My god, we're still debating DOT3 on the GC in '05? This is exactly how it's performed in hardware. Need proof? It's even listed as a Flipper processor function.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20021002/sauer_pfv.htm
Xenon , Ps3 , Revolution ...
- Thread starter version
- Start date
My god, we're still debating DOT3 on the GC in '05? This is exactly how it's performed in hardware. Need proof? It's even listed as a Flipper processor function.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20021002/sauer_pfv.htm
Ooh-videogames
Regular
Li Mu Bai said:
Its kind of depressing, knowing that the console can do dot3, which means it can do normal mapping. Not many developers are spending much time with the hardware. Also considering F5 was using it in RL, with the title running at 60fps, although not constant. There's bump mapping in RE4, the Salazzar boss fight shows bump mapping on the plant parasite.
Also you have to remember two former employees of SGI and ArtX have been working for Nintendo for the past 5 years. Howard Cheng, the other guy name slips my mind.
Li Mu Bai said:
Me (2 pages ago) said:
And nothing you've said so far does anything but support that. That wasn't so much a shit storm as a listing of specs we all read years ago!
Compared to their competitors, Nintendo's hardware is normally pretty low specced, and often limited in other ways to boot. The DS I actually like quite a lot due to it's abundance of interesting features, but in terms of power it's years behind the PSP and mobile phones we'll be seeing this year.
Please note that what I'm saying is different to "ATI and IBM can't design good parts" (for example).
[quote="Li Mu Bai]
PC Engine said:
Indeed it would've been ideal, although not justifiable seeing as there was no DVD playback offered.[/quote]
I don't see that the two things are related. DVD playback wouldn't require more ram, and games don't need DVD playback to make use of X amount of ram.
But darkblu, what is EMBM? DOT3 is a dot product between two vectors.
EMBM is written out as shader math & is a composition of several dot products and a dependant texture lookup.
The former (DOT3) is one of the elementary operations that compose the latter. Certain graphic chips implement the EMBM sequence as a hardwired formula where you only change input parameters. So support of several dot products does not qualify?
Really? The purpose was quite apparently not to educate, but rather highlight some of the GC's architectural strengths. I also don't remember reading some of what I wrote years ago either, regardless I'm not proclaiming that the Flipper/Gekko design was without any flaws. (no chipset is) As I said, ram allocation was the largest one imo. Though to say that Nintendo is incapable, or somewhat crippled when it comes to architectural hardware design couldn't be any further from the truth.
Certainly you are not referring to this generation, nor the last. (comparatively to the PS1) All hardware is limited in various ways, why you are placing this singularly as a Nintendo-centric platform problem is beyond me.
You're correct, as my statement obviously had absolutely nothing to do with ram. This was about consumer perception regarding the price-point. A system priced barely under its competitors, (due to the inclusion of more 1T-SRAM) while not offering such an attractive feature as DVD playback was at the time would have severely limited its market penetration & appeal. In addition to not possessing an online infrastructure, an attractive price had to be the system's main selling point to the public.
Going slightly off topic for a second:
Totally agreed there dude!
This is something I stated many moons ago and was shot down by a big Nintendo fan for being too cheap to buy a DVD player.. funny thing is that I love Nintendo and was brought up on their systems. I thought I was make an objective and constructive criticism but this can be too much for some people to handle
Pretty sure its Environmental Bump Mapping
I remember it from the g400
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/19990628/g400-03.html
Btw, who is PatrickL?Li Mu Bai said:
I didn't say this. I don't know how many more times I need to say I wasn't saying this, or how many other ways I can say that I wasn't saying this.
Li Mu Bai said:
Yes I am referring to this generation. And the last. Compared to what MS offered with the Xbox, what Sony offered with the PS2 18 months earlier and what Sega offered with the DC 3 years earlier the GC is not really a powerful machine. It wasn't offering cutting edge performance for the console market, or compared to the PC market, in any way when it came out.
The N64 stacks up well against the PS1 (if you ignore the hugely important CD issue), but it came out over a year and a half later. If you take the time it hit the market into consideration, the N64 is a damn site less impressive than the PS1. Hell, even than the messed up Saturn. As I've already said, given a smaller gap the DC makes the N64 look really old in a way the N64 never had a hope of doing to the Playstation.
But this is because Nintendo weren't interested in being "cutting edge" with the N64, just as they weren't with the Gamecube (because IT ISN'T). They want to spend just as much on hardware as they need to in oreder to compete in terms of software for that generation.
To quote myself again in an attempt to avoid going round in circles: "It's not that Nintendo are "too st00pid" to develop cutting edge hardware, it's just that they don't see it as central to their strategy, as MS, Sony and the Sega of old (usually) did."
Nintendo know how they make their money, and being "out there" with a peice of expensive, top the line hardware isn't how they do it. And I think that this generation it's started to hurt them (along with their much maligned "kiddy image" - which I prefer to think of as "everyone friendly") in terms of customer perception.
I don't know, function. Nintendo seemed pretty intent on developing "cutting-edge hardware" with N64. Remember all the "Ultra 64" hype? The fancy alliance with SGI, and all the hype from those people? N64 was to deliver unprecedented power and visuals - at one time, I even remember someone saying this mini-SGI might be able to replicate the T-Rex in Jurassic Park.
As you said, the system actually didn't hold up that well against PSX, once you figure in the year-and-a-half-later release date. But Nintendo sure did hype it as cutting-edge tech. Hell, Nintendo wasn't stopping at 32 bits like its competitors - they were going for SIXTY FOUR! :?
But I agree with you on Gamecube so far as it wasn't meant to be top rung. Even so, I personally regard it as fantastic console. I'd put its best-looking titles up against anything on Xbox.
As you said, the system actually didn't hold up that well against PSX, once you figure in the year-and-a-half-later release date. But Nintendo sure did hype it as cutting-edge tech. Hell, Nintendo wasn't stopping at 32 bits like its competitors - they were going for SIXTY FOUR! :?
But I agree with you on Gamecube so far as it wasn't meant to be top rung. Even so, I personally regard it as fantastic console. I'd put its best-looking titles up against anything on Xbox.
It's been discussed in detail just days ago...darkblue said:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21353
It won't work as a general dotproduct, but you could use it for distant lights, since their vectors remain constant across surface.
Nintendo pushed the "cutting edge" button with the N64 as much as MS did with the Xbox.
The N64 was created and marketed as the most powerful console of last generation, so powerful that it could have been considered one generation beyond PS1 (32 vs 64 bit). There was a huge fuss about the processor, running at about 100Mhz as opposed to the 33MHz of PS1 and the even slower Saturn processor (25MHz?). It had bilinear filtering, the first console to have it.
Nintendo sure as hell made sure everyone knew (thought) that the N64 was the best hardware.
If things then turned out the way they did, it's another story. Personally i much brefer the look of certain Ps1 and Saturn games over the look of most N64 games.
The N64 was created and marketed as the most powerful console of last generation, so powerful that it could have been considered one generation beyond PS1 (32 vs 64 bit). There was a huge fuss about the processor, running at about 100Mhz as opposed to the 33MHz of PS1 and the even slower Saturn processor (25MHz?). It had bilinear filtering, the first console to have it.
Nintendo sure as hell made sure everyone knew (thought) that the N64 was the best hardware.
If things then turned out the way they did, it's another story. Personally i much brefer the look of certain Ps1 and Saturn games over the look of most N64 games.
Phil said:
I didn't say "pushing the envelope"
They made damn sure that their system was better than PS1 and Saturn. They forgot about CDs and VRAM but the whole SGI crap was quite a big thing back then.
