Fantasy tracks @ The Pits

The latest version of the fantasy tracks are available at The Pits. These are direct from Papyrus, and are not copies from other sites. BTW...before anyone asks the question again, yes, these are legal, I've contacted Papy and made sure that these can be posted on web sites. Enjoy! -- **do not reply to email address in header** ??Jan Kohl?? **The Pits Performance Team** Computer Systems Programmer USAF Air-Ground Operations School Hurlburt Field, FL Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >The latest version of the fantasy tracks are available at The Pits. > >These are direct from Papyrus, and are not copies from other > >sites. > >BTW...before anyone asks the question again, yes, these are legal, > >I've contacted Papy and made sure that these can be posted on > >web sites. > Thanks, downloading them now! Does anyone know what the difference is > between the latest ones and the earlier versions? > Joe

The earlier version didn't work on computers with 16MB of ram. After unpacking the dat file for the tracks i found that there were no *.mi4 files that are used when you have 16MB of ram or run the -4 switch. The newer version apparently has the *mi4 files because i can now run the tracks in rendition mode.

Quoted text (14 lines)

>% >The latest version of the fantasy tracks are available at The Pits. >% >These are direct from Papyrus, and are not copies from other >% >sites. >% >BTW...before anyone asks the question again, yes, these are legal, >% >I've contacted Papy and made sure that these can be posted on >% >web sites. >% Thanks, downloading them now! Does anyone know what the difference is >% between the latest ones and the earlier versions? >The frame rate is much improved! The pit.lp's have been updated and >some of the default setups. I seem to have a little harder time keeping >the rearend under me at Redrock.

There are 4-bit MIPs included which will allow N2 Rendition to run these tracks in 16Mb rather than 32Mb required by the earlier versions of the tracks. The .trk files have been altered to change the grip at corners and the passing .LPs have also changed. Regards Dave Noonan

> The latest version of the fantasy tracks are available at The Pits. > These are direct from Papyrus, and are not copies from other > sites. How can one check whilch version one got?? BTW, does any of u guys know what the " skids.tsd " file is for??? Dont think i've seen it with any other tracks before. I d/l mine from Alex's Pitshop and it also got a copy of the track-settings file called TRACKNAME.N2B (i.e. bullrun.n2b) It's a text file and looks simealar (sp?) to the *.txt file ?? Any ideas? -- Ed_ - Norway "Early on, the cars were getting faster and faster. And with good reason: everybody was cheating." - Richard Petty

Thanks, downloading them now! Does anyone know what the difference is between the latest ones and the earlier versions? Joe

% >The latest version of the fantasy tracks are available at The Pits. % >These are direct from Papyrus, and are not copies from other % >sites. % >BTW...before anyone asks the question again, yes, these are legal, % >I've contacted Papy and made sure that these can be posted on % >web sites. % Thanks, downloading them now! Does anyone know what the difference is % between the latest ones and the earlier versions? The frame rate is much improved! The pit.lp's have been updated and some of the default setups. I seem to have a little harder time keeping the rearend under me at Redrock. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

It's a backup file for the track, in case the original gets wiped. The N2B extension stands for Nascar2 Backup. DNR Enterprises Redick's NASCAR2 Site: http://members.aol.com/dredick825/index.html ===================================================== Home of the #1 BGN source on the 'Net...79 cars, race logos, and more Member of the No Piracy Network

Bzzzt... thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. You are correct that Seirra sells Rendition cards, but they are commited to supporting the major 3D accelerators (currently Rendition and 3Dfx) in future products. They even have one 3Dfx native product so far in ***gladiators (the Rendition cards use Direct3D to play). -- [link lost in import]

***gladiators? Never heard of it. When Sierra has ported their bread and butter games (driving and flight sims like Nascar and RB2) to 3DFX I'll be impressed. Until then it's just empty marketing-speak. Joe

>> I'm glad the future plans include 3dFX/D3D, but being blinkered by >> Rendition is, IMO, what scuppered a 3dFX NASCAR2. >How exactly were they blinkered? Because they got paid to port a game to >a 3D card? Come to think of it, I guess that really is getting >hoodwinked... I wonder how many sales Papy lost (and are continuing to lose) because they refused to support the 3Dfx? A good 3D port helps sell the software as well as the hardware. Just occasionally the upfront lucre shouldn't be the sole deciding factor ;-) Cheers, Richard

[snip]

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > >> and the reason that N2 wasn't developed on N2 > > >> had to be related to Sierra's involvement in that market. > > >OK, as a sentence, that makes no sense. > > Substitute "3dFX" for the second "N2". Sorry that the typo made this > > "impossible" to understand.... > In the future, shall I take the liberty to random substitute words into > someone else's sentences so as to make them mean what I want them to > mean? I'm here to talk about auto sims and related topics, not play > madlibs... Thus, rather than try to divine what you meant and reply, I > pointed out a sentence that wasn't parsable.

Geez! With a little good will a third grader would have figured out what he was talking about. l8er ronny

Quoted text (78 lines)

> > >Right, Rendition brings enough money to the table to make it worthwhile, > > >any sane game company will port their game to the card. > > So Papyrus will only support the K6 if AMD pay them to? > Um no... Processors are another ball of wax. The K6 is presumably > compatible with the market leading processor: Intel. Thus, Papyrus games > (and every other game) will "support" the K6 by the fact that the K6 is > just another CPU. And if it's not compatible with the Intel chips, AMD > has some business issues to contend with. (Just like Cyrix did with > their decidely less than 100% compatible chips...) > > I doubt that > > very much. Of course if a company offers money to make something that > > will help in making a decision, but Papyrus also need to look at their > > market and see where they could make money. 3dFX was one such > > opportunity. > It remains my belief that the cost to port to 3dFX would not have been > recovered in the ratios needed to justify the business decision to > allocate a talented graphics engineer to that project, when that same > engineer could be more profitably working on the next generation of the > Papyrus 3D engine. > > >> and the reason that N2 wasn't developed on N2 > > >> had to be related to Sierra's involvement in that market. > > >OK, as a sentence, that makes no sense. > > Substitute "3dFX" for the second "N2". Sorry that the typo made this > > "impossible" to understand.... > In the future, shall I take the liberty to random substitute words into > someone else's sentences so as to make them mean what I want them to > mean? I'm here to talk about auto sims and related topics, not play > madlibs... Thus, rather than try to divine what you meant and reply, I > pointed out a sentence that wasn't parsable. > > >How exactly were they blinkered? Because they got paid to port a game to > > >a 3D card? Come to think of it, I guess that really is getting > > >hoodwinked... > > "Because they got paid to port a game to a 3D card.....which precluded > > them (either contractually or in the belief that it was unnecessary) > > from porting it to the other, more succesful, 3D card. > I believe the only thing that precluded a port to 3dFX was available > time and manpower. I believe it to be a resource allocation issue rather > than a contractual prohibition. At the time, it was not at all clear > which card(s) were destined to be the "successes". > > Once Rendition > > was done and dusted there seemed either a belief that 3dFX wasn't > > necessary, or else Sierra wouldn't have been too happy that 3dFX > > support was being developed alongside Rendition. > At the same time as N2 development was going on, Sierra was developing > games with native 3dFX support. The happiness argument doesn't really > hold too much water there. > So, that leaves the decision that it wasn't profitable (or wasn't > possible) to do so. It certainly wasn't possible to do so in time for > Christmas release, given that the product almost didn't ship as it > was... > > Such dual support > > would, in however small a manner, have reduced Renditions chances at a > > time when they were still seen as a contendor. > Yes, I agree with you on that point. Nevertheless, I don't believe > Sierra directly makes any meaningful amount of money selling > Rendition-based video cards. I believe they chose to sell 3D cards to > seed the market and help the game-buying public installed base reach a > critical mass of 3D cards earlier, so at some point in the future, > Sierra development teams would be freed from having to write (or > continue to improve existing) software rasterizers. > ---Jim

I fully understand you viewpoint on this issue Jim, but I have a couple of questions. Does everyone at Sierra/Papy live in either the past or the future? Doesn't anyone there live in the present? Isn't Nascar2 currently the biggest selling Papyrus product? This is so but you sound as if it is dead to future development. With the Track pack and the NRO coming isn't it possible that N2 will be the biggest selling Papy product well into 1998? I will concede that SODA should knock it down a notch at release, but it doesn't have the market clout to stay ahead in sales for long(unless it is a much better game than N2). Just how many copies would Sierra have to sell to justify this patch anyway? A 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Whatever happened to doing what the customer wants just to keep him/her happy? Nascar2 will be king at Papy until N3 comes out and that won't be until late next year probably, I think that is enough time to do a port without throwing everything off schedule too far. I know that you can't just pull people off the street to do a port, but I remember someone at Papyrus one time saying that resources weren't a problem there. Now, with all that said, I don't think Papy should make a 3dfx port....they should make a D3D port. That way all of the new high performance cards will work as well. I know many of the 3dfx faithful won't like this but this is really in the best interest of everyone. I don't think the Voodoo's design makes it the ultimate choice for N2 but some of the newer cards look like they would be awesome. Dana Bailes

N2 isn't a native Win95 game, therefore a D3D port for it would be a significant time investment.

:>I'm glad the future plans include 3dFX/D3D, but being blinkered by :>Rendition is, IMO, what scuppered a 3dFX NASCAR2. :I'd have to agree with you John, although that wasn't exactly a bad :thing AT THE TIME consumer wise IMO. One could utter the same re the :forthcoming 3Dfx Rush (Glide) only support in Longbow 2.0. :(EA/Jane's/Intergraph deal) As for Sierra's 3Dfx support, how come SODA demo doesn't support 3Dfx, although it supports Verite? Now, Sierra did say previously that they will support 3Dfx in all of their forthcoming 3D accelerated games, so why not SODA? If Sierra claims that "3Dfx cannot do 2D graphics needed for the ***pit/dashboard", two things: a) SODA doesn't even have a 2D dashboard, but a 3D dashboard made of polygons, ie. perfect for 3Dfx Voodoo b) There are plenty of 3Dfx Voodoo games with fully working 2D***pits anyway, like SOTE, Ubisoft F1, Sorched Planet, X-Car, Flying Corps etc. Of course, it is possible the final game will have 3Dfx support, but if not, I'm really interested in hearing their excuse why exactly they are not going to support 3Dfx, despite their previous promises. The Nascar 2 excuses are not valid anymore.

R: I agree 100% with Dana. Nascar 2 if they stay the present course will be one of the most un-supported 3d accelerated games. If my memory serves me correctly Nascar 1 was one of the most widely ported games ever to specific video cards. I can understand Papy not wanting to get involved in that again so I can justify and live with a final D3D version. The only racing game they can come out with that has a snowballs chance to be as big as Nascar racing for them would a drag racing game. Which again the whole racing industry is blinded by this severe overlook. It seems were gonna get about 5 F1/Cart games soon. Q.B.M.

Quoted text (37 lines)

> -- > Philip M. D'Amato > \\\\\\\\\\\ > >>>>>>>>>>>=======Comanche Bowmen======Brooklyn=NY==USA=================> > /////////// > Current Indoor High Scores | Equipment > FITA 450: 398 shot 8/1/97 | Easton X7 2012; Sure-Loc Target Lite > FITA 600: TBA | Easton stabilizers; Cavalier & Terry > hardware > Check out the brand spankin' new CB Home Page created by Ken Stepien! > [link lost in import: /~kenarcher96/] > <snip previous stuff> > <snip again> > > Isn't Nascar2 currently the biggest selling Papyrus product? > I believe it's their most popular download as well, indicated a continuing > high level of interest in the product. > > Just how many copies would Sierra have to sell to justify this patch > anyway? > A 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? > This is a great question. Others are talking about costs to port to 3Dfx > as being an issue, yet I don't understand why this would be. You write to > documented API! How expensive could it really be? I'd love to hear from > someone that could speak on the level of complexity of the API.

Writing to a documented API is faster than reverse-engineering something, but you're still looking at one programmer for 6 months (1 learning, 3 dev, 2 QA), a few tester-months, and a part of a producer. That's assuming no artwork changes are required. Probably totals out to $150,000. Take the required profit multiple to justify the risk and increase tech support costs, and you need to sell about 30,000 EXTRA units. (units which would otherwise have NOT been sold). Suppose now that the textures need to powers of two width and height. (I can't recall for certain that this is a requirement of 3Dfx, but I thought it was.) Now, you're looking at very expensive artwork changes, which drives the breakeven point towards 100,000 units. An unrealistic goal, IMO. Plus, everyone that you have working on 3Dfx N2 is by definition not working on the future of your company. N2 is done. Accept and buy it for what it is, or don't. ---Jim PS: Everytime I take an unpopular stance, I get flamed by people who presume I still work for Papy. I don't. My opinions are my own, and they tend to be pro-Papy, but not because of any financial interest.

> Plus, everyone that you have working on 3Dfx N2 is by definition not > working on the future of your company. > N2 is done. Accept and buy it for what it is, or don't. > ---Jim R: Is this the leason they learned after porting Nascar 1 to at least a hlf dozen specialty boards? I mean it was done, but Papy still wanted to port it. The biggest pisser is that they were wasting their time porting to lame arse boards then. At least the voodoo is a legitmate (now Riva too) board to port to. Again Dana brought up a D3D version which makes sense (possible GL) that can cover many specialty cards. Much smnarter than papy's past experiments to cover several boards. Personally IMO Papy can be making a lot more $$$ off Nascar 2 if they did everything just right. Q.B.M.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Writing to a documented API is faster than reverse-engineering > something, but you're still looking at one programmer for 6 months (1 > learning, 3 dev, 2 QA), a few tester-months, and a part of a producer. > That's assuming no artwork changes are required. Probably totals out to > $150,000. Take the required profit multiple to justify the risk and > increase tech support costs, and you need to sell about 30,000 EXTRA > units. (units which would otherwise have NOT been sold).

Did it take six months to do the Diamond Edge port, the 3D Blaster VLB port, or the Matrox Millenium port? Maybe they should look into some kind of reusable coding system or take better notes or something. <g> They are not really breaking new ground on this subject here. Well if there are 500,000 3Dfx cards out there(guessing) and there main purpose is playing games I don't find it had to believe that 20% of the owners would buy N2. It is one of the hottest games going and most 3dfx owners wouldn't consider buying a 3d game that didn't support 3dfx in some way. Very realistic IMO. I guess if you still live in the past you don't have to learn anything that you can use in the future. Just when does Papyrus plan on learning to support the rest of the hardware industry, never? They seem to be the only ones out there who think that Rendition is the future of their company. I own it and it is my favorite game, I bought a Rendition card just for it but I don't think I should have to do that again. I am still pissed that there is no anti-aliasing support in N2(another discussion in itself). I think it is a poor business decision for Papyrus to abandon its hottest product the way it has. I wasn't flaming you, I thought we were having an intelligent discussion. Dana Bailes

Q.B.M. R: I would like to expand on this in one of several regards. (Jim we know you don't work for Papy anymore). I picked up X-Car Tuesday. I've been working on my setup ever since and I still don't have a good drivable car. In Nascar 2 I have over 40 hours messing with setups, game parameters (blaps, rels and skill settings) to have it where I want it. Out of the 20 or so players I race with only 3 or 4 of them would ever mess with car setups so that's 75% that wouldn't have liked the game if I didn't give them setups. That is a strong # IMO. What I know they don't mind is having a very very good setup to start with and maybe messing slightly with a parameter or two (usually gears) but they could just as easily live without that. Now trying to setup a car in X-Car which gives you many more parameters is a headache waiting to happen. I can't help but think to myself... "I have those Nascars setup just the way I wan't them. I have 15 or so tracks setup up, why don't I just stay with that instead of blowing another XXX number of hours trying to setup a car in X-Car?". It's very possible the cars can never handle properly in X-Car no matter what I do. The above is what a diehard racer will do. But I can bet the house the majority of the potential players just want to strap in and race, no garage whatsoever. But they want the model well above the typical arcade racing joke. I've mentioned this to Papy and Bethdesa in the past. They need car setups that are optimal out of the box that can be used in a so-called "special mode" (both have either an action mode or arcade mode but both fall short overall, Papy's is better tho). In this hypothetical "special mode" you can't see the settings that made it possible, so it doesn't ruin the experience for the guy that wants to setup his car from scratch. But this gives both *** users and just racers things they want. *** users want to know if the handling model is good if tweaked properly and the racers just want to click race and move on. This simply is missing overall on both companies parts. I've wrote Bethdesa today to give me an outstanding setup for any car for any track. They have 24 hours to do so or it goes back. I can't tell 100% if there handling model is good or my setups are off. But I don't want to spend hour after hour to find out that it's the model and be stuck with something I never raced. I didn't buy it for setting up cars, I bought it to race in a multiplayer enviroment. I'm sure a lot of would be buyers get the same feeling when picking up a Papy product as well, (even though N2 is much easier to hone in than X-Car). Many people just want to race nascars not build a car as well, those are typical non r.a.s. subscribers or the majority. So this can be the first letter in history to a company asking for a car setup to determine the fate of me owning a product. But what the hay? I can't tell if this game is good or not. (To Don Wilshe "I doubt it" :) Your working with a group on another sim with an ungodly number of parameters, please give us the perfect car that cannot be viewed for it's setup statistics so we can see if the cars are drivable if setup properly. You'll be running down the same street that X-Car is entering. I had a headache just reading your setup list!!) By the end of this week I'll be contacting Papy on another subject regarding market penetration. IMO they are missing out on a wonderful opportunity that I will enlighten them with. Nascar 2 can be IMO 10 times the seller that it already has been. Q.B.M.

> (To Don Wilshe "I doubt it" :) Your working with a group on another sim with > an ungodly number of parameters, please give us the perfect car that cannot be > viewed for it's setup statistics so we can see if the cars are drivable if > setup properly. You'll be running down the same street that X-Car is entering. > I had a headache just reading your setup list!!) The problem with this is that there is no "perfect" setup. The setup has to match the driver and their style. (Sure, there are setups that no one could drive quickly...) Papyrus aims to ship several stock setups that allow the car to be driven reasonably quickly or reasonably easily. Each driver really does need to make their own changes to suit their style of driving. A quick example: Most people who know nothing about the technical side of NASCAR try to drive too fast into the turns. The result is the car scrubs way too much speed and pushes up the track, possibly all the way to the wall. Since the car is pushing, they just dial in more steering until the finally get through the corner, but their exit speed is terrible. These people need a different setup to go quickly if they won't train themselves off of this tendency. So, giving them a setup that a <Pick your favorite fast N2 driver> uses won't help them one bit. Arcade mode in the Papyrus sim does have its flaws, but I think it adds a measure of "sit down and drive reasonably well in the first fif*** minutes you have the game." ---Jim

So your of the opinion that 3DFX is the end all be all of 3d accelerator cards... Some of you people really make me laugh!

Well I've been concentrating lately on the Flight Sim NG so I guess I messed your departure from the big P. Can I bother you for a quick recap of your leaving???(ie quit to pursue other interests., fired, downsized etc..) And you'd better not worry about making pro Papy statements, it's when you bring :"real world" number crunching into our happy playground, thats when we get mad...:) Dave Henrie Not Today! ThankYOU Pepsi Club. remove nospam. from email address

Quoted text (7 lines)

> [snip] >My point is the game (all for that matter) should come setup in these areas >ready to go and it doesn't, it takes mucho time and understanding. Personally >I do feel (trying not to sound modest) I have the best version of General >Public Nascar 2 in existence. And I that version could have one more final >brush up to make it even a tad better, but I'm happy now and the final brush >up will cost me probably 10-15 hours.

I agree with all your comments. Nascar2 has plenty of fans who like a realistic driving feel, but don't want to fiddle around with a million little options to get the best gameplay setup. Some of the problems you mentioned - how your car is relaitively too strong for the back half of the field, and too weak at the very front - are quite irritating, and I just don't have time to fix it all. Joe

> Well I've been concentrating lately on the Flight Sim NG so I guess > I messed your departure from the big P. Can I bother you for a quick > recap of your leaving???(ie quit to pursue other interests., fired, > downsized etc..) And you'd better not worry about making pro Papy > statements, it's when you bring :"real world" number crunching into > our happy playground, thats when we get mad...:) It's all in DejaNews, but of those three choices, it's certainly the "other interests" choice. Of course, now when I go visit the Papyrus folks and see GPL in progress, I feel twinges of "oh no, I should have stayed..." ---Jim

>Thought I'd jump in here. The reason we did not release NASCAR Racing >2 with 3DFX support was an issue of time and resources, not any bias >against 3DFX for Rendition. Utter nonsense. If this was true you wouldn't have had time for Rendition support either, would you? You had to choose one or the other (supposedly - as far as I can tell supporting 3dfx from a DOS app is NOT that much work) and you blew the call, it's as simple as that. Joe

Q.B.M. My point is the game (all for that matter) should come setup in these areas ready to go and it doesn't, it takes mucho time and understanding. Personally I do feel (trying not to sound modest) I have the best version of General Public Nascar 2 in existence. And that version could have one more final brush up to make it even a tad better, but I'm happy now and the final brush up will cost me probably 10-15 hours. R: There's still a large gaping hole between Arcade Daytona and Nascar 2. Both are the extremes even though Daytona is ridiculous extreme with no handling model to speak of and what is that track of anyway... Nascar 2 with some time can be made into one helluva peoples Nascar. One would think a large group would just like to get a Nascar game and just jump in and take off and have an awesome experience, then go back and do some personalized tweeking. The setups I do have seem to be very universal for all drivers. And the AI changes make the game much more balanced and realisitic to what you see the pro's goiing through. Which again brings you to the Nascar crossroad. Do you want a game that is difficult so only the Gordon's and Martin's of the computer world can be great? While the average Joe just isn't good enough to compete? This sounds limiting to me. ORRRRR..... A game where you can be transformed into the Gordon's or the Martin's of the computer world without having to be a special driver. This way the majority can enjoy it? Thus making the race the main focus. The best drivers still are gonna do the best, but average and poor drivers can at least enjoy the ***y game and sneak a win in every once in a while. You know which one I would choose, but both have their merits. Q.B.M.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Again, it's one of those issues of not enough time or resources. > >Would people have preferred 3DFX support over...say... the spotter > >audio? I didn't think so. > I would have! :) > Cheers! > John (a voice in the wilderness - 3dFX before spotters!)

Not even a close call. Give me 3dfx or give me death :-) Beers and cheers Goy

>Again, it's one of those issues of not enough time or resources. >Would people have preferred 3DFX support over...say... the spotter >audio? I didn't think so. I would have! :) Cheers! John (a voice in the wilderness - 3dFX before spotters!)

> A game where you can be transformed into the Gordon's or the Martin's of the > computer world without having to be a special driver. This way the majority > can enjoy it? Thus making the race the main focus. The best drivers still are > gonna do the best, but average and poor drivers can at least enjoy the ***y > game and sneak a win in every once in a while. It seems to me (though I'm admittedly biased) that arcade mode N2 achieves the above fairly well. Someone with experience in arcade N2 who knows what he's doing will beat someone who hasn't, but you can pick the game up pretty easily because the cars are so ridiculously sticky. Besides, would it be any fun if a good driver got beat by someone who couldn't find their way around the track with a map? In the interest of intelligent discussion: Where does arcade N2 fall short on the "people's NASCAR" metric? I'm curious, and I suspect Papyrus is as well. ---Jim

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Thought I'd jump in here. The reason we did not release NASCAR Racing > >2 with 3DFX support was an issue of time and resources, not any bias > >against 3DFX for Rendition. > Utter nonsense. If this was true you wouldn't have had time for > Rendition support either, would you? You had to choose one or the > other (supposedly - as far as I can tell supporting 3dfx from a DOS > app is NOT that much work) and you blew the call, it's as simple as > that.

Utter nonsense right back at you, Joe. Papyrus already had a Rendition graphics engine at the time N2 was being developed. (Rendition had paid Papy to make ICR2-Rendition and that technology was plopped into N2. The only work done was remove anti-aliasing so Papy could meet the SRL on the box [it had been dictated by marketing that the game would run in 16MB, anti-aliasing took too much memory for that, so it was dropped].) So, Rendition N2 took about one week for a one programmer, as the hard work was already done by another project. ---Jim

Dear Mr. 3DFX-Code Genius (Joe), When will you make a 3rd-party 3DFX add-on for N2?...You've had plenty of time to do so, and seem to feel that a 3D app is a walk in the park. So in all fairness, it's now up to you whether N2 gets 3DFX or not, thus allowing Papyrus to concentrate on more mundane tasks, such as helping others with a problem or two. 1) They do what they do best: code racing software. 2) You do what you do best: post nonsense. Me thinks you've been blowing something else...it's as simple as that. Marc

>Dear Mr. 3DFX-Code Genius (Joe), >When will you make a 3rd-party 3DFX add-on for N2? Dear Mr. Acting-Like-A-Newbie (SimRacing), A) That is the lamest possible argument, which is why it's normally only used by the freshest newbies. Can only film makers be film critics? Can only car makers review cars? I know you're not a newbie, so don't give me this lamo crap. B) I COULD and WOULD do it if I had the Nascar2 source code. I have programmed practically every kind of computer in existence, with every language from assembly code (for half a dozen different chipsets) to C++ and other languages, and I've done low-level graphics and other hardware programming. So, you get me the N2 source code, and I'll make you a 3DFX patch. Actually now that I think about it, I wonder why they haven't let a 3rd-party do this? You could charge say 5 bucks for the patch (i.e., downloaded from the net so there's no shipping charges) and probably sell at least 10,000 of them. Or why not let an N2 programmer do it on their weekends? The only answer I can think of is that Sierra is NOT yet as committed to 3DFX support as they claim, and are still trying to promote their own inferior card. Joe

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Utter nonsense right back at you, Joe. Papyrus already had a Rendition >graphics engine at the time N2 was being developed. (Rendition had paid >Papy to make ICR2-Rendition and that technology was plopped into N2. The >only work done was remove anti-aliasing so Papy could meet the SRL on >the box [it had been dictated by marketing that the game would run in >16MB, anti-aliasing took too much memory for that, so it was dropped].) >So, Rendition N2 took about one week for a one programmer, as the hard >work was already done by another project.

Jim, Please tell me I'm not reading here what I think I am: anti-aliasing had to be *actively removed* from the N2 Rendition port to meet the machine requirements specs? It was *otherwise ready to go* but was axed? You couldn't have put in a switch, or made it self-switching? Printed "24 meg required for anti-aliasing support" on the side of the box? Man, this is *SAD* if that's truly the case... From a guy who bought a new 32 meg, Rendition-based, P133 PC last fall (admittedly for ICR-3D, not N2-3D, but N2-3D without anti-aliasing was a big disappointment). :( Before you send me UCE, I know what you're thinking... Did he complain to five or six postmasters last month? Now, you must ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?

>>So your of the opinion that 3DFX is the end all be all of 3d accelerator >>cards... Some of you people really make me laugh! [snip] >Some people insist on reading into a message what they want to respond >to. No-one said the 3dFX is the end all be all (actually "be all and >end all") of 3D cards, but can you show me one on the market just now >with better features, better market penetration and better support? There are a lot of "Voodoo Zealots" out there who do consider the 3dfx chipset to be the next Intel of 3d cards. The question we should ask ourselves is - do we want another Intel? Competition benefits the consumer, at least the thinking consumer. 3dfx make a good chipset, and have make good business decisions in who they have targeted in both the consumer and the games manufacturing industry. My only doubt is their timing. The majority of consumers know nothing about 3d acceleration ... it's only now as games start to require acceleration that more people begin to take notice. By the time demand really grows, V2200 and Riva128 will be available - and faster than the current generation Voodoo. IMO 3dfx should be getting a new card on the market ASAP if they want to maintain their position in the market over the next 6 months. I have a V1000 BTW - ICR2 is responsible for that. Jet Jet (remove *HATES_SPAM* from my address to email me)

They are. It's called the Voodoo2... -- http://ebusch.akorn.net Jason Harrison wrote in article

I'm not acting, I am a newbie. ;) Critic you're not, spiteful you are. It's OK to complain about one thing or another, it's an entirely different issue when you reach out and are down-right mean (and without foundation). True, my own post to you was sarcastic in form, albiet less any duragatory comments. I guess you still don't get the point. If you have the experience you claim to have, reverse engineering the N2 code should be a walk in the park. Why do I sense you actually know less about the internal stucture of various coding, than you do about relating with your fellow man? ;) I agree with the 3rd party aspect. Altough I personally wouldn't charge for anything for the games, the time may be upon us that we'll see more of a "if you like the program, please send a couple of bucks so I can do the next...", we'll see. I can't comment on what Sierra's involment (or how commited they are) to the 3dfx tech, as I don't have the answers. I think GPL is designed as 3dfx/d3d, and that SODA will get a 3dfx patch, but until that happens we can only speculate. As for "their inferior card", true 3dfx is miles above the older R- chipset, but they probably have either quite a bit of backstock, or some sort of license agreement with Rendition to buy X-amount of units...Probably the later, but I don't really know - just food for thought. Cheers! Marc

>If you have the experience you claim to have, reverse engineering >the N2 code should be a walk in the park. You are apparently ignorant of software development ("ignorant" is not an insult BTW - look it up in the dictionary). Reverse engineering a large program like N2 - even if it was legal, which it's not - is a multi person-year project in itself. Why do I sense that if you had anything to offer but mindless insults, people might not be so aware that you are a newbie? Not likely. The shareware market has always been a very poor way to fund software development. No matter how good the software is only a tiny percentage of users register and pay. It's not generally worth trying to do business that way, so it will remain the fringe market it's always been. Joe

>Thought I'd jump in here. The reason we did not release NASCAR Racing >2 with 3DFX support was an issue of time and resources, not any bias >against 3DFX for Rendition. Heck, if we weren't able to use much of >the same Rendition code from IndyCar 2, we probably wouldn't have had >Rendition support in either. So if 3dFX had come to you and paid you to develop a showcase "ICR2-3dFX" as Rendition did we may well have N2 with Voodoo support now? Hey, we're harrassing the wrong people! Let's head for the 3dFX groups :) Makes perfect sense. As I recall N2 had enough problems without additional hassles of 3dFX support. So back to the program of looking forward to GPL (drool) - thanks for taking the time to set things straight. Cheers! John PS - "GPL (drool)" is now the official name of Grand Prix Legends (for me at least) :)

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>Some people insist on reading into a message what they want to respond >>to. No-one said the 3dFX is the end all be all (actually "be all and >>end all") of 3D cards, but can you show me one on the market just now >>with better features, better market penetration and better support? >There are a lot of "Voodoo Zealots" out there who do consider >the 3dfx chipset to be the next Intel of 3d cards. The question we >should ask ourselves is - do we want another Intel?

Where on earth do you get the idea that 3dFX are "another Intel"?! In any case, what is wrong with having one company who drives on the technical standard, forcing others to equal them on features and then challenge them on price. Ask yourself where we would be WITHOUT Intel before knocking them. You'd probably still have an AMD 486-800Mhz since AMD would have no reason to develop anything to challenge the Pentium. Yes, but there's precious few of those. Competition benefits EVERYONE, not just the "thinking consumer". Some will think, some will follow the herd or the hype - either way they get a better product. 3dFX is undoubtedly the best _now_ as interest is accelerating - all the magazines are full of it and games are appearing with dedicated 3dFX support. It's also extremely cheap and 3dFX have already made their money. Anyone else arriving on the scene has to compete with that price level and the established product. Added to that the fact that the new cards are little faster if at all - I reckon 3dFX have it pretty much right. They have a new card in the works, but why hype it now and spoil sales of current products? As soon as a serious threat comes along they can hype their new card to the hilt to slow sales of the newcomer, but not before - simple classic marketing. I have both - ICR2 is also responsible for that! Cheers! John

>In any case, what is wrong with having one company who drives on the >technical standard, forcing others to equal them on features and then >challenge them on price. You raise a good point. Why is there so much software that runs on Intel? Because their near-monopoly has created a single standard (for better or worse) with a huge number of Intel CPU users for PC developers to write to. Think how many 3d-hardware games there would be if there was a similar standard for 3d hardware. (Mind you this wouldn't be needed id D3D wasn't so lame.) Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >When will you make a 3rd-party 3DFX add-on for N2? > B) I COULD and WOULD do it if I had the Nascar2 source code. I have > programmed practically every kind of computer in existence, with every > language from assembly code (for half a dozen different chipsets) to > C++ and other languages, and I've done low-level graphics and other > hardware programming. So, you get me the N2 source code, and I'll make > you a 3DFX patch. > Actually now that I think about it, I wonder why they haven't let a > 3rd-party do this?

You seem like a semi-intelligent person. You claim skills in software development. But then I wonder how a semi-intelligent person skilled in software development could "think about it" and then still "wonder why [Papyrus has]n't let a 3rd-party [port N2 to 3Dfx]" Clearly, porting N2 to 3Dfx in any potentially profitably scenario requires the source code for N2. Thus, allowing a 3rd-party to do this would require releasing the source code (akin to the Papyrus family jewels) to a 3rd-party... Does that help stop the wondering? ---Jim

>Clearly, porting N2 to 3Dfx in any potentially profitably scenario >requires the source code for N2. Thus, allowing a 3rd-party to do this >would require releasing the source code (akin to the Papyrus family >jewels) to a 3rd-party... >Does that help stop the wondering? Nope. Stringent non-disclosure and licensing requirements can resolve such issues. It's done in the software industry all the time, especially in situtations like this where the functionality can be implemented by a one-person team. Furthermore, anyone who really knows anything about the software industry knows that the "family jewels" are NOT a specific software product, no matter how successful, since all such products have a limited 1-2 year life span. The "family jewels" of a software company are the people who know how to create such products, not the short-lived products themselves. Every software development company that is successful over the long term knows this. Joe Joe

>Furthermore, anyone who really knows anything about the software >industry knows that the "family jewels" are NOT a specific software >product, no matter how successful, since all such products have a >limited 1-2 year life span. Indycar1 = NASCAR1 = INDYCAR2 = NASCAR2 How many products came from that engine? Sure seems like the family jewels to me. The people are important undoubtedly, but no reason to give away the eggs while*** onto that Golden Goose. Cheers! John

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > >When will you make a 3rd-party 3DFX add-on for N2? > > B) I COULD and WOULD do it if I had the Nascar2 source code. > You seem like a semi-intelligent person. You claim skills in software > development. > But then I wonder how a semi-intelligent person skilled in software > development could "think about it" and then still "wonder why [Papyrus > has]n't let a 3rd-party [port N2 to 3Dfx]" > Clearly, porting N2 to 3Dfx in any potentially profitably scenario > requires the source code for N2. Thus, allowing a 3rd-party to do this > would require releasing the source code (akin to the Papyrus family > jewels) to a 3rd-party... > Does that help stop the wondering?

Seems to me there are currently 2 types of companies in the *** industry: Type 1: The old-fashioned kind. Everything is secret. Games are business only. Better wear a tie&suit. Before you make a game you do market research. Programmers work 9-5. Company is run by MBAs that couldn't care less for the actual product (i.e. computer games). Only care about profit margins to please stockholders. Most known in this category: Sierra & EA. Type 2: New kind of company. Run by enthusiasts. Don't mind trying completely new strategies. Most well known revolutionary strategy: Release a game as shareware. Don't mind releasing source code (John Carmack has said the Doom code is going public domain before christmas). Programmers are allowed to talk publically about coding/ artwork (check out .plans for ID guys sometime). Most known company: ID. Also, Raven, IonStorm. Type 2 would make a 3dfx/D3D patch just becuase they'd like to see what it looks like and because it's 'cool'. Type 1 wouldn't make a patch since the programmers can't seem to explain what a 3dfx board is to the MBA running the company. I hope the Type 2 companies prove successfull and run type 1 out of business... :) -- Markus

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >Clearly, porting N2 to 3Dfx in any potentially profitably scenario > >requires the source code for N2. Thus, allowing a 3rd-party to do this > >would require releasing the source code (akin to the Papyrus family > >jewels) to a 3rd-party... > >Does that help stop the wondering? > Nope. Stringent non-disclosure and licensing requirements can resolve > such issues. It's done in the software industry all the time, > especially in situtations like this where the functionality can be > implemented by a one-person team.

That's true, but the potential payoff has to exceed the payout and risk the company assumes in executing an NDA. Papyrus has looked hard at N2-3Dfx and couldn't justify doing it in-house. I suspect, but cannot be sure, that they also looked hard at contracting it out. Much of the physics code (the closest code-equivalent to the family jewels) in N2 traces its lineage directly to Indy 500:The Simulation. The basic structure of the track representation comes from the same era. The software perspective correct texture mapper comes from ICR1. The AI comes from N1. (A 1996 game using plenty of important code from a products more than 1-2 years old, in a lot of case from 1989.) Here, you are completely correct. That doesn't mean that enforcing tight security over the code isn't a good idea. ---Jim

> IMO 3dfx should be getting a new card on the market ASAP >if they want to maintain their position in the market over the next >6 months. And how do you know that they are not ?? I would guess that thats _exactly_ what they're doin right now ;-) Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address before replying

>Personally IMO Papy can be making a lot more $$$ off Nascar 2 if they did >everything just right. I somehow doubt that statement. How many 3DFX owners have refused to purchase N2 because Papyrus wouldn't code native support for it? As Jim mentioned, to make it payoff, they would have to sell an additional 30K units. Instead, it makes much more sense to put that resource on finishing up GPL or N3 (SODA is being written by an outside resource, not Papyrus engineers), rather than rehashing an existing product that won't significantly increase your bottom line. BTW, where's my N2 network-play FAQ? ;) Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

>Clearly, porting N2 to 3Dfx in any potentially profitably scenario >requires the source code for N2. Thus, allowing a 3rd-party to do this >would require releasing the source code (akin to the Papyrus family >jewels) to a 3rd-party... Can someone humor me as a strictly software "end user"? I'm a hardware geek, not at all knowledgable about programming. Can you briefly explain the difference between the "final" code and the source code? Is it the C+++ (whatever) instructions before being compiled? There is no way to do something like reverse engineer a final program to garner something close to the source code, or at least understandable by a good programmer? Thanks! --

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Clearly, porting N2 to 3Dfx in any potentially profitably scenario > >requires the source code for N2. Thus, allowing a 3rd-party to do this > >would require releasing the source code (akin to the Papyrus family > >jewels) to a 3rd-party... > Can someone humor me as a strictly software "end user"? > I'm a hardware geek, not at all knowledgable about programming. > Can you briefly explain the difference between the "final" code and > the source code?

The source code is the (relatively :-) ) human-readable version of the code, be it C, C++, assembly, Makefiles, etc. Yes. Ignoring the terms of the license that make reverse-engineering a prohibited action, it's an essentially unsolvable technical problem. Sure, it's trivial to de-compile to assembly language, but you've lost all (sensible) variable and function names, and the assembly language output by modern optimizing compilers is often sufficiently obscure to prevent all but the simplest of hacking. (So, a knowledgeable individual might be able to circumvent the 22-gallon restricition, or make their car invincible, etc, but won't be able to add anti-aliasing or other sufficiently complex modification within the lifespan of the game. (Eventually, all things are theoretically possible, but...)) ---Jim

>Can someone humor me as a strictly software "end user"? >I'm a hardware geek, not at all knowledgable about programming. >Can you briefly explain the difference between the "final" code and >the source code? >Is it the C+++ (whatever) instructions before being compiled? Yes, that's correct. It includes both the actual language instructions, and the equally important comments from the programmers. Good programmers leave a trail of comments behind explaining the behavior of the code they have written. There are two problems. First off, most optimized code doesn't reverse-engineer well back to a high level language. It's fairly easy to reverse-engineer back to assembly language, which is like programming directly on the hardware, as opposed to a high level language like C++. Second, all the wonderful source comments left behind by the good programmer were stripped out by the compiler. Any program of the complexity of something like N2 is going to take a long time to understand without some information about what the code is supposed to be doing. So the answer is, yes, someone could reverse-engineer it, but by the time they got done with it, NASCAR 4 would be out. ;) Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

[snip] >>the 3dfx chipset to be the next Intel of 3d cards. The question we >>should ask ourselves is - do we want another Intel? >Where on earth do you get the idea that 3dFX are "another Intel"?! Intel brought standards into the industry by being the best solution at the time desktop PCs were becoming popular. Intel's x86 instruction set and architecture is about 20 years old, and is appropriately poor in comparison to new technology. However, setting the scene early and marketing made them into an unavoidable standard. 3dfx is similar...Early popularity, heavy use of a propriety API (compared to instruction set) and hardware design that is unlikely to change much in the next 2-3 years (faster yes - change no). This limits competition from other cards that may be as fast or faster, but cannot run Glide games. Nothing - as long as the competition is OPEN. 3dfx pushes Glide pretty hard. Hardware vendors should produce hardware which conforms to APIs. Developing propriety APIs limits competition. 3dfx is not the only company guilty of this - Rendition, NEC...you name it...but it's not good for the consumer in the long run. Or I might have an R10000 or 68xxx with 50 times the performance of the Pentium. Intel are limiting IT with their damn compatibility issues. They are certainly not helping technology. Look at the PowerPC - I wouldn't touch one because of the level of software support, but it performs far better than Pentium. A consumer can't buy the best hardware because of the standards which Intel has forced on the industry. 3dfx is best for 4 weeks. But it will continue to get dedicated support and other faster cards will miss out. That sucks. Please don't misread what I'm saying. I've been very impressed by the voodoo games I've played and think the card is cool. I'd buy one if it there wasn't so much movement in the 3d card industry in the next couple of months. My point is that we don't want a hardware manufacturer dictating software standards. This is what is happening. <very massive grin at 240 miles per hour> Jet Jet (remove *HATES_SPAM* from my address to email me)

JET: R: I don't think there is any argument with your philosophy, I'm sure most users would love a good common api. The problem has been that the native languages simply allow better results, easier. So what that means to me is we need better common api's. That is most likely happening. My guess is the common api will win out, it's just been a bit bumpy out of the gates but that will change in due time. I don';t see 3dfx becoming that much of a standard where is cripples all other competition. Q.B.M.

> >Seems to me there are currently 2 types of companies in the *** > >industry: > Markus, this isn't meant as an insult, but do I take it that you are > quite young (that's under 30 to me <g>)? 26, though I like to consider myself to be about 12. :) I didn't mean old-fashioned GAME company. I meant that old fashioned companies, previously involved in industry, making toasters, TV-sets, frying pans etc, now want to control the *** industry. They bring with them the pin-stripe suit mentality into a business that was free from that kind of BS for along time. But you can't write games like you design a frying pan. Atleast I hope not. My point exactly. The 'new kind' of *** company does 3dfx just because it's neat and fun. The old fashioned company that just recently bought themselves into the *** industry will never touch 3dfx until Billy G tells them it's kosher. I agree with you that what I called the 'new kind' also is the 'original kind' of *** comapany. I'm old enough to remember early-80s games. Lots of innovation and new ideas. So to summarize: GET RID OF THE SUITS! :) -- Markus

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Personally IMO Papy can be making a lot more $$$ off Nascar 2 if they did > >everything just right. > I somehow doubt that statement. How many 3DFX owners have refused to > purchase N2 because Papyrus wouldn't code native support for it? As Jim > mentioned, to make it payoff, they would have to sell an additional 30K > units.

I am one of those 3dfx card owners who won't buy N2 until it supports 3dfx. I have looked at picking N2 up several times and decided to spend the game budget on other titles which do support 3dfx. This week N2 lost to Jetfighter III for my money. When they publish 3dfx, I'll buy it!

>Intel brought standards into the industry by being....<snip> Yes, Intel and 3dFX are both traded on NASDAQ, they both are run by people and both have lunchroom facilities - you can draw any number of parallels. What was being discussed in this case was a somewhat "predatory" approach, and that was what I was taking issue with. This is an entirely separate issue. But, if you insist.... :) Intel have become an "unacceptable standard 20 years later (and arguably not at all). During the early part of their romance with the PC market Intel made perfect sense - a standard people could follow. THAT was the time for competitors, and where were AMD and Cyrix during the 1970s amd early 80's? Intel _made_ the market along with Microsoft and others, and AMD, Cyrix et al are the ones arriving late to the best party in town and wanting to grab some of the food. Why is Intel suddenly the bad guy? They made the investments, they took the risks and they made the market that some are saying they are not entitled to. They took big risks by dropping other products to become purely CMOS, concentrating on MOS logic. They are dropping _billions_ of dollars to invest in new fabs, constantly updating existing fabs, developing industry philosophies like the "copy exactly" policy and have some extremely good conditions for their employees - they're really not a bad company at all. Now they are still leading the way and setting the standards amid constantly changing flux of the semiconductor market. No, I'm not an Intel employee or fan, I work with them and AMD and Cyrix. I am better positioned than most to see what these companies are doing, why they are doing it and the effort it takes them to get there - Intel take a lot of flak that is unjustified. Glide is only one aspect of 3dFX, with support also for D3d and some aspects of OpenGL. _IF_ other cards gain sufficient market penetration people will code in Direct3D to access the whole market. If the other cards are not popular then Glide will maintain it's position. That's the game, and so far NEC and Rendition are going the way of AMD and Cyrix because like them they are _currently_ technologically inferior and, more importantly, failed in marketing correctly. That's the game, and they lost. Why? Jason, you're saying this like it should be fair. Business is not a conpetition where "the best man wins" and give people a sporting chance, it is WAR. Your company and your employees rely on you _killing_ the opposition off (at least in so far as you don't kill of the market in the process). If you can convince software companies to write to your proprietary standard by having high market share then all the better. Don't knock 3dFX for that, knock the software companies for following or their competitors for failing - most people attack success though. No, but it's good for the _company_. Don't knock them for it, they're only doing what they need to and what WE are supporting. We put them in the position to do it after all. Intel hasn't FORCED anything on anyone. They offered, we bought, they offered more, we bought more. They made tie-ups with Microsoft and chose winners, PowerPC took the wrong roads and died. So did Betamax, so did many other arguably "better" products. What use is a good product that you can't use. 3dFX has been best for one year now, well over four weeks, and in that time there is STILL nothing to beat it. Where are these "faster systems"? Vapourware? Hype? You can't run Quake on hype. When a faster and better card arrives people WILL buy it. It just isn't there yet. Same with AMD - when they make an MPU that outperforms the equivalent Intel part in ALL areas then people will buy it - why shouldn't they? Simply put AMD have _so_far_ failed in doing that and are reduced to price fighting. Cheers! John

Well , I guess you won't own it ...will you! If you can find it in your budget to buy a dedicated 3d accelerator for your games, you got the money for a rendition card! Have both....you'll be happy that you did!

>Well , I guess you won't own it ...will you! If you can find it in your >budget to buy a dedicated 3d accelerator for your games, you got the money >for a rendition card! Have both....you'll be happy that you did! Given that N2 doesn't support texture filtering even on Rendition, I doubt very much that someone used to 3dfx games would be happy with it. Joe

> Given that N2 doesn't support texture filtering even on Rendition, I > doubt very much that someone used to 3dfx games would be happy with > it. Rendition N2 does support bi-linear (texture) filtering. ---Jim

(Lots of good stuff snipped...) While I agree that Intel took the chances and gained the rewards, I think one of the reasons they are hated is this... By the time the garbageman takes the box for the new top of the line Pentium PC you just bought, a faster Pentium has been released. 60/75/100/120/133/150/166/200/Pro/P2... Now throw in FX/HX/VX/TX/DMA/USB/DIMM/AGP... How about WTF?! ;> Its frigging overwhelming. I know that technology moves fast, but even as a *** gamer, I'm starting to really think it over before I consider an upgrade. You're just throwing money away. I just read that the processor that is now know as Merced may ship as soon as the second quarter of 98. Bye-bye Pentium 2. The fact that Cyrix and AMD will at least try to extend the life of existing Socket 7 boards (that still have a lot of potential) is comforting. A classic case of rooting for the underdog. Sorry for the rant... I feel much better now. :) --

>> Given that N2 doesn't support texture filtering even on Rendition, I >> doubt very much that someone used to 3dfx games would be happy with >> it. >Rendition N2 does support bi-linear (texture) filtering. Ok, thanks - there's been a lot of confusion about this point over on the 3dfx boards. Joe

And AMD didn't take the 486 to extreme levels, introduce various flavours of K5 and K6? How about Cyrix, confusin things with "166+" and the like that weren't really 166! Intel are far from alone in the TLA business - everyone is trying to confuse us. You believe that? AMD VP calls Cyrix VP and says "Shoot, there's Intel gone and dropped those poor gamers in it again, stopping Socket-7. Why don't we get together and support that to help them out?" More like "Ohhhhhhh shiiiiiiiiiiit! Intel are moving the marketplace toward a new product, one which we have neither the technology nor the finances with which to compete. Let's continue our support of Socket 7 (what choice do we have) and belittle Intel's new move in the hope that customers will stay with us". If AMD and Cyrix were in any position to compete with "Slot" they would - like a bullet. Fact is they were outmanouevred, and are now making the most of what they have. That's not to say Intel will win this round - IBM tried that on with MCA and it crippled them. Maybe Intel have bitten off more than we will chew, who knows. Yep, hardware changes will do that to you! It's like painting a bridge - by the time you finished upgrading you've got to start again :( Cheers! John

Since Papyrus doesn't plan on updating N2 with 3Dfx, you'll have to wait for the next product (assuming they include the support). For now, you're missing-out on some great fun!! =) Cheers! Marc

Every person is entitled to their own opinion, however it may be.. In Win95 or DOS? What kind of sound card do you have? Did you try downloading the patch again? Ever think you may have gotten a corrupted file? Uh.. OK.. Way behind *what*? Only if you're using the KB to drive with.. I've never had any problems with control.. What's your CPU speed? Ben -={ To get my real email address, remove the NOSPAM }=- SPAMMERS!!! Read this!!! I want you to send me spam! Then I'll send you a legal notice.. Have a nice day!

1. sound doesnt work (I'm not a idiot, I tried everything) 2. patch would not install (bugs in the patch's install) 3. Grafix are way behind 4. control stinks unless you have wheel. I took the game back...If the sound had worked I would have lived with it and probably had some fun, but im not going to #$## around with a game for 4 hours to get the sound to work.

don't play it sounds like you are, most of the people can get it to work except you works fine for everyone but you I don't see you come up with any new ideas or games I can run fastlap with keyboard. It just that you can't do it.

> 1. sound doesnt work (I'm not a idiot, I tried everything) Hmm, sound seems to work for just about everyone else I know. I won't comment on you being an idiot, but you have demonstrably not tried *everything* or your sound would be working. QED. Can't comment here, other than to say I didn't have any problems. Then again, I might have accidentally read the README or something... Behind some arcade tunnel racers, yes. Behind other consumer racing simulations, no. No, it probably stinks because you don't have sound to tell you when the car is nearing the limit of the tires. (Or you could be driving with the keyboard, or with steering "help" turned on, both of which suck.) ---Jim

An opinion not shared by me. Works fine on my system, as well as most others AFAIK. I would wager you haven't tried everything, as if you had, there's a chance it would be working. What kind of card do you have, and what system OS do you run under? If directions are followed properly, the patches install fine. Behind what? I'll admit they're not state of the art, but I think they are nicer than most games, and are several steps above its predesessor. I can do equally well with a wheel or joystick (perhaps because of flight sim experience)...I even know those who do (OK) with a control-pad (sheesh!)...and some of the hotlap records are set by those using joysticks. Perhaps there's a problem with your driving style rather than the game itself? However, all above is a mute point, as you've already returned the sim, and have no way of checking any of this out. Cheers! Marc

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> >Personally IMO Papy can be making a lot more $$$ off Nascar 2 if they did >> >everything just right. >> I somehow doubt that statement. How many 3DFX owners have refused to >> purchase N2 because Papyrus wouldn't code native support for it? As Jim >> mentioned, to make it payoff, they would have to sell an additional 30K >> units. >I am one of those 3dfx card owners who won't buy N2 until it supports 3dfx. >I >have looked at picking N2 up several times and decided to spend the game >budget on other titles which do support 3dfx. This week N2 lost to >Jetfighter >III for my money. When they publish 3dfx, I'll buy it!

OK, that's one. Are there 29,999 others out there? Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

Quoted text (7 lines)

>While I agree that Intel took the chances and gained the rewards, >I think one of the reasons they are hated is this... >By the time the garbageman takes the box for the new top of the line >Pentium PC you just bought, a faster Pentium has been released. >60/75/100/120/133/150/166/200/Pro/P2... >Now throw in FX/HX/VX/TX/DMA/USB/DIMM/AGP... How about WTF?! ;> >Its frigging overwhelming.

So you're saying you would prefer that the industry just stick with a 4.77 MHz 8088 for the next 20 years? Technology advances and companies try to capitalize on it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Stick with your 486 and Indycar. Personally, I like the advances in technology. I'll take my P166 over my old 8088 anyday. And when the prices drop a bit, I'll be upgrading to a P2-266 and more than likely a V2200 Rendition card. Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

>Given that N2 doesn't support texture filtering even on Rendition, I >doubt very much that someone used to 3dfx games would be happy with >it. That's incorrect, N2 *does* support bilinear filtering on Rendition. It doesn't support anti-aliasing or smoke/haze effects. Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi Late Night Series: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

>>By the time the garbageman takes the box for the new top of the line >>Pentium PC you just bought, a faster Pentium has been released. >So you're saying you would prefer that the industry just stick with a 4.77 >MHz 8088 for the next 20 years? Technology advances and companies try to >capitalize on it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Stick with your 486 >and Indycar. No David. I didn't say that. Why so confrontational? I didn't say I stayed with old technology. My 8088 is an 8mhz turbo, smart-ass. :) The question was asked why Intel was hated. To someone new to PC's, and even someone who has been around a while (I've been into computers since Atari 400/800 days), the upgrade path is staggering. By the time you buy your P2 266, Merced may be done, and the next successor will be halfway through development. It creates bitterness. That's it. BTW, Intel is slating there next price drop for November. Hopefully LX/AGP will be out by then. That's when I plan to upgrade to a P2... --

LX/AGP is out already dirtboy!!!!!!!! --=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ Doug Maer "Somebody's gonna wreck, let it be the other guy!" See ya in the pits!!!!

Really? I know some of the tech sites had tested some, but I didn't think you could buy them yet. I just read the other day that 3DFX hasn't commited to AGP. Has that changed? Honestly, I haven't been checking since I'm not in the market yet. What's the word? Initial reports said there was no speed increase. I was more concerned with the shared texture memory. --

You need to read the issue of PCmag with the 300mhz reviews Sept. 23. Actually it says(not w/AGP)if your hardware isn't up to specs a 300mhz Pentium will lose performance....due to the fact that the processor has to wait for the hardware to catch up. In other words INTEL has surpassed the hardware manufacturers. Of course machines with SCSI controllers and top notch super fast graphics cards would have no problems. Super fast graphics--by this I'm talking of the 3000 to 4000 dollar = range! Before I get flamed you guys need to read the article. Happy money spending!!!!!!!=20 --=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ Doug Maer N2 RULES!!!! "Somebody's gonna wreck, let it be the other guy!" See ya in the pits!!!!

> > >Personally IMO Papy can be making a lot more $$$ off Nascar 2 if they did

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >everything just right. > > I somehow doubt that statement. How many 3DFX owners have refused to > > purchase N2 because Papyrus wouldn't code native support for it? As Jim > > mentioned, to make it payoff, they would have to sell an additional 30K > > units. > I am one of those 3dfx card owners who won't buy N2 until it supports

3dfx. I > have looked at picking N2 up several times and decided to spend the game > budget on other titles which do support 3dfx. This week N2 lost to Jetfighter > III for my money. When they publish 3dfx, I'll buy it! I would be one of those people but unfortunately I got N2 before I knew about 3DFX. Have you got Carmageddon. I hear it has excellent physics even though it doesn't emphasize serious racing (it emphasizes fun, what a concept). I spend most of my time on the 3DFX newserver and many people would like to see N2 3DFX but does anyone know how Nascar98 from EA will be. Is it going to be serious or more on the arcade side. If they can make it a good sim they'll make out like thieves (with Papyrus/Sierra being on the losing end) because nearly every owner of a 3DFX card will only buy games that support it (thru D3D or Glide) including me.

By the time NASCAR2 was done Papyrus were already working on GPL and thinking of NASCAR3 - I don't see anyone ***ing about that. Just as Papyrus know that at some point you'll tire of N2 and want something newer, Intel know that at some point that Pentium-MMX won't cut it any more and they better be ready with something new or you may just go buy Digital, AMD, Cyrix, even Samsung and the like who are jumping on this "gravy train". FWIW these newer games mentioned above will _need_ the additional power of next generation MPUs, so it's just as well that Intel, AMD etc are on the ball isn't it? Unfortunately some seem to hate them for it - why is it so wrong to make a profit? Cheers! John