I'm amazed no one brings up F-1 World Grand Prix on the N64. That's one racing game that looked better than any F1 game on the PS or Saturn and had really advanced weather effects for the time . Just a shame it controlled like a pig
Printable View
I'm amazed no one brings up F-1 World Grand Prix on the N64. That's one racing game that looked better than any F1 game on the PS or Saturn and had really advanced weather effects for the time . Just a shame it controlled like a pig
Dude, Chilly Willy's number is for solid colored non-textured big polygons.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I will "concede" you the opportunity to go find a proper quote prior challenging what I said.
Shame you're not as forensics with WDC because I see cut out 2D paper trees, basic sparse texture work and also the trademark fussy N64 display. Btw i'm sure in an interview with Boss they said WDC Rally was using 350 polygons for the main car
The main argument was that WDC uses more polygons and 3D objects/shapes for it's graphics/scenes/cars in general (which it does). Means that it has more complexity. We already established that Sega Rally has sharper (but not necessarily higher-res) textures and we already established that the N64 has a worse video output. Also, 2D trees, 2D spectators and flat banners seems to be a great thing about SR, according to Trekkies posts here, but when WDC does 2D trees they suddenly become a negative thing? I also thought that SR had more trees and flat objects all this time. And now you see 2D trees in WDC and feel like you want to point them out as something bad? Even though it has less of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Doesn't make any sense.
And 350 polys for cars.... is that good or bad? How many are been used for SR cars?
As for F1, i agree that it looks great and has a very natural, realistic look (and a LOT of polygons are been used for all these nicely modeled cars) but i think WDC is visually more advanced in general.
You guys are so passionate about this. lol
I know right? I do feel stupid... but for me, it's more about pointing out the denial to something obvious, instead of just proving which game looks better, which shouldn't even be needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
I think that the argument people were making is that 2D trees in N64 require polygons and 2D trees and spectators on Saturn requires sprites which don't strain the hardware as much. Kinda like how light sourcing is less taxing on the other consoles, -infinite floors/ceilings, sprites, & misc is less taxing for the Saturn and when a game can make use of them, the rest requires less polygons and it closes the supposed gap of polygons-at-once limits.
I don't know how true that is, but I also don't think that theoretical limits like fillrates can be taken as absolute rules (even if the numbers floating around are accurate). Look at how incredibly the Genesis has been pushed in recent years through homebrew efforts which continue to find new ways to work outside of how it was thought the hardware is supposed to work. If any console of that generation has by far the most unseen potential for radical new methods of doing 3D, it would be the Saturn with its unique design. But we only have the games we have, so I just appreciate them as-is.
Passion is good. :) .... < lol, that's a smillie face?! I'll never use that thing eva again!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
I'm amazed that we're comparing Sega Rally to WDC. Shouldn't we be comparing it to Top Gear Rally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
And F-1 World Gran Prix controlled like a pig? News to me. Still my all-time favorite F-1 game, and the only game on the N64 that I like better than WDC.
Hey I'm not one trying to make out that the Saturn did better 3D than either the PS or N64, just that it could do great 3D and when you used the Saturn 3D with its 2D and play field hardware it was a mix that the likes of PS had issues to match . There's 2d sprites and trees in the likes of Rally II on the DC too .Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
I think the Saturn outdid the N64 for textures screen res and sound in most cases and while I still like my N64 almost every game suffered from fussy display issues with lack of detailed texture mapping .
I love the game but the sudden sharp movements when turning take some getting used too. Sure it's a great F1 game but for me Geoff Crammond F1 GP 2 is the best F1 ever madeQuote:
Originally Posted by Night Driver
Please explain how an 8bit brown pixel for a flat shaded polygon requires more fill rate than an 8bit brown pixel for a texture shaded polygon. You're actually close to having something that will actually make sense here, which is VDP1's ability to calculate the distortion for the sprites it will draw as textured polygons (aka it's texture mapped polygon rendering performance). That however is not the same as fillrate. Once that distortion is done, as far as VDP1 is concerned an 8bit pixel is an 8bit pixel. It will write it to the frame buffer in the exact same way regardless of whether it's for at texture or a flat shaded polygon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
This is the problem I have with this assertion of an extremely low fillrate:
- If it's really that low it means the Saturn can't even fill it's own frame buffers at 60fps. That's a pretty massive bottleneck.
- If the Saturn can't even do that why even go with 256KB frame buffers when costs could be cut going with half that since that's closer to the amount of data you'd actually be able to write to it.
- If this is the case, the argument you've made before about the Saturn's frame buffers being a bottleneck over the PS1 since it can't increase the size becomes a moot point because the system can't even write enough data fast enough to fill what it already has.
- Since the Saturn's polygons are actually distorted sprites, this should affect 2D games as well. As far as the Saturn's VDP1 is concerned, there's no difference between a 2D sprite and a non distorted textured polygon. Heck a sprite that has a warped effect done too it is the same as a polygon as far as the Saturn is concerned. So if the fillrate is so bad that the Saturn can't even fill it's frame buffers for 3D textured games, this limit should be there on 2D games as well.
You have not addressed any of these issues with the math.
Now if you want to debate the Saturn's Polygon rendering performance that's one thing. But that's not the same as fillrate here. Fillrate is literally how fast can we write pixels to the frame buffer when they're ready to be written. It makes sense to have a fillrate that is significantly higher than what you would actually be rendering for the following reasons:
1) You wont be constantly writing pixels to the frame buffer at all times. There will be cycles used in between to do calculations on things like blending, lighting, texture warping/distortion, etc. If your fillrate is truly so bad that it can't even fill the frame buffer under ideal conditions you will run into issues where VDP1 will have pixels ready to be written to the frame buffer but it can't because the fillrate is so low that it doesn't have time to do it before the next frame. And before you bring up draw distance this issue would probably be completely inconsistent, unlike the very consistent draw distance we see in most Saturn games. It would mean you would literally run out of time to draw your frame mid frame. You should be seeing either frequent massive slowdowns or frames that are incomplete. But you don't.
2) Any kind of blending for things like lighting, Gouraud shading, transparencies, etc. would require a higher fillrate. You'd need more time to do the calculation and for 50/50 blending you'd need to read what's already been written to figure out what color you need to average it out to. If it's this low it becomes almost impossible because you barely have enough fillrate to draw half your frames, let alone do any kind of blending with them.
Finally here's this bit of evidence from Stellar Assault SS:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...psuuudlrto.png
This game runs at 60fps in high res mode but letterboxed for an effective resolution of 640x240. If every pixel is drawn by VDP1 this would require a fillrate right on that 9 million pixels/second mark which as you said still would require a lot of ideal circumstances. In this shot I'd say at least 75% of the screen has VDP1 polygons and sprites on it that are all textured. But there's another thing happening here. The entire frame is being covered by a VDP1 sprite that is having 50/50 blending applied to it, essentially 50/50 blending the entire frame. So not only does the Saturn need to write the pixels for the textures to the frame buffers for just the non blended stuff, it literally has to recalculate each and every pixel for the entire frame and rewrite them all to the frame buffer again for the 50/50 blending. In short, the Saturn should literally be shitting itself right now. But it's not.
You need to address these issues. You also need to address the issue that WDC isn't filling the entire frame buffer with polygons either. Saturn's use of VDP2 would actually help reduce it's fillrate load because it wouldn't need to use VDP1's fillrate to draw things like the sky. You also need to address that at the resolution and framerate WDC runs at it wouldn't even be close to hitting even half the 9Mpixel/sec fillrate you've set for the system assuming every pixel was being rendered (which it wouldn't be). You need to address that even the small frame buffers wouldn't be an issue at this resolution because a 320x240 frame would easily fit in the frame buffer in both 8 bit and 16 bit modes. You also need to address that WDC is using a mix of flat shading and texture shading for the cars, which as you stated would reduce the load on the fillrate. You also need to address that WDC is using lower quality textures than Sega Rally, which again as you said would reduce the load on the fillrate.
You are not doing a good job explaining this. You are not doing a good job addressing these issues. If you want me to agree with you about the fillrate then you need to do the following:
Stop accusing everyone who has doubts of being absurd and actually address their questions and answer them.
If you can't answer them point us to places where we can get good answers.
Hey, I finally figured out how to fix my PJ64 emulation issues. All I had to do was enter Settings>Reset All = Presto. Everything works again... So these be the N64 racing scene... Oh boy.
But yeah. Much thanks for Soulis and his/her kind help.
if you liked the original f1 world grandprix what did you think of f1 world grandprix 2 for dreamcast? it was exclusive sequel for itQuote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
But the sequel was released for the N64 too. Although i think PAL only.Quote:
Originally Posted by bultje112
I don't think so. it was canceled I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Nope. Soulis is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by bultje112
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_World_Grand_Prix_II
Quote "The Nintendo 64 version was released only in Europe in 2000"
Running through an emulator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=_68kv-uBONo
There's a serious issue with the first F1 for N64. How to I turn the baby feature called "don't worry, we'll down gear for you before every turn" off? Because I don't ever see a point in playing games that want to play themselves.
Short answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
http://i.imgur.com/m6UPLLT.png
Source: http://koti.kapsi.fi/~antime/sega/fi...-R3-061694.pdf
Long answer: http://koti.kapsi.fi/~antime/sega/docs.html
And "requires more fill rate" in that context makes little to no sense.
1) I've never said the Saturn has "extremely low fillrate". I just stated what is well-known and widely accepted among those who have scratched the surface in terms of understanding 5th gen consoles hardware: Saturn's fillrate for textured polygons is nowhere near on par with PS1's and N64's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
2) Most of these "issues" are a product of misconceptions YOU brought to the discussion when you decided to overreact to my posts just because you disliked the stuff you read.
I never said it was the same thing but they're certainly related.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
1) If you had read carefully what I said in previous posts, you'd understand that it's not really 60 fps in that resolution mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
2) You still didn't understand that there's a huge different between zoomed in on screen view applied to a low poly scene and a frame buffer really filled up with polygons. To not talk about color depth and texture resolution.
3) The scene is not drawn all at once, like Chilly Willy had already explained to you in a previous discussion.
I think you should study things prior getting cocky and obnoxious in discussions, using quotes you don't even understand the meaning to try to bully people who were just trying to add basic parameters to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
This part is correct, but "fillrate load" sounds a bit odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Lmao. The person going against any honest visual inspection of those games here is you, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
You're the one stating that the Saturn could do something it never actually did, based on a much older game which is visually inferior to WDC's in pretty much every aspect.
YOU are the one who needs to explain us how the Saturn would be able to pull off something we've never seen even close on the system. That's your task, not mine.
It would help you if you could quit the nonsense rant for a moment and try to look with some honesty to both games. Sega Rally textures are low res for the most part. And there's a lot of repetition too.
WDC's cars use render-to-texture effects, something that is really bad for the Saturn thanks to its framebuffer and textures being stored in different RAM blocks (hardware-wise).
You are doing a great job of making a ass of yourself in this discussion by going in full denial mode and getting cocky over stuff you've already showed you don't fully understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I couldn't care less if you agree or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
It's actually funny to see you going against the notion that the Saturn wasn't on par with the PS1 and the N64 in terms of textured 3D rendering performance, something that the likes of Ezra Dreisbach have stated ages ago.
It's funny to see you questioning the idea that the Saturn wouldn't perform textured 3D rendering as well as non-texture 3D rendering when even Sega's vacuum figures says: 200,000 texture-mapped polygons per second
500,000 flat-shaded polygons per second
It's funny to see you dismissing KK89's calcs when he just went 100% by the book while you're the one pulling assumptions and misconceptions out of nowhere.
It's funny to see you trying to use the fill rate as a hardware feature other than a hardware performance rating mechanism.
As much as any reasonable person wouldn't try to preview the exact frame rate of a game based on vacuum polygons per second numbers provided by Sega/Sony/Nintendo, you shouldn't also try to "prove" that the Saturn could render WDC without major cuts just based on fill rate figures; be it theoretical peak for solid colored polygons or estimated numbers for textured rendering.
When you have two cars of similar size and weight, with one being equipped with a 100 hp engine and another one using a 300 hp engine it doesn't mean that the 300 hp one will perform exactly three times better under all circumstances.
But it gives you the idea that the 300 hp one will perform significantly better in most of the circumstances.
And this is all that I said. I said "I doubt" and I have all the reasons to doubt the Saturn can perform as well as the N64 when running a game like WDC, which was made by N64 hardware experts with all the push they could use at the time.
I didn't accuse anyone, it was quite the opposite. I was accused of taking the numbers out of "nowhere", of not having played Sega Rally "much at all", etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I just tried to put some light over a rather obscurantist turn this discussion was taking mostly thanks to you.
Like Chilly Willy once had to say in a situation similar to this one in this very same forum, I don't know everything but I'm not the idiot off the street you will bully with a quote you randomly picked out of context from someone else.
It makes no sense because you weren't being clear on what you meant. You could have avoided this whole thing by posting that picture pages ago when this first came up. Instead you decided to laugh and not be helpful to the conversation. This is the difference between you and people like Chilly. Chilly would have explained that in clarity when people asked questions about it pages ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Yes, you actually did say this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
You did not mention textured polygons here. And even later you still kept referring to it as fillrate as you are now. What you really should have been saying back here was "Sorry, I didn't mean purely how fast it can write pixels to it's frame buffers, I meant how fast it can manipulate and process a texture to then write to the frame buffer." That is what people like Chilly would have done when people asked or questioned what he posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Or it's the product of you not being clear on what you are referring to, and instead of actually trying to clarify you chose to act arrogant and laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
You kind of did when you kept referring to it as fillrate instead of what you actually meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Because you weren't saying polygon performance. You were simply talking about fill rate, aka how many pixels can we write to the frame buffer in a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
I didn't say it was. You were talking about fillrate, I was pointing out that if the fill rate was that low we wouldn't be able to even draw that frame regardless polygon counts. It would simply be too many pixels for it to handle in the amount of time we have in between frames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
I wasn't being cocky nor was I bullying you. I was pointing out a flaw in the math for what you posted due to a misunderstanding caused by you using the wrong terminology and not taking advantage of any opportunity to properly explain yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
It's visually inferior in aspects like lighting, transparency, car models, etc. It's superior in aspects like texture resolution, road side details like trees, flags, banners, etc. The question wasn't can the Saturn run WDC exactly as it is on the N64. The question was taking into account obvious weaknesses like Lighting, Transparencies, etc. could the Saturn making similar design decisions (lowering number of 2D objects in favor of using those polygons for 3D objects, using fa mix of flat shaded and texture shaded polygons for the cars instead of fully texture shaded cars, lowering texture quality, designing the tracks to hide draw distance, etc.) could it have done something comparable. Considering the Saturn's best racers are all arcade ports that don't make any of those design decisions, it's a tough call to make. We don't really have many racers that had grade A Saturn developers working on them that were made with those same design decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
The speculation myself and others were doing looking at the best options available was simply "If we flexed the polygon budget in a similar way, could something comparable be done."
I've given examples of where trade offs could be done but fine:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
1) Use of flat shaded cars with minimal textures like WDC does. Almost every Saturn racer uses only texture shaded polygons for most of the visible frame. Using a mix of flat and texture mapped could help us flex our polygon budget to get more of what we need.
2) Use of low quality textures like what WDC does. Sega's racers on the Saturn all use significantly higher quality textures than WDC. Using lower quality ones would again probably help here.
3) Reduce the amount of 2D track side objects to the almost non-existent levels of WDC. At these low of polygon counts every polygon matters.
4) Render far off objects in the distance as 2D objects as a form of LOD. As objects get closer, then swap them out for polygon models. At these low of resolutions that could work and be believable (Heck it's still used today in modern games). Those 2D objects could also help hide the draw distance. For example those big buildings like the Colleseum. Have it be a 2D Sprite that scales as you get closer. When you actually get to a point where you'd be turning around it and could tell it's just 2D swap it out for a 3D Model. You could possibly even use VDP2 to help pull this off.
5) Design the tracks with hiding the draw distance in mind like WDC does.
6) Instead of having each and every track side building be unique and different looking, opt for a set of 2-3 common buildings and reuse them through out the frame like WDC does. This would take less space in VRAM and could probably help with rendering performance if it allowed for any reuse.
7) Use VDP2 for anything you can get away with. Reflections could be simulated using a similar technique to Sonic R. Would it be 1:1 identical? No, but it could be passable.
8) VDP2's use for backgrounds like the sky or horizon would help as roughly 25-50% of the frame wouldn't need to be rendered with polygons like they are on the PS1 and N64.
Would this get us an exact 1:1 duplicate. No. But could it get us to something comparable that would be passable? Possibly.
And WDC's textures aren't much better. In some cases they're worse. Especially for objects like Trees, buildings, people, etc. As for the render to texture effects, I have already said multiple times the Saturn would have a very difficult time doing those and they'd either need to be lost or some alternative would need to be done. An example I gave was the shimmer effect in Sonic R. Again would it be 1:1? No. Would it be passable? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
And you're doing a great job miscommunicating what you actually mean, and then being too arrogant to properly clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
And yet in another interview when he was actually developing for the thing he stated that developing 3D games for the Saturn wasn't anymore difficult than the PS1, developers just needed to put in the effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
And for the record, I was never debating the PS1 had a better polygon performance than the Saturn. I was pointing out that in quite a few cases Saturn games seem to have higher polygon counts than their N64 counterparts, such as Quake. The few games that seem to go against this are the ones that use custom microcode. Which surprise surprise, WDC is one of those.
Except I wasn't questioning this. I was questioning the numbers you gave for pixel fillrate, not textured polygon rendering performance. This again falls back on your lack of clarifying what you actually meant. Which by the way, the N64's vaccuum texture-mapped polygon performance with the Z-buffer enabled is 100,000 polygons per second. The PS1's vaccuum spec is 180,000. Granted the PS1's is with lighting and stuff, while the Saturn's isn't. Still, real world performance is going to be significantly lower for these systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
I was simply pointing out he said even he wasn't an expert. And that mathematically they didn't seem to make sense when talking about pure fillrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Where did I do this? I was always referring to it as a performance. The real problem here was that you were using fill rate to refer to the Saturn's ability to calculate polygons instead of what it actually is, how fast you can write pixels to the frame buffer. One is typically going to be a lot higher than the other for a very obvious reason. It needs to be really high so that the few chances you get to write the rendered polygon to the frame buffer inbetween the longer rendering operations, you'll actually be able to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Well when your rambling on about how the whole issue is the fillrate, it makes logical sense to point out that the fillrate should be able to handle the total amount of pixels in the frame. If you had been actually talking about Polygon Rendering performance instead of fillrate, we would have probably been discussing the polygon trade offs and difference between the two games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
And if you go back and look at the original statement that sparked this, I said some instances, not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
And I didn't say the Saturn could perform identically do the N64 for a game like WDC. I said if Sega and developers were still pushing the system in 1999, and a quality racer was developed for just that system and designed around the system with all the same love and care WDC was given to have tracks carefully tailored around hiding draw distance, etc. it's possible we could have seen something similar. Looking at released games gives us an idea of what's possible. Yes, those games are older and have worse draw distances and what not. They're also ports of arcade games and don't have the luxury of making radical changes to work around some of these issues like WDC does. It would deviate too much from the original game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
And you failed at it for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
1) You weren't clear on what you meant and caused confusion.
2) When people questioned what you posted because it didn't add up due to you conflating terms, you didn't make a serious attempt to properly clarify what you meant. You instead continued to conflate terms and as the confusion persisted proceeded to arrogantly laugh in people's faces.
If you want to be the resident hardware expert on this forum, you can't pull that kind of stuff. Chilly, Tom, Koolkitty, etc. never did that. They'd try their best to explain it to make sure they were understood, and as a result people were actually enlightened and learned things.
As I said at the beginning of this post, had you posted what you posted in this post all the way back when this started, this entire issue could have been avoided. It would have clued us all into exactly what you were talking about and we would have all been on the same page.
Please point to where I bullied you. I simply questioned the math of what you were saying, because you weren't being clear on what you meant. If you had been clear that you were talking about Polygon performance and not pixel fillrate of VDP1 to it's frame buffers we wouldn't have had this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
But whatever, we're on the same page now. Let's move on.
Man, I love this freakin topic so much. Wish I wasn't so chill drunk and stoned so I could read the entire of the lastest post...
You misread things on purpose and now you're coming up with a shitty excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
The context of the discussion was and is pretty clear but I'll cite it here again in case you haven't realized it yet: textured 3D (racing) games.
People like Chilly don't even post in these forums anymore because they can't stand this kind of nonsense anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
They will rather discuss at forums like spritesmind where people will be ripped off if they dare to conjecture bullshit like you did here without even read the basic documentation previously.
Robvy, TmEE, Chilly Willy, etc. You name it. Go check how much those guys used to post here years ago and how much they do it now. Most of them didn't leave the scene, they simply left this forum. And when they rarely come by they usually avoid "free for all" sections of the forum like this one.
The parts in red are completely false and/or technically absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
The green part is very similar to what is already used by Sega Rally, thus why the car is almost indistinguishable at some distance.
And you don't need to sweat over that, I'm just highlighting those parts so people who are honestly reading this discussion will not be misguided by your bs.
The rest of your crap I'll not address since it's just personal attacks and stuff you often use to start a flame war, which isn't really appealing to me.
i just remembered that i wrote some of the article that this thread is about...
I did not misread it on purpose. I read it exactly as you wrote it. You wrote fillrate. Fillrate is how fast you can write pixels to the frame buffer, aka the rate at which you can fill pixels into the frame buffer, hence fill rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
You clearly though meant polygon performance. You should have written this instead.
I did look into the basic documentation. However I was looking for the speed at which VDP1 can write pixels to it's frame buffer which is it's fill rate (what you said). I was not looking the rate at which it can calculate textured polygons (what you actually meant). I addressed the issue I saw in the math because what you were actually saying was that the system couldn't even fill it's own frame buffers. What you actually meant was that it's polygon performance was low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Don't get mad at me and accuse me of this kind of shit when you were in control of the situation and could have resolved it instantly by just saying "My bad, I meant this."
And you're not making the situation better. You're stirring the pot by basically biting the heads off anyone who's not an expert but asks questions and proposes ideas. News flash Barone, this forum isn't a technical forum. It's a forum for fans of Sega Consoles who sometimes try to discuss how said consoles compare to each other based on what we as owners and players observe. We don't claim to be experts, we don't claim to know everything. We do however like to speculate about what could have been for these systems that weren't supported very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Do console wars happen? Sure. It's inevitable when devoted fans of different systems clash. We each have our different opinions of what we thinks looks or sounds better, and we will all debate why we think one is better than the other. For the most part I'd say it's all in good fun even if we do all get a little heated at times. Technical info is great when it's posted. But it needs to have explanation and solid backing behind it for those who aren't technically minded can understand it. If you're not willing to go that extra mile when you post it, don't get mad when people start questioning it and misunderstanding it.
What parts are absurd or false and why? You want to have a discussion and actually prevent misconceptions from spreading, you need to explain your argument. Otherwise it's just a shit flinging contest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
- The cars in WDC look to be using minimal textures. ABF mentioned earlier they were flat shaded. Forgive me for taking his word on it since he knows more about the game than I do. If that's not what's going on then my bad. Unless of course you mean the multi-textured reflections which for the umpteenth time I'm well aware that effect is beyond the Saturn's abilities.
- The textures from what I'm seeing do look to be lower resolution than what I'm seeing in Daytona CCE and Sega Rally. Look at the buildings, rocks, walls, etc. in Sega Rally and Daytona versus WDC. There's a lot more vareity and they appear to be higher resolution with more detail from what I'm seeing in the videos and pictures posted here.
- The 2D Objects are fewer in WDC. I'm not the only one to mention this. Others have mentioned it too. Look at the sheer number of trees and spectators in Sega Rally, then look at WDC. They're practically missing.
- The tracks in WDC are designed to hide the draw distance. We have lots of curves, corners, etc. to prevent us from being able to see to far down the track. In cases where we don't have that, there's usually large objects like rocks, arches, tunnels, highway overpasses, etc. to again block what we can see so we don't see the pop up. Which if you still look carefully, you can see the pop-up happening in WDC.
- How is the VDP2 idea absurd? I didn't say it would be 1:1 identical. I'm saying it could be used to do something similar. At these low resolutions the reflections aren't that detailed. They just look shimmery.
- And how is the issue with the backgrounds absurd? It would reduce the rendering load on VDP1 because it's something it wouldn't need to render.
As for the LOD I mentioned, I'm not just talking about the cars. I'm talking about some of those large 3D objects in the distance on the track. Even the houses along the side of the track
in their distance they could be 2D sprites. As they get closer to the point where the illusion would break swap them out with 3D Models. In some of the shots you and others have posted there's quite a few of those houses even at a relatively close distance that could be passed off with sprites until the car actually passes them. And it's not like ROM size is a premium on the Saturn like it is on the N64. You have a full CD-Rom to play with. And since we've brought up Expansion Pak games in this thread, I see no reason why something like the RAM cart couldn't be used in this hypothetical late gen Saturn racer to make loading said sprites easier.
For an example of what I'm talking about look at Xenoblade on the Wii:
Pay attention to the trees, stone structures, even some of the scenery. The stuff further away will get bigger and then when it hits a certain point it does this odd kind of pop. That's the point where it get's swapped from being a 2D Sprite to a 3D Model. Something like that could be done in a racer for things like buildings, overpasses, arches, rock faces, etc. As the player got closer they could switch to 3D Models. They could also be used creatively in a way to hide the draw distance.
This is not how you resolve conflict. This is how you pour fuel on the fire. You want to stop bs from spreading? Well you need to not only post "that's wrong." you need to also explain it in a way so it's understood. Proper understanding comes from proper explanation. If you're not going to take the time to properly explain something, don't get mad when it's misunderstoodQuote:
Originally Posted by Barone
The point here is whether or not you want to admit it, you miscommunicated. You said one thing, but meant another. Every opportunity you had to correct the situation, you chose to throw away. You want to have technical discussions and enlighten people about these systems? Well part of that is being able to recognize when you've not been understood and and recognizing how it happened and how to fix it on your end. This whole tangent could have been avoided had you instead taken the time to figure out that what you said was being interpreted as something else, and then taken the time to properly correct it.
This part grinds my gears. It's not like i posted 1 billion screenshots for this, showing different kinds of buildings in the same stage even, yet you STILL ignore it somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Sega Rally has what, 4 stages? In all 4 stages how many parts have buildings? The ONLY part in the whole game that had enough buildings to even remotely be comparable with what WDC does frequently, is the part with the cathedral. And even that pales in comparison with the good parts in WDC. Every other building in SR is boxier than the boxiest building you see in WDC. Not to mention they all looked the same to me, in all levels. I was playing the game and wondering "Trekkies talks about THESE buildings? It can't be. There must be a hidden level or shortcut that i'm missing. He can't be that delusional".
And i wasn't even aware about the vacuum behind the buildings and other parts of the scenery in SR, before Barone showed it btw.
I mean there are pictures and videos. I spent so much time posting as many as i could, even trying to find some impressive scenes where it's more obvious, so you can see that. Again, the game has lots of levels and each one has like a ton of sight seeing. Even if these pics showed you the whole game, you would still sound crazy but i only showed you a small part. If you want to see it for yourself, find a copy or try to make it work on an emulator.
Keep in mind I'm not talking about the game on a whole, I'm talking about the building variety on individual tracks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
I'm not saying there's not points where there's a decent number of buildings along the side of the road. What I am saying though is that a lot of those buildings look to be the same model with the same textures. Some times you have a mix of 2-3 intermixed but there's still duplication going on. Sega Rally on the other hand, even though it's buildings are simpler, has a lot more variety in textures and style of the buildings on the side of the road. Look at the start of the first track in Sega Rally. Almost each and every building is unique and different from the one next to it.
I get Sega Rally's a smaller game, but at the same time WDC could be less obvious about that kind of reuse too. It could still have a wider pool of buildings to choose from on those tracks.
And you are still 100% wrong. You can see way more different kinds and shapes of buildings in just one track in WDC, than the whole SR game. The Hawai level, for instance, is like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Please, do the same and post some screen shots showing different shapes and kinds of buildings in SR, at any given moment. All i saw was boxes with different colorful low res textures. It's coloful yes. This has nothing to do with shapes and polygons used though.
Poor Trekkies, denial is really strong with him.
And he seems to enjoy lying like a lot.
Is WDC seriously being compared to Sega Rally? WDC is miles ahead graphically, as it should be being 4 years younger on more recent hardware. Same happens with PS1 games, no game of that era matches Ridge Racer Type 4. Both consoles are more powerful than the Saturn, that's just fact really.
But it should also be obvious to everyone here that the Saturn could do much better than Sega Rally. Sonic R anyone?
It has the "shine effect" on the title screen (not in game but it wouldn't make sense to have it on sonic characters), fog, proper lighting, the character models are more complex than cars, it needs to render the map in multiple directions instead of being "on rails" which excuses the poor draw distance, and it is 2 years older than WDC.
Travelers Tales could have made an amazing engine for proper racing games if they were tasked to do it.
how can you possibly flat-out say psx was more powerful than saturn? that's ridiculous
Every year starting from the launch date up to the end, it wrecked the Saturn graphically. Any tech spec analysis will show it to be quite a bit more powerful. Like there's literally no question.Quote:
Originally Posted by bultje112
I read somewhere (I can't remember now) that they were working on a Formula 1 game engine when Sega approached them and this resulted in Sonic R.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
It's a shame they didn't make a proper racing game for the Saturn later on, but they pretty much moved to the PS1 after that.
I'd much rather have had that F1 game then Sonic R. Sega just screwed up everything back then heh.
Yep, same here. I think TT was aiming at competing with Bizarre Creations' efforts on the PS1. That could have been epic.
lol go play any of the capcom fighters and come back and tell that again with your eyes dryQuote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Yes the 5th generation console with dedicated 2D hardware and a RAM expansion was better at 2D games then the console with only dedicated 3D hardware and no RAM expansion. Exactly 0 people are surprised by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bultje112
Turns out 3D racing games need 3D hardware though.
so how can you possibly say psx is more powerful than saturn when all saturn 2d game are miles ahead of the psx games and 3d-wise the difference is nothing imo. saturn was more powerful than psx in the right hands as was shown by am2 in the shenmue video that was put together in 6 months of development time in 97. name me one psx game or in fact any psx game that looks like that with that scope
Lol.
Say what you will. And like, "That's like, your opinion, man." But to me personally, all N64 games don't stand a chance graphically next to PS1 and Saturn games. The best way I can explain this simply is by saying PS1 & Saturn games are like brand new colourful shirts you buy. While N64 games are like those same shirts after several hundred wash cycles. It just looks wrong and aged very poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Having said that, I have no disrespect for N64 fans and N64 graphics lovers. Just like, my opinion, man.
http://yourseosucks.com/wp-content/u...y-the-dude.jpg