NC> So you are agreeing that to produce effeint code, 
 NC> clever tricks on a set system takes time. Think about 
 NC> developers coding for a *constantly* shifting platform 
 NC> (the PC), they can /never/ produce effient code, by the 
 NC> the fact they can never fully get used to the hardware, 
 NC> cos a new model comes out every few weeks.
  But the problem is that PC developers DO get the ability to familiarize 
themselves with hardware, or at least its code.  Epic Megagames got the MMX 
instructions back when the chips themselves were still in R & D.  I believe 
Microsoft sends out Direct3D SDKs for a new version before it's publicly 
available.  And OpenGL?  Well, that's been around for years, and you can add 
your own features without requiring a total rewrite or forcing hardware 
upgrades.
  I do have some proof.  Look at Interstate '76 Arsenal.  Its code is fully 
optimized and 3D-accelerated; you get real-time shadows that hug the ground, 
vast terrain, well-done physics, and dynamic lighting.  You know, most PSX 
games don't have all of those in one package.  :-)
 NC> It still has a lot of cool games and it costs less.
  The PC has plenty of cool games, and (unlike the PSX) you can use it for a 
lot more than just gaming!  When was the last time you fired up a Web browser 
on your PSX so that you could download a good add-on for Quake II that you 
could play with a dozen or so people?
 NC> David Brabens last release was so riddled with bugs it 
 NC> was ridiculous and needed a hell of a lot of memory and 
 NC> processor power for the time. He might have good games 
 NC> design ideas but he (or his programming team) aren't 
 NC> very 'hot' IMO.
  What WAS is last release, and when?  From what I've seen of Virus 2K, it 
should be worth looking at.
  And haven't you just driven a nail into your own coffin?  If a person such 
as him considers the PC much more viable with the kind of code you describe, 
then shouldn't an even more efficient programmer (if Braben even programs) 
get even more out of the PC?
 NC> SGI worked with Nintendo to produce the N64 chips, SGI 
 NC> gave the technology, Nintendo helped reduce the cost of 
 NC> manufacturug the chips. SGI then used the low cost 
 NC> chips to produce a cheap SGI desktop workstation, I 
 NC> presume the technology got filtered down to the PC card. :)
  That wasn't quite what I meant.  I think one or two of the current 3Dfx 
people actually came from SGI, and wanted to give that kind of 3D horsepower 
to PC gamers.  They developed their own, unique chipset, so you can't really 
say that it shares the same ancestry as the N64.
 NC> Nope. Ain't San Francisco Rush by Atari?
  Yes, yes it is!  It actually uses the Voodoo 1 chipset.  I'm not sure if 
there were any enhancements to it beyond that, but it' still pretty 
impressive.
 NC> I doubt it adds much to the gameplay however. Just adds 
 NC> eye candy and eats up resources.
  No, it doesn't really add much to the gameplay - yet.  What it does do 
right now is add to the heavy Blade Runner atmopshere.  But future games can 
take advantage of it - imagine a game where most every switch or button is 
unique; imagine one where there's a "skin" for every possible character 
status (ex. armoured, a hurt arm, and so on).  Also, some games will just 
need so much texture memory that, without AGP, they may stutter.  id 
Software's Trinity might!
  And as for resources, AGP doesn't take much.  It stores the unneeded 
textures in system memory, which (assuming you have a decent 32+ MB of RAM) 
won't impact things in the slightest.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------