Re: Thoughts about Second Sight

[sbehrens@contech.demon.co.uk (Soenke Behrens)]

philip@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Philip Stephens) wrote on Sat, 27 May 1995
23:20:25 GMT:

>>The board is too slow to manipulate pictures in modes beyond 320x200x256.

>  Let's get some facts noted down here.  Let's assume we want to update a
>full screen in each of the video modes.  Here's the maximum frame rates we
>would be talking about assuming we're pushing 3Mb per second:

>  320x200x256:	50 fps
>  640x200x256:	25 fps
>  640x400x256:	12 fps 

>  So obviously if you were trying to write a game that had to update the whole
>screen, then resolutions above 640x400x256 would start to show jerkiness.  But
>how many PC games do you know of that use resolutions higher than this, hmmm?
>Not that many, I bet!

Quite right. There are only now a few games that actually use SVGA
(all your favourites, I bet, are VGA (320x200x256)) ... and those are
played best using a Pentium-90 (no joke, folks ... for 640x480, a
Pentium-90 rates "good", at 320x400 or below it rates "very good").

So, let's remain realistic, shall we? 320x200x256 is _quite_ enough
for a good game. Consider: DOOM, Falcon, Comanche, Ultima Series, the
list goes on ... all in VGA. Only a few flight-sim-style games have
begun to use SVGA over the past year or so.

>  Frankly, people who can only be negative about the GS ought to consider
>selling theirs and buying the latest PC.  The GS is for enthusiasts, those who
>aren't slaves to the notion that they must have the fastest and greatest
>computer on the earth.  I love my GS, I think it's a great little computer, and
>a lot of fun to use.  The Second Sight board will just make it more fun to
>use, and that's all I can ask for.

Well roared, Lion.

Soenke

--
Short but witty