SaLiVa Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Not talking ISO or anything. I was thinking more on the lines of making a certain frames per second as a standard. Say 24 Frames Per Second (Movies) throughout the whole game - No drops, no flunctuations, no spikes. This way 3D Card companies will have to worry more on the image quality and work more with the developers to make games "The Way its meant to be played". I know 3dfx did this and ended up 6 feet under, only to be dug up again. Whats wrong with this move? Will this work or is the market that dull? :yes: or :no:? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaptain chump Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 i second that motion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted November 25, 2003 Veteran Share Posted November 25, 2003 It's done in the console world, games are either locked to 60 or 30FPS and it allows them to max the graphical potential of a title. It's not really doable on a PC though because of the varying hardware configurations. You can't lock a PC game to say 30 FPS and maximise how good it can look because there are hardware configurations out there that will suck on that setting and some which will **** on it. Doesn't really work in PC land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MxxCon Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 why make it a standard? what will you win from this? back in the day when CDROMS and soundcard were just appearing, and "multimedia" was the goose that laid the golden egg, there was "MPC"(multimedia pc) spec..it was something like adlib compatible sound card, at least 1x cdrom, etc.. then i think 1-2years later MPC2 appeared, it was "sb pro" compatible sound, 2x cdrom, etc. it went this way up to MPC4..then everybody said '**** it', and just started listing specific hardware req to run given software. PCs are advancing too fast to have any permament fixed common system req... and developer must be stupid if all they care about are pure fps numbers ignoring image quality. like Dazzle said, some pc specs won't be able to handle given image at 30fps...and that would be holding back new pcs from utilizing their power to the max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaLiVa Posted November 25, 2003 Author Share Posted November 25, 2003 Well, settings are kept changable - Thats what makes the PC's different from the consoles anyway. Leave certain things on, certain things off - Suit your needs. It could pose a problem... But if you think hard enough, a method might come up... Im too tired for that :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MxxCon Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 it's just common sense for any developer if their 3d game is doing 300fps on p3 600+tnt2 w/ FSAA8x, then maybe they could make image a bit more complex (or it's hella awesome engine :D ) on the other hand if it takes 3seconds to render frame on amd64+quad R420, maybe they are a bit over ambitious. plus, 24 or 30 fps on PC right now is not enough. on film each frame is a little bit fuzzy, so movement at 24fps appears to be smooth. on PC(or consoles) each image is perfectly in focus and eye can easly spot any change, so you can tell a difference between 60 and 80fps.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaLiVa Posted November 25, 2003 Author Share Posted November 25, 2003 And thus 3dfx came up with the motion blur (t-buffer) technology. What ever happened to that? Its just annoying having to upgrade your computer every 2 years only to find out the day after you bought the 1337est and perfectly okay condition computer - It isn't anymore. 3dfx was looking towards another direction - A perfect example when innovation fails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MxxCon Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 it not exactly failed. DX9 shaders can do same thing t-buffer offered. doom3, 3dmark2k3 and some other games have "field of focus" feature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizkit Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 I think that it would be great if they could do that, like on the Xbox, but I don't see how they could do it. Too many people have different computers. Look at the Xbox. All you have is there Xbox, which is the same that everyone else has, and a tv. Its easy for them, but for the pc it is alot harder. Great idea, very great, but I don't think that it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 PC's can't instantly make images / "photos" appear as happens with frames of film. Things have to be "drawn". Too many variables can occur within an individual system as action happens, things have to be turned into graphics, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts