Quantcast

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92

Thread: Polygon rendering: Quads vs Triangles

  1. #1
    Hero of Algol kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,690
    Rep Power
    55

    Default Polygon rendering: Quads vs Triangles

    OK, so this has come up a few times in the past, namely in context of the saturn, and I've seen nothing really positive or in favor of using quads for 3D rendering in discussions on Sega-16 (for 2D games and effects, it's another story).
    However, I've seen far more mixed responses in discussions on AtariAge, for example:

    From this thread: http://sega-16.com/forum/showthread....462#post190462

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    Just for info's sake, the PSX was capable of higher hi-res than the Saturn, but didn't use hi-res except for static screens because it slowed games down enough that Sony felt it not worth the extra res at the time. People were still using smaller CRTs, and Sony wanted to hit the biggest consumer base possible to assure their acceptance into the market. It's funny that the PS3 went the other way, trying to push the edge of the market rather than the majority base.

    Also, the Saturn is NOT capable of "proper" 3D, and certainly not with the effects that the PSX or N64 could. It goes Saturn < PSX < N64. Yes, the Saturn could blit those quads fast, but that's not 3D, and it made 3D games more difficult on the Saturn. Often, a brand new engine would need to be made specifically for the Saturn. When the effort was made to make an engine specifically tailored to the Saturn, it could simulate real 3D close enough that Saturn users could brag about 3D as well, but that wasn't very often. It took too long and cost too much for most devs to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89 View Post
    So the only reson it's not "proper 3D" is because it uses quads instead of triangles? (in which case the same would apply to the 3DO, as would Nvidia's NV1) Off topic, but if you used a software rasterizer for triangles, could VDP 1 still be used for texturing and lighting/shading effects for the polygons?
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    I suppose you could use the line drawing mode of the VDP. Do the rasterizing in software and build a command list of the appropriate line draws. Most GPUs that work on quads break them internally into triangles. That's easy enough. Quads are rarely ever used because putting four vertices in a single plane wastes space on an unnecessary coordinate. Any set of quads can be more efficiently handled via triangle strips than with quads. Not to mention, it's really hard to make seamless textures with quads - you wind up warping the texture instead of proper perspective mapping. You need to read a few books on the subject - quads are bad (or at least inefficient), triangles are good.

    Exercise: Make a seamless sphere using nothing but quads that are all a single plane (perfectly flat). Note - this exercise is trivially easy with triangles. I have nothing but respect for those people who did 3D engines and models for the Saturn. It's a damn sight harder task than on the other consoles.

    Now, I also posted a few quotes from an atariage discussion in the above thread, but to refer back to that same discussion on Atariage:

    http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic...3#entry1810613

    Quote Originally Posted by kskunk Aug 6, 2009 10:33 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89
    The 3DO didn't have hardware support for 3D either I beleive (or at least not for the 3D calculations), and its CPU was actually a bit slower than the GBA's, but it had hardware support for tecture mapping and the GPU would draw the polygons
    Actually, the 3DO does have a fixed point matrix math coprocessor. This is pretty similar to the Playstation's Geometry Transform Engine. It does all the 3D math at speeds similar to the Jag RISC.

    The 3DO is often criticized for being 'not 3D enough' due to its lack of a triangle based rasterizer. Instead it uses quads that can be scaled and warped, just like the Sega Saturn. This type of hardware can be used as a sort of rectangular rasterizer and offers performance benefits at the cost of a lot of extra difficulty in creating models.
    Quote Originally Posted by kskunk Aug 10, 2009 12:38 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89
    Hmm, that's interesting, I wonder why they went with quads, perhaps for the Same reason the Saturn did (for sprite tiles)
    Quads might seem like a great idea if you're new to 3D. Triangles seem really wasteful at first -- especially since you need two triangles for every quad, and quads are everywhere in most 3D models.

    Like I said before, quads really are more efficient than triangles. The downside is that the world uses triangles. Most algorithms are designed for triangles, not quads (or have considerable complexity when dealing with quads). As a result, most tools only work with triangles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atari_Owl Aug 10, 2009 2:05 AM
    Quads ARE a great idea for 3D
    I wasted a lot of time around a couple of years ago when somebody put a lot of effort into persuading me otherwise, but i came to my senses. Long Live Quads.
    Quote Originally Posted by kskunk Aug 10, 2009 10:29 AM
    [quote name='Atari_Owl' post='1812863' date='Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:05 AM']Quads ARE a great idea for 3D
    I wasted a lot of time around a couple of years ago when somebody put a lot of effort into persuading me otherwise, but i came to my senses. Long Live Quads.
    The NVidia NV1 famously used quads instead of triangles. They put a ton of research into making them work pretty well and developers still cursed it as a toy incapable of Real 3D -- after all, SGI says Real 3D uses triangles! Eventually NVidia relented and offered only triangles. Some people just can't be convinced to think differently.

    - KS
    [/quote]



    A post from this much older discussion by veteran jaguar programmer Gorf:
    http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic...2#entry1342272

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorf Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:37 PM
    -snip-
    All three of those systems were comparable, just one was stronger in one area then the other.
    The PSX kick balls in poly count. It is also a lot easier to code for one processor than two or three.
    Why Sega thought nine processors was even necessary is beyond me. Use the 2 SH2's wit a VDP
    each on sepereate ram buses. Or at very least allow both chips to run out of main simultaniously.
    The Jag can do this much at least.

    The Saturn is better then PSX at 2D and I bet with the right coders even the 3D in the sense
    of polygon features. Again that quad only polygons in hardware is just plain stupid. Triangles rule! Well at least they did not screw this up on the DC.


    The Jaguar is balance between the two and more a computational beast. Jaguar gives you
    quality not quantity. The best of both worlds just not as much on the screen as either. However
    the OPL and Blitter wil toast either system in 2D in shear objects on the screen. You'll never
    see this as the OPL is only limited by buswidth and memory...It works out to about 3000 128
    x 128 x 16bit sprites but then you are left with little bus to do much of anything else.

    The one thing that stands out with the Jaguar, is even though you'll never reach the polycounts
    and the framerates with those poly counts of other systems, nothing beats its flexibility until the next
    generation.


    The N64 is amonster locked ina box of bad hardware decisions. There is so much untapped
    potential from the chipset but you wont ever see it because the design is limited.
    Not unlike the JAguar which ifyou put the Tom and Jerry in another design, it would have no
    trouble keeping up with the

    And this discussion on a current homebrew game using a quad based renderer http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic...ri-owl-project (true 4-point primitives)



    Now, one other point, regardless of the math catering to triangles in general and such:
    In the context of building 3D models in general, why would quads be any worse than triangles in terms of pure vertices used.
    A quad can obviously be built up from 2 triangles, albeit using 6 vertices rather than 4, but conversely can't a quad overlap 2 vertices to create a triangle, using 4 vertices rather than 3?
    So in a model with a mix of a lot of quads and triangles it would favor pure quads over triangles in terms of number of vertices. (a model using 4 quads and 4 triangles would take 36 vertices for triangle primitives, but only 32 for quads) Obviously models using more quads would skew things further, and models using primarily triangles would favor triangle primitives (for more complex polygons, quads are generally favored too: a simple pentagon takes 9 points using triangles, 8 for quads; hexagon 12 for trips, 8 for quads; heptagon 15 for trips, 12 for quads; octagon 18 for trips, 12 for quads, etc.
    6 days older than SEGA Genesis
    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    Dude it’s the bios that marries the 16 bit and the 8 bit that makes it 24 bit. If SNK released their double speed bios revision SNK would have had the world’s first 48 bit machine, IDK how you keep ignoring this.
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    the PCE, that system has no extra silicone for music, how many resources are used to make music and it has less sprites than the MD on screen at once but a larger sprite area?

  2. #2
    YM2612+SN76489 = eargasm! ESWAT Veteran Christuserloeser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cologne, FRG
    Posts
    6,647
    Rep Power
    62

    Default

    The statement about PSX being capable of higher resolution than Saturn has been corrected before. There's not a single PSX game using any resolution higher than 320x240 but loads and loads of Saturn games running in high res.

    Comparing 3DO with Saturn is like comparing the VCS 2600 with Neo Geo. (well, almost =P )
    Last edited by Christuserloeser; 05-15-2010 at 07:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis Knight View Post
    Sega's worst damn enemy was (and continues to be) Sega.
    189 157 262 502 517 659 220 556 112

  3. #3
    Road Rasher
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    273
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I doubt you could overlap the vertices without problems. At best probably you could put two of the vertices really close -- the polygons need to be convex.

  4. #4
    ding-doaw Raging in the Streets tomaitheous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sonoran Desert
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,389
    Rep Power
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christuserloeser View Post
    The statement about PSX being capable of higher resolution than Saturn has been corrected before. There's not a single PSX game using any resolution higher than 320x240 but loads and loads of Saturn games running in high res.
    IIRC, Tekken 3 run in 320x480 (or 256x480). I remember this because early PSX emulation was off and that game need serious aspect ratio correction (you had to turn it on).

  5. #5
    Joe Redifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO - USA
    Posts
    12,589
    Rep Power
    94

    Default

    Yeah, Tekken 3 interlaces in much the same way that Virtua Fighter 2 on the Saturn did. High(ish) res polygons and lower res backgrounds. Tekken 3 still looks like crap, though.

    And I don't know what all of this "proper" 3D talk is. If a game engine has a z-space, it is proper 3D. The end.
    Last edited by Joe Redifer; 05-15-2010 at 06:35 PM.

  6. #6
    Hero of Algol kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,690
    Rep Power
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christuserloeser View Post
    Comparing 3DO with Saturn is like comparing the VCS 2600 with Neo Geo. (well, almost =P )
    More like comparing the Genesis to the Neo Geo... (if that)

    Except the 3DO was MUCH easier to program for, again, Sony went the same route with the PSX. (though I think they invested in even more extensive high-level support than 3DO) It's probably more like comparing the Dreamcast to the Xbox or GC, 1/2 a generation ahead...
    This isn't the point of the discussion though.
    No doubt the 3DO is underpowered though. Actually another quote from one of those threads applies here:
    Quote Originally Posted by kskunk Thu May 21, 2009 1:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorf Thu May 21, 2009 12:58 PM
    I know little about the actual internals of the 3DO as no one seems to know outside of the signed developers
    but though it had many more games and a few really fun games, it was no Jaguar in terms of power. It did
    texture map well for what it did though.
    I've managed to dig up some technical docs on the 3DO, but they're hard to find. It's an interesting counterpoint to the Jaguar because it meets the market requirements of a next gen system -- it's just really underpowered. On the other hand, the Jaguar is far more powerful, but of course Atari marketing was a bunch of tossers and had no idea what the market wanted. We all knew that.

    The 3DO was designed to be programmed in C and texture mapping is a core feature, two things the Jaguar missed out on. However, the 3DO's clock rate is slower compared to the Jaguar, and the custom chips are on an older process technology, which makes the chipset bigger, less powerful, and more expensive than Tom and Jerry.

    The 3DO's ARM is weaker than the Jag RISC, but has the advantage of an excellent good C compiler and a bug-free memory interface, making large programs a cakewalk to make.

    Like the Jaguar, there is no cache, so main bus bandwidth is a severe restriction. While the 3DO is texture mapping the ARM CPU is frozen.

    This led to awesome graphics demos that turned into choppy games, since gameplay logic killed graphics performance.

    No need to debate the 3DO's severe price disadvantage. That's been done to death.

    - KS


    The big similarity is that the 3DO and Saturn were the only commercially released game consoles to feature hardware quadrilateral rasterization.

    The saturn might have done that for usefulness in 2D situations, but that was NOT the case with the 3DO.
    Pettus's Saturn article claims that Sega was using the 3DO as a sort of basis to build its competition on, at least for the original Gigadrive/saturn; so I wonder if any of that carried over to the later Saturn created by the "Away Team" in late 1993. Plus there was Nvidia's NV1 chipset, but that was a PC video card. (and mentioned in the initial quotes)


    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Redifer View Post
    And I don't know what all of this "proper" 3D talk. If a game engine has a z-space, it is proper 3D. The end.
    Don't raycasting engines use Z-space as well?
    Last edited by kool kitty89; 05-15-2010 at 03:42 PM.
    6 days older than SEGA Genesis
    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    Dude it’s the bios that marries the 16 bit and the 8 bit that makes it 24 bit. If SNK released their double speed bios revision SNK would have had the world’s first 48 bit machine, IDK how you keep ignoring this.
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    the PCE, that system has no extra silicone for music, how many resources are used to make music and it has less sprites than the MD on screen at once but a larger sprite area?

  7. #7
    YM2612+SN76489 = eargasm! ESWAT Veteran Christuserloeser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cologne, FRG
    Posts
    6,647
    Rep Power
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89 View Post
    More like comparing the Genesis to the Neo Geo... (if that)
    Well, Genesis and NeoGeo are practically identical aside of the VDP.

    3DO and Saturn are entirely different architectures.




    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89 View Post
    Except the 3DO was MUCH easier to program for, again
    Here we go again... - How would you know that ?




    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89 View Post
    Pettus's Saturn article claims that Sega was using the 3DO as a sort of basis to build its competition on
    I wouldn't believe anything that Sam Pettus wrote.

    Of course they most likely did study the available hardware of the time and like everyone else they were limited by what was reasonably possible at the time, but I doubt that they used 3DO as a basis for anything.



    Saturn was an arcade machine, very similar to Neo Geo or Dreamcast. It seems it was designed as the spiritual successor to the aging System 32 hardware, but at the same time to provide 3D capabilities superior to the Model 1 hardware which would allow for "2,5D" games like Clockwork Knight (one of Saturn's earliest games btw). Saturn was meant to be a high end machine offering true arcade quality, much like Neo Geo and Dreamcast. It was not meant to replace the Genesis right at its release. That was what Giga Drive / Mars / 32X were designed for, which is why Sega of Japan's best software teams were working on 32X [and Mega Drive / Genesis] games, not Saturn games.

    They changed their policy in 1995, because no one bought 32X, and MD/G sales were declining MUCH faster than anyone could have anticipated.
    Last edited by Christuserloeser; 05-15-2010 at 07:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis Knight View Post
    Sega's worst damn enemy was (and continues to be) Sega.
    189 157 262 502 517 659 220 556 112

  8. #8
    ESWAT Veteran Chilly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,223
    Rep Power
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89 View Post
    A quad can obviously be built up from 2 triangles, albeit using 6 vertices rather than 4, but conversely can't a quad overlap 2 vertices to create a triangle, using 4 vertices rather than 3? So in a model with a mix of a lot of quads and triangles it would favor pure quads over triangles in terms of number of vertices. (a model using 4 quads and 4 triangles would take 36 vertices for triangle primitives, but only 32 for quads)
    Incorrect. A quad made from triangles only takes six vertexes if you use two individual triangles. That's a common error pro-quad people make to make quads look better. Use a triangle fan or a triangle strip and it only takes 4, just like quads. So even with the best case for quads, triangles can be just as efficient as quads. Also, overlapping two vetexes to make a triangle out of a quad only works with flat shaded polygons. This warps the living shit out of a texture, and looks funky with non-flat shading.

    Obviously models using more quads would skew things further, and models using primarily triangles would favor triangle primitives (for more complex polygons, quads are generally favored too: a simple pentagon takes 9 points using triangles, 8 for quads; hexagon 12 for trips, 8 for quads; heptagon 15 for trips, 12 for quads; octagon 18 for trips, 12 for quads, etc.
    I would like to see you actually make some of those shapes with quads... they are FAR easier to make with triangles, and much more efficiently as well. For example, a pentagon takes only SIX vertexes with a triangle fan. Similarly, the other shapes you mention are far more compact with triangle fans or strips than with quads.

  9. #9
    Joe Redifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO - USA
    Posts
    12,589
    Rep Power
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kool kitty89 View Post
    Don't raycasting engines use Z-space as well?
    That's the light source, and yes if it has a z space then the light itself lives in 3D space. But I am talking games where you move around in 3D space. People say Doom isn't a 3D game. Sure, it may be made of 2D sprites or whatever, but you move around in 3D space. It's a 3D game engine. You just can't see all sides of a given object or enemy. So the objects and enemies are 2D, but moving within 3D space.

  10. #10
    Let's Go Away Master of Shinobi kokujin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Daaaaytonaaaaa
    Posts
    1,421
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Does anybody know if this is in real time?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUe9ASlu9Us

    Less talk more action!

  11. #11
    I DON'T LIKE POKEMON Hero of Algol j_factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Oakland, representin'
    Posts
    7,771
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    Of course that's real time.


    You just can't handle my jawusumness responces.

  12. #12
    That's Sir Guntz to you Hero of Algol Guntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    21
    Posts
    7,588
    Rep Power
    62

    Default

    Saturn Shenmue is STILL insane.

    Come join us on Micro-64! Super Mario Land 3! Order now from RetroQuest Games!
    My selling thread, featuring a Game Gear system bundle, big box PC games and more!

  13. #13
    Let's Go Away Master of Shinobi kokujin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Daaaaytonaaaaa
    Posts
    1,421
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Why didn't all 3D Saturn games look this good?This looks better than anything I've seen on the PS1.

    Less talk more action!

  14. #14
    Hero of Algol kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,690
    Rep Power
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Redifer View Post
    That's the light source, and yes if it has a z space then the light itself lives in 3D space. But I am talking games where you move around in 3D space. People say Doom isn't a 3D game. Sure, it may be made of 2D sprites or whatever, but you move around in 3D space. It's a 3D game engine. You just can't see all sides of a given object or enemy. So the objects and enemies are 2D, but moving within 3D space.
    In the case of Doom, the actual game is all 2D, that's the way the engine works, you just have different heights depicted. All the maps are simple top-down, flat, 2D representations with varying height gradients. The game renders to create height and depth perception but you physically can't have any 2 vertical potions overlapping. (ie no 2nd floor or platform above another)

    Not, I don't think raycasting itsself is limited to this, but you'd need a more complex engine to have a full 3D environment. Some voxel engines and maybe Doom-like raycasts use this I think. (by Doom-like I mean similar appearance, built up of tiles -which do look like textured polygons)

    But I may be misunderstanding the fundamental manner raycasting works... Since you only cast one ray for every column of pixels... Hmm, maybe actual vertical space wouldn't work properly. (ray tracing is obviously a different case)

    You could definitely have a mix of raycasting based rendering (and voxels) and polygons as well. (Outcast and Amok used voxel terrain and some objects in addition to polygons)
    I've seen Voxel renderers using voxel based objests in what appear to be 3D space as well, so I'm not sure about that. (unless you combine 3D coordinate manipulation as well as height mapping ont he same object)


    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    I would like to see you actually make some of those shapes with quads... they are FAR easier to make with triangles, and much more efficiently as well. For example, a pentagon takes only SIX vertexes with a triangle fan. Similarly, the other shapes you mention are far more compact with triangle fans or strips than with quads.

    Wow, OK that explains a lot. I obviously haven't done actual programming for such hardware, but I'd gotten the impressiont hat when drawing the primitives, the points needed to be calculated for each individual primitive's vertices, including points already shared with others.

    Actually, i think you can do a pentagon with only 5 points. (see attachment) I assume this is the polygon strip method rather than "fan." In fact, most polygons seem to be possible to make using strips with no additional points. (ie 6 point hexagon, 7 point heptagon, 8 point octagon, 9 point nonagon, 10 point decagon, etc) And you also end up using fewer primitives as well as points.

    So the only real advantage would be not for points needed to be calculated, but sheer number of primitives rasterized, and as you mentioned, there's already other difficulties related to that, particularly for anything beyond flat-shading. (and unevenly warped quads -parallelagram would be OK, I'd think: which is inclusive of rhombus, square, and rectangle, of course)
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by kool kitty89; 05-15-2010 at 10:57 PM.
    6 days older than SEGA Genesis
    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    Dude it’s the bios that marries the 16 bit and the 8 bit that makes it 24 bit. If SNK released their double speed bios revision SNK would have had the world’s first 48 bit machine, IDK how you keep ignoring this.
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    the PCE, that system has no extra silicone for music, how many resources are used to make music and it has less sprites than the MD on screen at once but a larger sprite area?

  15. #15
    Hero of Algol kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,690
    Rep Power
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christuserloeser View Post
    Well, Genesis and NeoGeo are practically identical aside of the VDP.

    3DO and Saturn are entirely different architectures.
    The graphics architectures is possibly the most defining portion of a platform. Honestly, CPU is more variable by far, in terms of a game system. In fact, for high-level programming and a chipset facilitating multiple architectures, the CPU arch matters little, just the performance. (granted the SH2s were more powerful than the ARM60, though also considerably newer and more expensive -in terms of die size, gate count, and pin count -the latter not decreasing with moore's law)

    In fact, the Saturn and 3D may be the most similar in some respects for their use of quad-based 3D rendering. (granted the 3DO focused far more on being C friendly for fast/easy programming as well as porting and focused primarily on 3D, much like the PSX, the Saturn is really most similar in terms of the rasterization method)

    Here we go again... - How would you know that ?
    Discussions with a variety of programmers and engineers, mostly on Sega-16 and atariage. As well as articles and documentation on the systems. 9and interviews with prominent developers of the systems)

    Will you deny that the Jaguar is difficult to program for, or the PS2, or the 2600? (or that the Dramcast is friendly to program for)

    Some of the discussions are with homebrewers or those who worked in the industry at the time, but not developing for the Saturn (but have a technical understanding of the system -particularly with hard technical documents available iirc -possibly leaked).
    However, there has been actual discussions involving programmers who worked on games for the saturn. (in particular, that's how I got the impression of the geometry coprocessor in the Saturn was of limited use and/or poorly documented in western dev kits -it could have just been that an SH-2 was faster at doing the math than the 14.3 MHz DSP though -obviously the DSP would be more useful in the cases of more CPU intensive games like software rendering or intensive game logic)

    The Neo Geo is massively more powerful than the MD, and also far more expensive: it's also considerably different in overall graphics architecture (the System 16 is more similar in a general manner to the MD), the Neo Geo is one of a few commercially successful machines to be entirely sprite based (hardware sprite, not blitter objects), that's probably the most dramatic difference.


    I wouldn't believe anything that Sam Pettus wrote.
    I wouldn't be the first to defend the exceptional accuracy of his articles or bias present (though he does have a positive bias towards the Saturn obviously with some of his comments about its technical prowess over the PSX, but technical understanding is probably the biggest flaw in his articles). However, I don't think he outright lies or unduely manipulates facts (much of the time he seems to make vague implications on touchy subjects, allowing the reader to make their decision -much probably going over peoples heads).

    But really, if we threw out all of his articles as patently false, you'd have to throw out a lot of arguments you've made based on his comments and interviews... (again this is way off topic)

    Of course they most likely did study the available hardware of the time and like everyone else they were limited by what was reasonably possible at the time, but I doubt that they used 3DO as a basis for anything.
    Why? It was prominent in Japanese media at the time and the biggest next-gen platform being pushed early on. (indeed it's longest and most stable market was asia, in part due to adult games, and in part due to being a relatively affordable VCD player)
    The 3DO really is a pretty good design hardware wise, rather underpowered, but also significantly older: the choice of quadrilateral primitives was probably the only technical issue was the a design fault, the rest was limited by technology of the time. (the Jaguar design was hugely risky using .5 micron chip design starting in 1990! that's extremely ambitious, but Flare managed to pull it off successfully -by comparison high-end CPUs in 1993 were generally .8 Micron, the SH-2 was .8 micron, and a lot of other stuff was still 1 micron, the pentium was .8 micron, the power PC 601 was .6 micron, and several high-end advanced CPUs arrived in 1994 with .5 micron, but Flare had it done and Atari had it in production by 1993, on a very limited budget and 3 years of development -albeit with some bugs)

    Saturn was an arcade machine, very similar to Neo Geo or Dreamcast. It seems it was designed as the spiritual successor to the aging
    The ST-V was created (or at least released) several months after the Saturn... And don't forget they did the same thing with ALL their home consoles: even the SG-1000. (and SMS, MD, DC, etc)

    SO I really fail to see any significance there.

    but at the same time to provide 3D capabilities superior to the Model 1 hardware which would allow for "2,5D" games like Clockwork Knight (one of Saturn's earliest games btw).
    Actually the Saturn was superior to the Model 2 in some respects, namely the hardware gouraud shading feature, though the CPUs were weaker, hardware less capable in 3D, and using quads... which was either following the 3DO, or a decision made to marginally facilitate 2D -it could ahve easily been done using triangles rather than quads at almost the same efficiency -it was VDP 2 that really mattered for 2D anyway -though in practice it doesn't seem to have been too much of an advantage over the PSX using "sprite" tiles and software rendering alone -RAM again being a separate issue)

    Saturn was meant to be a high end machine offering true arcade quality, much like Neo Geo and Dreamcast. It was not meant to replace the Genesis right at its release. That was what Giga Drive / Mars / 32X were designed for, which is why Sega of Japan's best software teams were working on 32X [and Mega Drive / Genesis] games, not Saturn games.
    The Dreamcast was extremely cost effective, well designed and programmer friendly, a total 180 from the Saturn, and much like the PSX (actually better in terms of a clean design, I think).
    It was a high-end console for sure, but one many people could afford. The base unit was inexpensive as were the games.

    Splitting the market with 2 systems really makes no sense, neither for the Japanese market (which was far more tolerant to expensive new hardware), nor the western markets which were more sensitive to being overloaded by peripherals. If that was really SoJ's idea, that's certainly an argument against them and fully understandable why SoA would have been in conflict.

    Then again, Sega had always been heavy with home console hardware, with rather short release intervals: though they had to with the limited success and need for competitive edge prior to the MD (and through the MD in Japan). The SG-1000, Mk.II, SC-3000, Mk.III (various peripherals including FM), SMS, MD, MCD, 32x, Saturn, DC. It only really became an issue when they started doing it in the West though, and only after there was an established product. (compared to the weak SMS in North America where the Genesis release after only 3 years wasn't an issue)

    They changed their policy in 1995, because no one bought 32X, and MD/G sales were declining MUCH faster than anyone could have anticipated.
    SoA or SoJ???

    SoA obviously didn't want that earlier with previous plans and propositions made to SoJ regarding the next generation. (SGI in early 1993, Sony some time in late '93 or early '94 iirc) Note: that has nothing to do with Pettus either, unless you think Melf made up things in his interview with kalinske...

    Had the Saturn been 3DO expensive it might have made sense, but it was more like PS3 expensive for the time... It really is a bit like what Atari tried to do with the 5200 as their high-end system rather than pushing it as the full successor to the 2600 and phasing that out. (of course, there are a ton of other issues then, though the dual management problem was there too interestingly)
    6 days older than SEGA Genesis
    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    Dude it’s the bios that marries the 16 bit and the 8 bit that makes it 24 bit. If SNK released their double speed bios revision SNK would have had the world’s first 48 bit machine, IDK how you keep ignoring this.
    Quote Originally Posted by evilevoix View Post
    the PCE, that system has no extra silicone for music, how many resources are used to make music and it has less sprites than the MD on screen at once but a larger sprite area?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •