| Mental on Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:21:15 -0500 (EST) |
|
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 01:48:28PM -0500, Jason Costomiris wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 10:38:59AM -0500, Mental wrote: > : Quake3 at the highest detail settings, 32bit everything, trilinear filtering, > : and stencile buffered shadows is _almost_ playable at 1600x1200. Its > : more than playable at 1024x768. The same cannot be said for 3dfx cards. > : They're limited to 16bit color. > > Given the fact that the human eye has trouble distinguishing beyond > about 16.5 bits of color, I'll take the 16 bits, and have faster play > thanks... Who told you this? The same person who said the human eye didnt see past 30 frames per second? I can see the difference between 16bit color and 32bit color very easily. Just look for banding. Its very easy to see. The only reason its hard to see in games today is due to the fact that the game art itself is for the most part 16 or worse yet, 8 bit. Dithering isnt the same as real 32 bit textures. As for speed, I'll have the 32bit textures, the hardware transforms and lighting, and trilinear filtering and _still_ be faster than the 3dfx cards. Or, I can knock the color depth down to 16 bit for games that do not have 32 bit art and more than double my speed. I get about 40fps in quake3 with 16bit color at 1600x1200. 1280x1024 is over 60. Lower resolutions are limited more by my monitors refresh rate than the card. Further, the GLX drivers for linux & the GeForce are out as of today. Its on /. I have a pair of voodoo2's in the system still. I'd be happy to do some benchmarks and put up the numbers. Or check tomeshardware.com for his numbers. Really, whats the point in defending 3dfx (unless you have stock in the company)? Back in the day, they had great cards. I've owned just about every generation. The GeForce today simply out performs them on every front. Its hands down, the fastest card I've used for 3D ever. > > : And the fonts > : will finally be decent :) > > What's wrong with the fonts today? "Out of the box"? Run X at 1600x1200. Squint a lot. The fonts today are hard to customize, hard to change resolutions of and generaly a pain to get looking decent at a reasonable (read really, really high res) resolution. > : Yes. XFree4 FINALLY has support for true type > : fonts. > > XFree 3.3 supports true type right now, today. > No. It does not. There's font servers you can add to your fontpath to kind of shoehorn ttf's into X, but its NOT part of XFree86's release. 4 makes use of the freetype library to support ttf's "out of the box". In other words, the days of running XF86Setup to get X up and running, then having to go manually edit your FontPath are over. None of this was meant to be inflamatory commentary for X. I happen to love using X. Its very nice. But I can see several areas where it would be good to improove it. Mental -- "you make insanity respectable." --Helcat on the subject of Mental. Attachment:
pgp2CH8aPhMCd.pgp
|
|