Jump to content
JagMX

Tomb Raider & Swagman for the Jag

Recommended Posts

the jaguar is really far from having the 3D capabilities of the psx (because there is no 3D chip at all), even the saturn version of TR is lower than the psx version.

 

But given enough time and ressources, don´t you think it would be possible for a highly competent team of programmers to do something like Tomb Raider on the Jaguar? They´d have to take the long road and find ways around it without custom 3D chips, but still I think it would be doable.

 

The Saturn could, at times, run circles around the PSX when programmed properly. But yes, Tomb Raider on the Saturn isn´t totally on par with the PSX version in some areas, which I believe I read somewhere, is due to its hardware being quadrilaterally-based as opposed to the PSX´s triangular-based hardware.

 

No.

Even with proper programming, the Saturn hardly can touch the PSX. Sega had one of the best coders, Am2, working on the Saturn and they failed to give the Saturn the edge it needed against the PSX. It's decent, but the PSX can do so much more than the Saturn.

-better resolution

-runnning in 16 bit

-transparent polygons and effects

-multi colored lighting, multiple light sources, specular highlights etc.

 

However the Saturn is a good machine for 2D and many believe it beats the PSX in that category.

 

 

I disagree.

 

The PSX is easy to program and got pushed to its maximum capabilities. The Saturn is a nightmare to program and died far too early before its true power was tapped. Have you seen the videos for Shenmue for the Saturn? Amazing. They even got the SOUND CHIP to help out with the graphics (a very powerful at-the-time Yamaha chip) Their basic designs are so completely different that it's impossible to call one a clear overall winner in the hardware department. One dedicated CPU with a math co-processor and a straight-forward sound chip (PSX) just does not compare on paper to the Saturn's two general-purpose CPU's sharing one bus, two dedicated (but complicated) GPU's, a very high-end sound chip, and a bunch of other chips to make the whole mess work together.

 

Software? Not so much. The PSX wins by a landslide but that doesn't mean the Saturn doesn't have dozens and dozens of awesome games that were either system exclsuives or better than their PSX counterparts (Tomb Raider not being one of them.)

 

The PSX is better than the Saturn in some respects but the two machines are far more equal than most people realize. The Saturn is superior to the PSX in some areas (and not just 2-D.)

 

And the Saturn has higher resolution so scratch that from your list.

 

And I think the Jaguar could have done a decent port of Tomb Raider given the time, effort, and expertise.

 

 

I have a Saturn and I'm reffering to what I 've seen on the system and I'm not counting in specualtion or myths surrounding this system.

Screw the specs. If you really claim the Saturn can do higher resolution why then all the 3d games look so awfully pixelated.?And I mean they are ALL low resoluted.

You can also see by eye that the PSX DOES better color, resolution and better effects like lighting. The Saturn failed to prove that.

Simple like IT IS, there is no sense to discuss beyond facts. Simply show me the game that is technically better than the best of the PSX and I might be convinced.

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply show me the game that is technically better than the best of the PSX and I might be convinced.

 

Could you do that the other way around then? Show me something on the Playstation which is technically better than the best of the Saturn? That way we could sort of compare the best of the best for each system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply show me the game that is technically better than the best of the PSX and I might be convinced.

 

Could you do that the other way around then? Show me something on the Playstation which is technically better than the best of the Saturn? That way we could sort of compare the best of the best for each system.

 

This is way off topic and Im tired to discuss the obvious. You understand something wrong. Its not my subjective view on the issue but rather what is fact and its widely accepted by players and coders alike that the Saturn cannot beat the PSX in 3D. Im not biased or anything. I compared both and come to agree with the majority.

So I have not to prove you anything. Unless you prove yourself a special authority on both systems I doubt that you know any better than professional programmers or industry people.

:cool:

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is way off topic and Im tired to discuss the obvious.

Problem is, it´s not obvious.

 

You understand something wrong. Its not my subjective view on the issue but rather what is fact and its widely accepted by players and coders alike that the Saturn cannot beat the PSX in 3D.

 

I don´t believe I ever stated otherwise. But now that you mention it, I probably wouldn´t rule it out entirely. ;)

 

Im not biased or anything. I compared both and come to agree with the majority.

Subjectively, I guess.

 

We´ll just have to disagree then - objectively, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the jaguar is really far from having the 3D capabilities of the psx (because there is no 3D chip at all), even the saturn version of TR is lower than the psx version.

 

But given enough time and ressources, don´t you think it would be possible for a highly competent team of programmers to do something like Tomb Raider on the Jaguar? They´d have to take the long road and find ways around it without custom 3D chips, but still I think it would be doable.

 

The Saturn could, at times, run circles around the PSX when programmed properly. But yes, Tomb Raider on the Saturn isn´t totally on par with the PSX version in some areas, which I believe I read somewhere, is due to its hardware being quadrilaterally-based as opposed to the PSX´s triangular-based hardware.

 

No.

Even with proper programming, the Saturn hardly can touch the PSX. Sega had one of the best coders, Am2, working on the Saturn and they failed to give the Saturn the edge it needed against the PSX. It's decent, but the PSX can do so much more than the Saturn.

-better resolution

-runnning in 16 bit

-transparent polygons and effects

-multi colored lighting, multiple light sources, specular highlights etc.

 

However the Saturn is a good machine for 2D and many believe it beats the PSX in that category.

 

 

I disagree.

 

The PSX is easy to program and got pushed to its maximum capabilities. The Saturn is a nightmare to program and died far too early before its true power was tapped. Have you seen the videos for Shenmue for the Saturn? Amazing. They even got the SOUND CHIP to help out with the graphics (a very powerful at-the-time Yamaha chip) Their basic designs are so completely different that it's impossible to call one a clear overall winner in the hardware department. One dedicated CPU with a math co-processor and a straight-forward sound chip (PSX) just does not compare on paper to the Saturn's two general-purpose CPU's sharing one bus, two dedicated (but complicated) GPU's, a very high-end sound chip, and a bunch of other chips to make the whole mess work together.

 

Software? Not so much. The PSX wins by a landslide but that doesn't mean the Saturn doesn't have dozens and dozens of awesome games that were either system exclsuives or better than their PSX counterparts (Tomb Raider not being one of them.)

 

The PSX is better than the Saturn in some respects but the two machines are far more equal than most people realize. The Saturn is superior to the PSX in some areas (and not just 2-D.)

 

And the Saturn has higher resolution so scratch that from your list.

 

And I think the Jaguar could have done a decent port of Tomb Raider given the time, effort, and expertise.

 

The main problem is that the Saturn does a lot of effects by software rendering while the PSX supports these effects (and more) by hardware. Even with proper programming, software rendering is always slower than hardware rendering and looks weaker. Many effects are impossible to do by software because of the performance impact. This is why the Saturn can't touch the PSX, BECAUSE proper programming is always weaker than proper hardware.

The fact that the soundchip was helping out with the Shenmue gfx like you have mentioned just underlines this.

There is no way on earth a software based renderer could beat hardware accelerated effects if the specs are comparable (Of course with a 2,6GHz you can emulate a PSX by software ;-))

 

The PSX just does what it was supposed to do thus its much easier to code than the Saturn. The Saturn is a fast machine but the PSX is superior in hardware design.

If you really want to know what the PSX can do:

 

-Ridge Racer 4

-R-Type Delta

-Metal Gear Solid

-Soul Edge

-Quake 2

-Tekken 3

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Saturn and I'm reffering to what I 've seen on the system and I'm not counting in specualtion or myths surrounding this system.

Screw the specs. If you really claim the Saturn can do higher resolution why then all the 3d games look so awfully pixelated.?And I mean they are ALL low resoluted.

You can also see by eye that the PSX DOES better color, resolution and better effects like lighting. The Saturn failed to prove that.

Simple like IT IS, there is no sense to discuss beyond facts. Simply show me the game that is technically better than the best of the PSX and I might be convinced.

 

 

Didn't I go over this already? You can't just "screw the specs" and then try to compare the two consoles.

 

The PSX is an elegantly simple and well-designed machine that was immensely popular and had its hardware pushed to its absolute maximum.

 

The Saturn is a beast of a machine with a convoluted architecture. Its complexity made it exceedingly hard to program. Its short life meant that developers did not exploit much of what the machine had to offer.

 

Saturn Shenmue is one of the very few examples where programmers really began to take advantage of the Saturn's well-hidden power but it was never completed. Graphically impressive games like Sonic R, Burning Rangers, and the 3-D stage of Sonic Jam, beautiful as they are, still do not push the Saturn's hardware anywhere near its limits.

 

It has already been said several times that the PSX library is much larger and has many more triple-A games than that of the Saturn. I do not think that anyone is trying to debate that the PSX has a shitload of games and, by default, a shitload of good games that push the hardware to the max (like Tekken 3.) If I was forced to pick between the two and live on a deserted island I'd go with the PSX, no contest.

 

But to say "Even with proper programming, the Saturn hardly can touch the PSX" and "the PSX can do so much more than the Saturn" is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. You don't want to spread misinformation, do you?

 

The Jaguar is much like the Saturn.... a machine with loads of potential, a complicated architecture that was never fully utilized, crappy 3rd party support, and a short life.

 

Tomb Raider on Jaguar? Certainly. Not as fast or pretty as the PSX/Saturn versions, but it could have been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't I go over this already? You can't just "screw the specs" and then try to compare the two consoles.

 

The PSX is an elegantly simple and well-designed machine that was immensely popular and had its hardware pushed to its absolute maximum.

 

The Saturn is a beast of a machine with a convoluted architecture. Its complexity made it exceedingly hard to program. Its short life meant that developers did not exploit much of what the machine had to offer.

 

Saturn Shenmue is one of the very few examples where programmers really began to take advantage of the Saturn's well-hidden power but it was never completed. Graphically impressive games like Sonic R, Burning Rangers, and the 3-D stage of Sonic Jam, beautiful as they are, still do not push the Saturn's hardware anywhere near its limits.

 

It has already been said several times that the PSX library is much larger and has many more triple-A games than that of the Saturn. I do not think that anyone is trying to debate that the PSX has a shitload of games and, by default, a shitload of good games that push the hardware to the max (like Tekken 3.) If I was forced to pick between the two and live on a deserted island I'd go with the PSX, no contest.

 

But to say "Even with proper programming, the Saturn hardly can touch the PSX" and "the PSX can do so much more than the Saturn" is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. You don't want to spread misinformation, do you?

 

The Jaguar is much like the Saturn.... a machine with loads of potential, a complicated architecture that was never fully utilized, crappy 3rd party support, and a short life.

 

Tomb Raider on Jaguar? Certainly. Not as fast or pretty as the PSX/Saturn versions, but it could have been done.

 

 

As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering.

I see a lot of wishful thinking in your post. YOou are referring to theoretical performances and theoretical specs and start to speculate on it that the Saturn is "in truth" better. Your theories are growing on invalid speculations and clash with the realities of 3d gfx and technics.

BTW I'm not spreading misinformation, I'm just commenting on what actually is there and valid.

Any serious coder would give you the same answer as I did.

Edited by Punisher5.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering. I see a lot of wishful thinking in your post. Any serious coder would give you the same answer as I did.

 

Really? I see an uneducated Sony fanboy in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Saturn and I'm reffering to what I 've seen on the system and I'm not counting in specualtion or myths surrounding this system.

Screw the specs. If you really claim the Saturn can do higher resolution why then all the 3d games look so awfully pixelated.?And I mean they are ALL low resoluted.

You can also see by eye that the PSX DOES better color, resolution and better effects like lighting. The Saturn failed to prove that.

Simple like IT IS, there is no sense to discuss beyond facts. Simply show me the game that is technically better than the best of the PSX and I might be convinced.

Guess you've never seen or played Powerslave for Saturn.. it's hands down the most beautiful 2D FPS (for it's time) I've played on a console (a close second behind Disruptor for the PSX) the PSX Powerslave was seriously lacking in comparison especially in color, resolution and frame rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering.

I'm curious. Do you understand what hardware rendering is? Game consoles of the day were not designed in the same way that PCs were. The VDP1 was perfectly capable of hardware acceleration of affine texture mapped polygons. The Saturn also contained a Digital Signal Processor capable of performing the necessary vertex transformations and raster computations required by the rendering engine. Combined with the multiprocessor capabilities of the machine, there was excellent potential for programming an ad-hoc 3D GPU. (At least according to the specs.)

 

One thing that needs to be understood about those wild and wooley days of 3D, is that it was still an emerging field. A "black art" in game programming, if you will. Today's programmers get to either purchase an engine off the shelf, or can do dot product and surface normal calculations in their sleep. This situation leads to greater utilization of today's hardware, especially when the GPU vendors provide highly optimized device drivers. Back in those days, however, programmers were happy if their 3D engines worked. Optimization of 3D technology was not something that many of them were familiar with. They were taking the first steps in what would eventually lead to the 3D technology we have today.

 

If homebrewers were to revisit the Saturn and the PSX, I think you'll find that the Saturn has a lot more untapped potential. The PSX was pushed far beyond its expected limits, partly in thanks to its long lifespan. The Saturn had no such luxury, and came to the end of its life right around the time that 3D technology began to come of age. Which means that the Saturn was no longer in production right around the time that Sony et al was producing impressive 3D titles like Crash Bandicoot Warped and FF8. In 1994, no one would have thought those titles were possible on the PSX.

 

Whenever you want to say, "machine XYZ can't do ABC!", just remember what the homebrew authors have done with the VCS. Sometimes, a more modern perspective can make all the difference to the programmers. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main problem is that the Saturn does a lot of effects by software rendering while the PSX supports these effects (and more) by hardware. Even with proper programming, software rendering is always slower than hardware rendering and looks weaker.

 

Yes, software rendering will always be relatively slower than hardware rendering. I don't know what you mean by weaker though. The very fact the PSX 3d rendering is built into hardware is the reason why things warp on the left side of the screen in 3d on the PSX.

 

Having things built into the hardware like the PSX does makes stuff convenient and fast, though less flexible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering.

 

 

One thing that needs to be understood about those wild and wooley days of 3D, is that it was still an emerging field. A "black art" in game programming, if you will. Today's programmers get to either purchase an engine off the shelf, or can do dot product and surface normal calculations in their sleep. This situation leads to greater utilization of today's hardware, especially when the GPU vendors provide highly optimized device drivers. Back in those days, however, programmers were happy if their 3D engines worked. Optimization of 3D technology was not something that many of them were familiar with. They were taking the first steps in what would eventually lead to the 3D technology we have today.

 

 

 

Remember that Sega's AM2 had a lot of expertise on 3D from the arcade. 3D techology was already at the arcades for 1-2 years before it was going to be translated to home consoles. So maybe it was black art but surely not a black box. Many believed Sega has the edge over SONY because of their arcade expierence and their R&D developmnet staff was well expierenced with 3D rendering technology.

 

The Saturn does support texture mapped polygons but the PSX is more advanced, supporting complex effects like lighting and transparecy.

BTW Saturn support was dropped in 1998. I think the lifespan argument is not valid here, as the PSX had the edge from the very start to the very end.

Claiming the PSX was beyond its limits while the Saturn's potential was never tapped is highly speculative if not totally unreasonable. There is simply no valid info suggesting what Saturn fans WANT to believe here. It's a myth, simply put.

Sega had the best 3D programmers in the world but Saturns 3d gfx paled compared the stuff newbies with less expierence achieved on the PSX from scratch. And we don't talk about the Namco stuff here.

Sony had the better hardware, the better libraries. A simple explanation, but reasonable. There is no need to construct twisted theories to deny reality for what its is.

Edited by agradeneu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main problem is that the Saturn does a lot of effects by software rendering while the PSX supports these effects (and more) by hardware. Even with proper programming, software rendering is always slower than hardware rendering and looks weaker.

 

Yes, software rendering will always be relatively slower than hardware rendering. I don't know what you mean by weaker though. The very fact the PSX 3d rendering is built into hardware is the reason why things warp on the left side of the screen in 3d on the PSX.

 

Having things built into the hardware like the PSX does makes stuff convenient and fast, though less flexible.

 

Last time I've played Panzer Dragon Zwei I've noticed a lot of nasty texture warp and tearing. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main problem is that the Saturn does a lot of effects by software rendering while the PSX supports these effects (and more) by hardware. Even with proper programming, software rendering is always slower than hardware rendering and looks weaker.

 

Yes, software rendering will always be relatively slower than hardware rendering. I don't know what you mean by weaker though. The very fact the PSX 3d rendering is built into hardware is the reason why things warp on the left side of the screen in 3d on the PSX.

 

Having things built into the hardware like the PSX does makes stuff convenient and fast, though less flexible.

 

Last time I've played Panzer Dragon Zwei I've noticed a lot of nasty texture warp and tearing. :cool:

 

 

 

Give it up, man. Now you're throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks.

 

 

 

:thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main problem is that the Saturn does a lot of effects by software rendering while the PSX supports these effects (and more) by hardware. Even with proper programming, software rendering is always slower than hardware rendering and looks weaker.

 

Yes, software rendering will always be relatively slower than hardware rendering. I don't know what you mean by weaker though. The very fact the PSX 3d rendering is built into hardware is the reason why things warp on the left side of the screen in 3d on the PSX.

 

Having things built into the hardware like the PSX does makes stuff convenient and fast, though less flexible.

 

Last time I've played Panzer Dragon Zwei I've noticed a lot of nasty texture warp and tearing. :cool:

 

 

 

Give it up, man. Now you're throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks.

 

 

 

:thumbsdown:

 

Cool down, man. It HAS texture warp. GFX glitches are not exclusive to the PSX.

Why do you take this personal? :ponder:

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering. I see a lot of wishful thinking in your post. Any serious coder would give you the same answer as I did.

 

Really? I see an uneducated Sony fanboy in your post.

 

Really? Has Sega no fanboys`? But really, I play the Saturn a lot more often than the PSX.

I have a Dreamcast and no PS2. Shocked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering. I see a lot of wishful thinking in your post. Any serious coder would give you the same answer as I did.

 

Really? I see an uneducated Sony fanboy in your post.

 

Really? Has Sega no fanboys`? But really, I play the Saturn a lot more often than the PSX.

I have a Dreamcast and no PS2. Shocked?

 

 

Nothing personal was intended other than the "fanboy" comment. It seems I was incorrect about that as you do not own a PS2. I am not "shocked" but I am surprised. I also have a Dreamcast but no PS2. I have a PSX and I'm thinking I may eventually get a PS3.

 

As for throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks... that's nothing personal. All I'm saying is that this debate is played out and that bringing up warping in PDS is a big step backward.

 

Peace.

 

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand why everyone thinks that Tomb Raider is not doable on the Jaguar. It was designed for 60 MHz PCs with 8 MBs of RAM, and used a 100% software-based rendering engine. (A rather terrible one at that.) The background rarely showed more than 10-20 polys, with a disproportionate number of the polys pushed being used by Lara and the attacking animals.

 

If the 3D Engine were reprogrammed to take advantage of the Jaguar's 3D features (no matter how weak they were in comparison to the PSX), I see little to no reason why Tomb Raider couldn't have run on the Jag. And it would have looked just as good as the straight-up PSX port.

 

 

No way. The 200-300 polygons of Lara alone would make the Jaguar cry. The scenery consists of more than 20-30 polys, for sure. :ponder:

Multiply with 100 and its more like it is.

Summa summarum I guess more than 60 000 polys are caculated per second. Too much for the cat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said - you fail to realize why software rendering will always be slower than hardware rendering. I see a lot of wishful thinking in your post. Any serious coder would give you the same answer as I did.

 

Really? I see an uneducated Sony fanboy in your post.

 

Really? Has Sega no fanboys`? But really, I play the Saturn a lot more often than the PSX.

I have a Dreamcast and no PS2. Shocked?

 

 

Nothing personal was intended other than the "fanboy" comment. It seems I was incorrect about that as you do not own a PS2. I am not "shocked" but I am surprised. I also have a Dreamcast but no PS2. I have a PSX and I'm thinking I may eventually get a PS3.

 

As for throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks... that's nothing personal. All I'm saying is that this debate is played out and that bringing up warping in PDS is a big step backward.

 

Peace.

 

 

:)

 

Are you kidding?

Thinking about getting a PS3 alone is pure Sony fanboyism. ;)

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a test of my polygon filler routine, not a prototype of tomb raider for jaguar ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you kidding?

Thinking about getting a PS3 alone is pure Sony fanboyism. ;)

 

We shall see. I find the complexity of the PS3 tempting and appealing... it reminds me of the Saturn and the Jaguar. We shall see if programmers can unlock its secrets and push the hardware as far as it can go.

 

And please stop editing all of your posts. Going back and changing your earlier posts after someone has made a valid point in a later post is uncool.

 

 

!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World first lara croft on jaguar !

larajag.jpg

 

(by the way, this code is pretty old %) )

 

: :lust: No fair, I wanna Lara crotch for myself. Be sure to include a Nekid code though :P Then my Atari Shaguar, I mean...Jaguar will be complete :D

 

That's what I'm talking about though, the Jaguar may not handle a perfect PSX port, but I bet if you dropped the textrues, or made the charactures out of sprites rather than polys, then you could not only do this, but pull it off pretty easily.

 

Maybe we'll have a Tombraider in the not so distant future?

Edited by Video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that Sega's AM2 had a lot of expertise on 3D from the arcade. 3D techology was already at the arcades for 1-2 years before it was going to be translated to home consoles. So maybe it was black art but surely not a black box. Many believed Sega has the edge over SONY because of their arcade expierence and their R&D developmnet staff was well expierenced with 3D rendering technology.

"Black box" actually would have been better. That was the approach that Sony took, by having the GPU hardware handle everything. In the Saturn's case, you needed to code 100% of the rendering engine yourself. Being a "black art", there wouldn't have been enough arcade programmers to help handle the number of games that needed to be produced. And even if there were, arcade programming is a different experience. The hardware and software are developed together, allowing for a lot of flexibility in design. Consoles constrain the programmer to a degree that may very well have hampered the more hardware oriented arcade designers.

 

Again, there just wasn't that much experience to go around. It took a lot of time for everyone to get up to speed on what was possible, and produce games based on that.

 

No way. The 200-300 polygons of Lara alone would make the Jaguar cry. The scenery consists of more than 20-30 polys, for sure. :ponder:

Multiply with 100 and its more like it is.

One of the great things about Tomb Raider (and I say that with the utmost sarcasm) is that you could easily see the seams of the polys.

191414.jpeg

Let's all count together now! 1... 2... 3...

 

Summa summarum I guess more than 60 000 polys are caculated per second. Too much for the cat.

Holy @#[email protected] Batman!!!! I can guarantee that you're off by at least an order of magnitude there. Actually, I take that back. You said "60,000/sec", which means 2,000/frame at 30 frames per second. Even then, that's probably unrealistic. Using the various Quake engines as a comparison:

 

From Abrash: "A Quake level might have a maximum of 500 potentially drawable polygons that get placed into the edge list."

From Ace's: "Quake 2 used 3,000 polygons per scene".

 

I think it's safe to say that Tomb Raider was less sophisticated than Quake. (Definitely less than Quake 2.) Best case would be on par with Quake's engine. So you're probably still off by an order of magnitude. Using the maximum case Abrash gave for Quake I, we'd get 30 * 500 = 15,000 polygons per second going into the edge list. The majority of those polys are obscured, so the actual draw is significantly less. So your estimates are way too high.

Edited by jbanes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way. The 200-300 polygons of Lara alone would make the Jaguar cry. The scenery consists of more than 20-30 polys, for sure. :ponder:

Multiply with 100 and its more like it is.

One of the great things about Tomb Raider (and I say that with the utmost sarcasm) is that you could easily see the seams of the polys.

191414.jpeg

Let's all count together now! 1... 2... 3...

 

Summa summarum I guess more than 60 000 polys are caculated per second. Too much for the cat.

Holy @#[email protected] Batman!!!! I can guarantee that you're off by at least an order of magnitude there. Actually, I take that back. You said "60,000/sec", which means 2,000/frame at 30 frames per second. Even then, that's probably unrealistic. Using the various Quake engines as a comparison:

 

From Abrash: "A Quake level might have a maximum of 500 potentially drawable polygons that get placed into the edge list."

From Ace's: "Quake 2 used 3,000 polygons per scene".

 

I think it's safe to say that Tomb Raider was less sophisticated than Quake. (Definitely less than Quake 2.) Best case would be on par with Quake's engine. So you're probably still off by an order of magnitude. Using the maximum case Abrash gave for Quake I, we'd get 30 * 500 = 15,000 polygons per second going into the edge list. The majority of those polys are obscured, so the actual draw is significantly less. So your estimates are way too high.

 

Thank you for an immensely cheering post there :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...