Sega Linbergh naked

Actually I think that might be what I saw in Oblivion's debug screen ('tdt' in console, then scroll lock). About a million per frame. The numbers are somewhat ambiguous though, cuz they don't always have obvious units.
 
found an unanswered question about Model 4 posed to Real3D

http://www.hardcoregaming.com/spotlight/r3dint.htm

Also what can we expect from Model 4?

R3D: Our relationship with Sega is very much a joint effort where both companies discuss ideas, market requirements, specifications -- basically everything that will go into producing the world's best arcade games. Since the graphics chips and boards we do for Sega are custom for Sega, we really couldn't just show them our "product", because it's not a product until the specs and requirements are set. When we first started with Sega, what we showed them was the sophisticated visual systems we had done for the military. Sega believed (and we believed) we could adapt that technology to the arcade and if this could be done, the level and sophistication of arcade graphics would take a quantum leap forward. Well, as you know, we were able to adapt the technology, which resulted in Model 2 and later Model 3. And Sega continues to enjoy a market leader position in the arcade space. And you ask about Model 4. I know you and your readers are probably anxious to know what's on the drawing board, but I really can't comment on Model 4 or future arcade development efforts with Sega. Hope you understand.


in the mid to first part of the late 1990s, companies like 3Dfx, Nvidia, ATI, could not provide SEGA with an absolutely technically superior successor to Model 3. not even PowerVR could (not until NAOMI 2).

by the time the NV20, NV25, R200, R300 came along though, Nvidia or ATI could have.

but, the arcade market has died up for the most part. there is no longer a 3D arms race between Sega and Namco. console technology is leading the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The console business hasn't been a significant factor in Sega Sammy's arcade decisions this generation. Arcades make them many times the money that consoles do, and Lindbergh's design isn't much similar to any of the home systems -- the only similarity between PS3 and Lindbergh is the name brand stamped on their GPUs.
 
Megadrive1988 said:
found an unanswered question about Model 4 posed to Real3D

http://www.hardcoregaming.com/spotlight/r3dint.htm




in the mid to first part of the late 1990s, companies like 3Dfx, Nvidia, ATI, could not provide SEGA with an absolutely technically superior successor to Model 3. not even PowerVR could (not until NAOMI 2).

by the time the NV20, NV25, R200, R300 came along though, Nvidia or ATI could have.

but, the arcade market has died up for the most part. there is no longer a 3D arms race between Sega and Namco. console technology is leading the way.

Heh, I like this quote from the article
You also only need to spend $200 for your complete graphics solution versus $250 for a Voodoo 2 plus a 2D card to go along with it. So, if you spend a lot of time playing games like Quake II and cost is not much of a factor, then you might consider a Voodoo 2 to go along side your StarFighter.

Right before that, they acknowledge the voodoo2 beasts everything else in fillrate and is on par with the best in everything else, yet rather than saying "well, really all you need is a $250 voodoo2 and a $50 2d graphics card, but that's $100 more than a starfighter" they recommend a voodoo2 and a starfighter. BTW, was the starfighter really $200? I recall seeing them for like $30 in late 1998 or early 1999 while voodoo2s (at least I think they were, they could have been voodoo 1s) were down to $100.

Also interesting that throughout the interview, they really only acknowledge the voodoo2 as being a good card (besides the starfighter), and break it down as both cards having advantages over the others (but of course down-playing the voodoo2's). I guess they had to acknowledge that voodoo2s were good for gaming since they were the top card at the time.
 
Back
Top