME "DirectX". However, if you bothered to read more carefully, you would've realized I was referring to a specific S3 3D chip (hence why I mentioned the cheap price and why I even mentioned the S3 DX in the first place). Duh.

> nonetheless. You seem to have >extrapolation problems. Is English your
> native >language?
>
> No but that's not the problem here.

Yes, it is. If you don't know all the little nuances of the English language, miscommunication will occur.

> The problem is that you think you have to right to call ppl idiots when they
> don't understand or misunderstand what you say.
> Maybe explaining would be a better help...

Maybe understanding common English would be "a better help".

Jan 8, 1999, 3:10pm

Exactly. And people in here should know by now I hardly abbreviate...(AW and RW being major exceptions).

[View Quote] > Well, let's turn your question around: why think it's directX? Just because
> DX is a nice abbreviation?
>
[View Quote]

Jan 8, 1999, 3:18pm

[View Quote] > Why not let COF make some more and better 'bells and whistles' and first of all
> better GUI (graphical user interface) so they attract users wich "fall in love" with
> all the extras, THEN they can concentrate more on the engine as the hardware
> developes.. That would at least be better than having a better engine and no one to
> ride it, since the program isn't good enough.

You must be new to AW. AW's over 4 years old and has used the same 3D engine, Criterion's RenderWare, as well as has basically looked the same (GUI). No matter how good a car looks, if it runs like shit, it won't survive the market. Hence why AW and most online 3D virtual reality chat environments (based on VRML) aren't doing too well--they render like shit and jerk, twitch, and lag. Perhaps 1999 will be the year this changes, but not with software 3D rendering like RenderWare uses (for the most part).

> And Eep and cubiac.. There's no need to say that I'm not enjoying AW, since I am! I
> love AW, but I didn't fell in love with the engine. It did play an important part,
> but that wasn't before after a while!

Oh, so you fell in love with how AW jerks, lags, and twitches? You must be a Christian or something (a glutton for punishment). While I don't necessarily NEED a "super-charged" car, I want something that works adequately and is reliable.

> So I'm saying that COF sould make a better sunroof, car stereo and maybe even mobile
> phone to attract new users, then they can develope the engine as they get more money
> and more users.

Think about that. If the engine is laggy, twitchy, and unresponsive, how are all the fluff features in the world going to make up for the basic functionality that AW lacks? It won't. The 3D engine is the most important part of any 3D application. Period.

> When testers from for example magazines open AW and see a over 3 year old layout,
> they get a bad impression.. AW's new component (forgot the name) got WAY to many
> extras, and they got a very bad engine, so it's important to find a baance but still
> don't scare the new users off!

Right, and the balance begins with better 3D hardware support. Do you (or have you ever) work(ed) in the computer industry? I doubt it.

> When you come in to a car store, do go right to the Monstertruck or the el-car?

"car store", "Monstertruck", and "el-car"--English is DEFINTELY not your native language. :)

Jan 8, 1999, 7:27pm

[View Quote]
>Fairness is relative.

Appearantly, yes...

> Within the context, only idiots assume without further research.

Only idiots make problems where they don't *have* to be.
Couldn't you have told me in a *normal* way that you meant something else??
Or do you think it *is* normal to shout and flame as soon as someone makes a
mistake?

> Cubic knew I was already
> talking about 3D cards so why would I bring up a special DirectX-based vid
card??

Cuz it didn't cross my mind that you might mean the chipset. If you're
talking about 3d-stuff under Windows I don't think it's weird to associate
Direct-X.
Besides that, I didn't imagine s3 makes real 3d-cards.

> Hello...look
> at Cubic's responses to anything on 3D. He doesn't know what he's talking
about. In my mind, all
> things point to him being an idiot (at least in terms of computer 3D
experience/knowledge),
> so... :)

Everything fine and allright, but what the heck is that smiley doing there?
Appearantly you find it also *funny* to make fools of other people.
Honestly I think your making a fool of yourself picking at me because of a
misunderstanding...

Are you systematically trying to ruine the atmosphere?
Are you trying to scare everyone away by behaving yourself like this?
Is that why you are here? This stupid little thing is turning in to a fight.
Isn't that pathetic?
Try and get along man...

Jan 8, 1999, 7:29pm

[View Quote] Because that was the first thing that came up to me.

>Just because
>DX is a nice abbreviation?

Whether it's nice or not, "DX" is often used instead of "DirectX".
I didn't invent this abbreviation...

[View Quote]

Jan 8, 1999, 7:31pm

[View Quote] I never really studied your behaviour.
Mostly it only annoys me.
Your not really like contributing to a 'cosy' atmosphere..

[View Quote]

Jan 8, 1999, 9:02pm

Hehe... he doesn't know shit about 3d cards.... it ook Rolu and me days to
make him believe that Voodoo cards don't use an irq...

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 8, 1999, 9:02pm

Funny, really: "cubic" seems to have something to do with 3d... :)

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index