In response to recent events
- Thread starter Hellbinder
- Start date
- Status
BenSkywalker said:
Hmmm, I think that you have got an important point here. It would be great to have some articles about new technologies and whether they really make any sense at this given point. Is DX 8 shaders powerful enough to make an impact etc? Right now one have to read through several threads to get an idea about a question like this...
I don't know who should write these, but beyond3d is bound to get a lot of feedback from the readers and updating an article is easy on the web.
Anyway, I was thinking along the lines of aceshardware, where you get some great articles about CPU-tech which gets input and/or corrections from the users over there. Nice stuff, me thinks...
Marco,
no question Ben did express a viable viewpoint on the matter. probably many people (regulars here or not) view B3D the way Ben sees it. i, for one, used to look at B3D the same way some time ago. but everything changes with time...includingly the viewpoint of the beholder.
B3D's staff, consisting exclusively of human beings, has shown a slant towards this or that particular IHV. as Ben pointed out, its was not uncommon for them to be partial. and that's because it's usually hard for humans to be impartial. if you think real hard, how many (pre)views/tech articles have you read on the web for the past 1-2 years which have directly or indirectly compared techologies from the leading IHVs and at the same time have been tuely impartial.. i can't think of any, except maybe the recent one at tech-report - that one really struck me not so much with its indepth tech coverage but with its virtually complete impartiality.
now, Ben says B3D staff has shown certain conservatism when discussing new tech. actually, Ben put it more like 'B3D are anti- new tech'. why? - because they dissed this or that new feature which (surprise, surprise) used to originate from nvidia. i'm sorry but Ben is plain unfair here - B3D are definitely not anti-this or anti-that new thing, they are, or shall I say 'used to be', pro-3dfx - i don't remember B3D dissing any new feature coming from 3dfx. see, B3D are definitely not some (excuse my wording here) backwardy retards (unlike the staff of some other tech sites), they are (or more like 'were') plain partial. and as i already pointed out, partiality is not something foreign to human nature. whoever considers himself/herself capable of complete impartiality, let him/her throw the first stone! i, for one, can live with the partiality of the people around me, as long as i'm sober enough to see it.
no question Ben did express a viable viewpoint on the matter. probably many people (regulars here or not) view B3D the way Ben sees it. i, for one, used to look at B3D the same way some time ago. but everything changes with time...includingly the viewpoint of the beholder.
B3D's staff, consisting exclusively of human beings, has shown a slant towards this or that particular IHV. as Ben pointed out, its was not uncommon for them to be partial. and that's because it's usually hard for humans to be impartial. if you think real hard, how many (pre)views/tech articles have you read on the web for the past 1-2 years which have directly or indirectly compared techologies from the leading IHVs and at the same time have been tuely impartial.. i can't think of any, except maybe the recent one at tech-report - that one really struck me not so much with its indepth tech coverage but with its virtually complete impartiality.
now, Ben says B3D staff has shown certain conservatism when discussing new tech. actually, Ben put it more like 'B3D are anti- new tech'. why? - because they dissed this or that new feature which (surprise, surprise) used to originate from nvidia. i'm sorry but Ben is plain unfair here - B3D are definitely not anti-this or anti-that new thing, they are, or shall I say 'used to be', pro-3dfx - i don't remember B3D dissing any new feature coming from 3dfx. see, B3D are definitely not some (excuse my wording here) backwardy retards (unlike the staff of some other tech sites), they are (or more like 'were') plain partial. and as i already pointed out, partiality is not something foreign to human nature. whoever considers himself/herself capable of complete impartiality, let him/her throw the first stone! i, for one, can live with the partiality of the people around me, as long as i'm sober enough to see it.
marco said:
I'm afraid to even talk in detail why I joined this site for fear of being accused of bringing out "laundry" again, dirty or otherwise.
The short of it is this : Wouldn't anyone have been proud to have been asked to "lead" Beyond3D ( which was what I was asked to do) back then (and perhaps even now)? I mean, look at the site back then.
It is NOT because I viewed the site as being one with "honest views" on 3D hardware. It was because I saw that the site was genuinely interested in studying 3D technology and presenting their (mostly Kristof's) thoughts on a website called B3D.
If the original intention of Beyond3D was to have honest reporting on 3D hardware, sorry, I missed it. Never bothered to read "Our Mission" page (if this site had one when I joined)
.You guys don't know how many hours I spent thinking many, many things over when, first, Dave joined 3dfx (which he already did when he asked me to join this site), then Kristof joined 3dfx as well. I was going "Shit, how the hell are we going to keep this good thing going?"
WRT BenS's post :
You said a lot of things that are exactly my thoughts. A big part of the reason for this "perceived anti-NV sentiment" has to do with how 3dfx was friendly to the Beyond3D staff back then. Same with me. Co-founders were willing to trade emails, fer'chrissakes. This gets to you, no matter what! Compound this with the fact that NVIDIA behaves the opposite way and you can see how this can go. You talk about and write about what you can get in terms of direct information. Beyond3D got this with 3dfx but not with NVIDIA. It was just the way the two companies worked and it was how Beyond3D "reacted". Not as "payback" to NVIDIA but as a natural reaction.
Enough with history and what happened back then.
As for the now, Kristof simply doesn't have the time to write all those technology articles even if I know he dearly wants to. Your priority goes to what pays the bills and puts food in your mouth. You will all know who is the only one capable of writing truly informative 3D technology articles and the name starts with nothing but K. I gave this a try but gave up because I had been out of touch with 3D since DX5.
What is required (excuse my apparent boldness in appearing to state where I want Beyond3D to go) is to determine what this site should be more focussed on :
Write about 3D technology in parts.
Write about 3D technology as relates to newly announced hardware and its new features.
Write about 3D technology in snippets as a result of "investigations" during a review of a 3D hardware.
Write about "scoops".
Be like gamedev.net or some such but directly relating to newly-announced hardware.
I can think of many more but you get the drift. Someone tell me in which of the above does Beyond3D seems based on (in terms of contents) for quite a while.
I'd like to write more but I'm afraid of being accused of... well, you know...
Just one more opinion before I crash.
This site needs another person like Kristof. Not someone who has more contacts with NVIDIA or ATi or Matrox or any other IHV. Someone who has the knowledge about 3D. But with time to write, and write regularly, tech pieces. Hell, a piece a month is regular enough for me! Kristof doesn't have the time and I sure as hell wouldn't recommend he change his priority. There is no one at B3D now that can write such tech pieces.
That's how I would want it and what I perceive what those truly interested in 3D technology (that visit this site) wants.
Beyond3D has become a video card review site with little snippets of information as a result of video card reviews plus little snippets of information from covering new launches. It is no longer a site that studies interesting-and-new technology(ies). Basically what Ben said, I guess.
But at least we have the forums, the contents of which, if snapped up here and there, would make for more interesting "Beyond3D tech articles".
This site needs another person like Kristof. Not someone who has more contacts with NVIDIA or ATi or Matrox or any other IHV. Someone who has the knowledge about 3D. But with time to write, and write regularly, tech pieces. Hell, a piece a month is regular enough for me! Kristof doesn't have the time and I sure as hell wouldn't recommend he change his priority. There is no one at B3D now that can write such tech pieces.
That's how I would want it and what I perceive what those truly interested in 3D technology (that visit this site) wants.
Beyond3D has become a video card review site with little snippets of information as a result of video card reviews plus little snippets of information from covering new launches. It is no longer a site that studies interesting-and-new technology(ies). Basically what Ben said, I guess.
But at least we have the forums, the contents of which, if snapped up here and there, would make for more interesting "Beyond3D tech articles".
Another good point raised here. But it seems some B3D staff, imho (here I come with my partiality), think him/themself as capable of complete impartiality. I believe we saw/read that in some post in this and another thread in these days.darkblu said:
I arrived on this site when I didn't even own a 3D card and I still was on my old Amiga. At that time I knew nothing on 3D hw and I knew nothing about 3dfx, ati, nvidia and so on...I was building my view and my opinion on a topic that fascinated me and I clearly remember one of my first thoughts on the site was B3D was run by smart (but sometime childish..) people that had a clear anti-nvidia bias. I'm willing to bet that many many people, who like me first started to approach this field and this passion, had the same thoughts at that time. I'm not trying to raise a point here, nor I want to judge anyone....
ciao,
Marco
Reverend said:
Anthony, it is extremely unprofessional for you to continue commenting on B3D's status or direction. I'm not going to air dirty laundry, but this hypocritical public niceness, motivated most likely by a natural desire to avoid damaging your online 'image' that you care so much about, has got to stop. You know full well what you've said 'behind-the-scenes' about B3D and its staff. I don't understand why you have chosen to write and say these things, but that's another matter.
As I wrote in my last email to you before you left B3D, I wish you the best of luck in your future, online endeavors. That said, things are probably better left right here. You know how reactive a personality I have, so please think before writing yet another sarcastic and/or condescending response.
No, I haven't crashed.
"Professional"? I'm not, not in this hobby. Neither, I assume, are you John.
John, tell me what I said in my previous two posts that demanded this reaction of yours. If you're reacting to that quote of mine, please grow up and know that I said that quote because I no longer wish to write any other behind-the-scenes stuff, good or bad, because the folks here may think that whatever I say about what goes on at Beyond3D may be contrued as "more airings of laundry" in light of the responses to my recent diatribes.
I write for a website. I care about my "online image" because it affects my current website. But if you'll look at this properly, you'll realize that I really did not care about my "online image" because I said what I said. I did not say what I said (and then deleted) because of what you term as "motivated most likely by a natural desire to avoid damaging your online 'image' that you care so much about" - read into that more carefully, forget about our emails, and you'll know I want this site to be better. You don't like what I wrote, fine. But don't ever say that what I wrote recently is because I want to damage this site and not want it to improve. If you do, it is because you don't like what you read because it is mostly true.
And I will continue to provide opinions and comments on the direction I wish this site should go or its status as I personally see it. Because I participate in its forums. Is this not allowed? I am not allowed to express what I want to see at Beyond3D?
The more you B3D guys keep giving these "warnings" to me, the more folks will be interested about what goes on. Just stfu, be matured in knowing what I'm actually trying to get across and see exactly what my posts are supposed to really mean and do what you're supposed to do, John. And I'm sure you know what you're supposed to do.
In light of my recent postings, I think I have shown Wavey (via recent PMs) how much I still care for this site, even to the point where it may put me in trouble. If I am hypocritical in being "nice" to B3D, well, look in the mirror John.
I have not stated anything in my previous two posts to demand this response from you.
"Professional"? I'm not, not in this hobby. Neither, I assume, are you John.
John, tell me what I said in my previous two posts that demanded this reaction of yours. If you're reacting to that quote of mine, please grow up and know that I said that quote because I no longer wish to write any other behind-the-scenes stuff, good or bad, because the folks here may think that whatever I say about what goes on at Beyond3D may be contrued as "more airings of laundry" in light of the responses to my recent diatribes.
I write for a website. I care about my "online image" because it affects my current website. But if you'll look at this properly, you'll realize that I really did not care about my "online image" because I said what I said. I did not say what I said (and then deleted) because of what you term as "motivated most likely by a natural desire to avoid damaging your online 'image' that you care so much about" - read into that more carefully, forget about our emails, and you'll know I want this site to be better. You don't like what I wrote, fine. But don't ever say that what I wrote recently is because I want to damage this site and not want it to improve. If you do, it is because you don't like what you read because it is mostly true.
And I will continue to provide opinions and comments on the direction I wish this site should go or its status as I personally see it. Because I participate in its forums. Is this not allowed? I am not allowed to express what I want to see at Beyond3D?
The more you B3D guys keep giving these "warnings" to me, the more folks will be interested about what goes on. Just stfu, be matured in knowing what I'm actually trying to get across and see exactly what my posts are supposed to really mean and do what you're supposed to do, John. And I'm sure you know what you're supposed to do.
In light of my recent postings, I think I have shown Wavey (via recent PMs) how much I still care for this site, even to the point where it may put me in trouble. If I am hypocritical in being "nice" to B3D, well, look in the mirror John.
I have not stated anything in my previous two posts to demand this response from you.
Yes yes and more yes. I always enjoyed the breakdown of 3d technology at B3D such as FSAA to anisotropic filtering with real samples or images. Breaking a notch off of 3D technology and exploring it not like others trying to explain everything in one setting and really touching nothing significant. The one to three page articles at B3D had taught me more then the gobs of useless pages from other sites.
3d technology has advanced rather fast in the last two years, has B3D kept up with it? Meaning having articles that explore this technology in reasonable detail? Such as vertex shading breaking it further down into snippets easily understood by us not so educated in 3d like myself? Pixel shaders and language so that someone like me can say, yea baby, I understand now, GROOVY
Does B3D want to become a review site? I HOPE NOT, I hope reviews are not placed on anykind of high priority but only as a way to expose new technology and the general advancement of 3D technology infomation to us readers.
What level does B3D expect from us forum members? If advance programming or 3D engineering is required then I will have to leave because frankly it would beyond my time alloted to figure out. That doesn't mean I don't learn quickly or don't have a techical back ground because I do, it just isn't the area I studied but am very interested now. In other words what audience does B3D want to address?
Do I still enjoy B3D now, I sure do and hope to see B3D grow to its full potential.
Once again I hope B3D never turns into a review site, why compete with all the other review sites (many half ass as far as I am concern) but stay on track what it does best, exposing, explaining and showing off 3D harware and technology like no other site has ever done.
First of all, I think you are confusing an anti-NV bias as a disagreement with philosophy. Did TNT/2 need high-res textures and 32-bit color? Nope. Did it really make much of a difference? Not really. There were a few games that you could use it on, but not many. Then again, we also came down on 3dfx too. In my V3 review I specifically raised issue with the lack of high-res textures. 512x512 was plenty for the day and they didn't support it. 32-bit color wasn't much of an issue, mostly from the 2x2 post filter. What about GF1 T&L. Does anyone really use it? Not really. It is slow. You could just as well use your CPU. Were we wrong at the time for what we said? No, I don't think it. It wasn't that we were against NV as an entity, we just didn't agree with some things they were doing. Today that would be very different I would say. While I still don't agree with all of their choices, today the ones they are making are much more realistic IMO.
If you want to say we were "against NVIDIA" or something, I would disagree. I would however say that we did balance out NVIDIA's marketing BS. And I don't think anyone would disagree that they had a LOT of BS. Do I need to bring up the list of T&L games that had Diablo on it?
Finally, without doing such articles how could we deliver unique content? With 3dfx, we always had their cooperation, with NVIDIA we never did. So we could a) rehash their marketing crap or b) come up with something new, whatever it might be. We chose B. We tried A, don't get me wrong, but NVIDIA wouldn't have anything to do with it. You can't say we didn't try with them, because we certainly did. They just left a really bad taste inour mouths (and I don't even think everyone that works on the site knows all of what happened.. just a few do - Kristof and John.. maybe
Marco). So with that in mind, don't confuse bias with disagreement.
If you want to say we were "against NVIDIA" or something, I would disagree. I would however say that we did balance out NVIDIA's marketing BS. And I don't think anyone would disagree that they had a LOT of BS. Do I need to bring up the list of T&L games that had Diablo on it?
Finally, without doing such articles how could we deliver unique content? With 3dfx, we always had their cooperation, with NVIDIA we never did. So we could a) rehash their marketing crap or b) come up with something new, whatever it might be. We chose B. We tried A, don't get me wrong, but NVIDIA wouldn't have anything to do with it. You can't say we didn't try with them, because we certainly did. They just left a really bad taste inour mouths (and I don't even think everyone that works on the site knows all of what happened.. just a few do - Kristof and John.. maybe
Marco). So with that in mind, don't confuse bias with disagreement.
I have been browsing this website for a few years now and IMO this site is balanced. The Rev's past articles have also been balanced.
However I believe MARKETIG issues and the NV30 specifically has gotten to some people's heads... BIG TIME.
It's only a graphics card for crying out loud. So what if someone wont be getting it before someone else..... like what kind of an impression can you give by playing with it for a couple of days anyway.
The best articles are always written a few weeks after the 'launch' by sites like The Tech-Report et al....
If you need hits then do a preview with some PR material like most sites do...
However I believe MARKETIG issues and the NV30 specifically has gotten to some people's heads... BIG TIME.
It's only a graphics card for crying out loud. So what if someone wont be getting it before someone else..... like what kind of an impression can you give by playing with it for a couple of days anyway.
The best articles are always written a few weeks after the 'launch' by sites like The Tech-Report et al....
If you need hits then do a preview with some PR material like most sites do...
BenSkywalker said:
Thanks Ben. However, actually it has, as its something I’ve been thinking about for a long time, although the direction hasn’t necessarily been seen fully yet.
BenSkywalker said:
To my mind this it a little misguided – go a read one of K’s first articles on 3dfx and tell me how slanted towards 3dfx it was:
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dfx22bit/index1_1.php
Now, K followed that up with a series of articles; read the follow ups:
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dfx22bit/index1.php
I think you’ll see that that’s a perfect illustration of what’s has been spoken about before with relation to co-operation. 3dfx spoke to Kristof and Dave at that point; if NVIDIA weren’t then perhaps they missed an opportunity. IF you are getting spoken to and getting adult discussions off of one (which started from a fairly negative piece in the first place) and flak off another how are things going to progress?
And, articles, contrary to what you say, non-3dfx employed tech article are there, look at the 3D textures article:
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dtextures/index1.php
You’ll note that questions were given to NV on this subject, which, AFAIK are still yet to be answered.
BenSkywalker said:
SuperScene AA doesn’t count then?
BenSkywalker said:
That would be no – as both K and Dave would be working for 3dfx and the same people who were writing for the site at that time would have been producing fairly similar content to what has been here.
BenSkywalker said:
You have to have an abundance of time and people with time and (very details) knowledge who are willing to work for effectively for nothing – neither of which I have. I’d love nothing more than to take a few more people on who are able to write such articles and if anyone is out there then please step forward; however I’ve yet to see a queue of people forming!
BenSkywalker said:
Why on earth do you think myself or Marco or John or Kristof would go through this if we didn’t – we’re putting a lot of effort into this. Its things like this thread that makes you go ‘why?’.
However, I know the importance of these things (as well as knowing my limitations) which is why I’ve pushed K into writing articles again. He has been working on a vertex shader article for some time now because I think its important for people to understand what the difference between fixed function T&L is and what vertex shaders can actually do; likewise with pixel shaders after.
noko said:
B3D have always been a review site, and this is not about to change (although we don’t necessarily need 50 board reviews of the same underlying tech). However I’d like to think that B3D reviews will provide something different then others out there and also provide a little more information (or clarity) on the tech we’re looking at when we are able to.
I've been lurking here since the V3/TNT2 days.
I don't post much, but I have to say I've been very dissapointed in some other posters lately, and I find the lack of newer content a little frustrating (althought I more than understand it, working a 40 hr week myself).
I'm dissapointed because way to many of you are chasing into PR bullshit. And it pisses me off to no end. Its bussiness, it sucks, live with it. As long as the company doesn't break the law, I'm not really going to care (to a point, I'm sure many of you know what I mean)
Anyway, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE PR DEPARTMENT DOES AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE ETC. It doesn't matter to the underlying 3d technology. Who does what best, and why? Who's got the whole package going? Best overall image quality? Most stable drivers?
I'd say roughly ten forum goers have completely lost objectivity because they're either riding somone's PR train or trying to derail someone else's.
Its not gospel, and you are't going to "save" anyone, so save it for someone who cares.
I want to know about the technology.
I don't post much, but I have to say I've been very dissapointed in some other posters lately, and I find the lack of newer content a little frustrating (althought I more than understand it, working a 40 hr week myself).
I'm dissapointed because way to many of you are chasing into PR bullshit. And it pisses me off to no end. Its bussiness, it sucks, live with it. As long as the company doesn't break the law, I'm not really going to care (to a point, I'm sure many of you know what I mean)
Anyway, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE PR DEPARTMENT DOES AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE ETC. It doesn't matter to the underlying 3d technology. Who does what best, and why? Who's got the whole package going? Best overall image quality? Most stable drivers?
I'd say roughly ten forum goers have completely lost objectivity because they're either riding somone's PR train or trying to derail someone else's.
Its not gospel, and you are't going to "save" anyone, so save it for someone who cares.
I want to know about the technology.
This is something many are loosing sight of, it's a select group of posters that are dragging the FORUMS down a little bit. BUT that doesn't mean they're dragging the REST OF THE SITE down.
The articles are still good. The news is timely and interesting. All in all, things are actually pretty good at Beyond3d.
A lot of the comments made about how this and that aren't the same as the old days, well there are a few places for improvement, but I'm sure those that know are already quite aware of these places and I have faith that they are making attempts to resolve them.
Furthermore a fair number of people have said the same thing over and over, there is an alleged lack of technical articles - this reminds me of the days that PD stopped writing his monthly articles at RWT - well perhaps rather than simply reiterating that view over and over as each "old skool" poster comes along, how about finding volunteers? I'm sure there are a few someones out there that are willing to churn out an article 3 or 4 times a year. Get enough of these guys and you'll have a relatively steady stream.
Ben,
I dissagree. In fact we have not had a game out to really use Static TnL until UT2003 is out. JohnC did not really use static TnL in his Q3 engines yet his Doom3 engine will make some use of programmable TnL. Other engine developers have dropped static TnL (Violtaion an Litech) and have moved right over to programable TnL. Yes I am aware that older OpenGL games got some benifit from a static TnL engines but we both know that your talking about games being design and built from the ground up using large poly loads.
Exactly, beyond the typical PR stuff. Still I wouldn't call Beyond3D a review site by my past experience with the articles etc.. Not alot of comparisons but exposing of technology and how they work and what they can do for you.
DaveBaumann, I hope you still find it satisfying overal on this board because for one it is one of a kind on the Internet and highly respected as well. Please don't let a few individuals tarnish your perceptionl of your work and others in a highly successful endeavor, my two bucks worth.
As soon as I get my Radeon 9700 you can bet I will be here showing images and open up discussions for us to investigate, I hope others will too. I like bite size chucks to chew and the forum method is perfect for it. I hope Reverend and others will do the same.
Dave said:
Your recollection of the past is not exactly accurate. The main competition for the TNT2 in those days was the Voodoo3. Other than Glide, what exactly did the Voodoo3 offered that the TNT2 could not provide?
TNT2 (depending on model) had comparable fillrates to the Voodoo3 (depending on model). Yet, it offered more features like high-res, 32-bit color and additional memory. The TNT2 even came out with an OpenGL ICD out of the box. In contrast, gamers had to wait until the test version of Quake3 came out before 3dfx released an official OGL ICD.
With all these advantages, it was NVIDIA's product that received the harshest criticism. This is not to say that 3dfx didn't get some criticism. I am simply saying that the harshest words were reserved for NVIDIA.
The trend continued with the GeForce256. Other than glide, what did the Voodoo3 offered that the GF256 could not provide? Still, the harshest words were reserved for NVIDIA.
Where was the criticism when the alleged hardware advantage of the Voodoo5 on FSAA performance did not materialize? Did you mention in your preview that the V5 couldn't do trilinear when multitexturing was used? What does that do to all those Quake III benchmark comparisons when trilinear was (allegedly) turned on? Today, ATI gets criticized somewhat for not being able to do tri with aniso but where was the criticism for 3dfx?
When you previewed the Voodoo5, did you know that you were applying for a job at 3dfx? Gee, it is no wonder that some people think that B3D is biased.
It is very obvious as to why that clear bias existed. 3dfx staff was nice to B3D while NVIDIA staff was far less cooperative.
Of course, why is a company spending all that effort being so nice to websites--the same websites who would later on review their products? Ya'll openly admitted that 3dfx was very cooperative. Their effort clearly paid off....for some websites.
- Status
