Quake 3 is not way off...

[Johan Palm]

It almost sounds like April fools all over again, but this article actually describes Quake 3 being played on a PDA. <br><br>http://www.theinquirer.net/14040104.htm<br><br>Johan at http://www.pocketspel.com<br><br>

[Moose or Chuck]

And who didn't know this was coming?

[Moose or Chuck]

if they make a CF card 3d acclerator, i'll pass out. We already know its possible to make video drivers i.e. Jimmys Landscape 2

[Moose or Chuck]

A 3D accellerator for CF or PC Cards would not make the device much faster and would drain the battery quickly. The CF and PC Card slots do not provide direct memory access capabilities, like a PCI or AGP slot does. It would work, but the input would seem to lag, just as if you set a high amount of pre-rendered frames in D3D apps.<br>Or something like that. I'm just knowledgeable enough to sound dumb, aren't I

[Moose or Chuck]

i think that it could be possible to a driver to point display processing to the cf slot.. But it would probably be written in asm. Cause u'd need to go directly to the processor ... i think that makes since. THe problem for us casio ppl is ther is no 2 CF card slots . maybe next E-XXX<br>

[Dan East]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh! A few things here. First off, most 3D algorithms are coded to use floating point math, and no Pocket PC processor supports floating point math. Thus any game written specifically to work around this (using fixed point integer math) will perform very well on existing Pocket PC hardware. This is obvious in the high-speed, high-quality games being produced for existing Pocket PC hardware.<br><br>Second off, one of the prime reasons that these high-powered 3D cards are needed for desktop machines is because hard core gamers want to play at the highest resolution possible. On my laptop I play 3D games at least at 800x600. A Pocket PC screen contains only .16 as many pixels as VGA running at 800x600. As you can see, a great deal less processing power is required because so few pixels need to be rendered.<br><br>Next, how the heck are you supposed to access 100 MB worth of Q3 data files on your Micro Drive / CF Memory card, when you have a video card taking up your slot? Or do they actually expect to make money off of this selling it only to iPaq owners who have already purchased the dual-CF slot sleeve? So a consumer would have had to spend around $250 (assuming the 3D card will cost $150) to be able to play Q3. Yeah, right.<br><br>Next, how did they get the source code to Quake 3 to port it to Pocket PC? Regardless of any video hardware, it still needs to be ported into a Pocket PC application. That's a huge amount of work to go to, along with "quickly" throwing together a little test 3D CF card, just for farts and giggles. Folks, you don't solder a few transistors and capacitors together to create a CF card. They revolve around an IC, and it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to design and burn IC chips of the complexity of 3D video cards.<br><br>Is something like this possible? Of course it is. Pocket Quake runs at 206.3 FPS if it doesn't have to do the 3D rendering (The whole Demo1, all 969 frames, runs in 4.7 seconds on a 206 mhz iPaq. You should hear it!) If the 3D were rendered at the hardware level, then it would be blazingly fast. However, I just have doubts, as stated above, concerning the legitimacy of this blurb, uh, I mean article.<br><br>Dan East

[randall]

Actually I didn't buy a 3D card to get higher resolution. I bought it to run my existing 3D games faster with ALL the effects enabled.<br><br>There is a substantial quality/speed difference in a game running in software mode versus hardware accelerated- even at the same resolution (assuming the game supports both modes).<br><br>I don't buy the claim that Quake3 for PDAs is coming quite yet. I'm not sure, but is the CF bus even fast enough /wide enough to gain anything through 3D acceleration?

[Dan East]

Randall, I bet you don't play Q3 at 640x480.<br><br>Dan East

[Paul]

Isn't PowerVR making 3D chips for Pocket PCs or something? I'm sure I read about it somewhere...<br><br> <br>I think that's it...<br><br>[admin edit:fixed link from scrolling]<br>Last modification: Chris Edwards - 04/15/01 at 01:29:04

[Chris Edwards]

I play counter-strike at 640x480 on my laptop... ... even though i have 3d accel. card. I find that i can aim better, cause it ain't jerkey... <br><br>but that's just me... and i have said/done stupid things before.. this may be one of them.

[Chris Edwards]

one more thing. articles like that one about Q3 on a pda @ 60fps annoy me. It doesn't give much information, no conclusion email, nothing... just stops... For some reason i don't trust the sources saying that Q3 is running in testing environments...    I bet the PDA is running a P2 processor or something... ok.. i'll shutup now.<br><br>~Hey look! I'm an administator... so i can say whatever i want.. even if it doesn't make sense.~

[Paul]

Why is it I can run 3D games at 800x600 faster than 640x480? Is it something to do with it being high res which is more comfortable for the 3D card? Am i making sense? Hmmm...<br><br><br>Last modification: Paul - 04/15/01 at 03:09:46

[Moose or Chuck]

800x600 is where the graphics cards usually kick in to help out, because of the need for increased bandwidth. In 640x480, the graphics card only does textures and stuff. I guess, I have no real educated knowledge on this subject .

[randall]

Dan, actually I don't play Q3 at all. I personally think the engine is excellent, while the game is uninspired and uninteresting. I much prefer Unreal Tournament, even though it is older technology.<br><br>But that wasn't really what you asked me. I'll try to explain my original statement better.<br><br>I own Unreal Tournament, Sin, Longbow2, Myth II and about a million other games, all of which support software mode AND 3D accelerated modes.<br><br>I played those games at 800x600 resolution in software mode for a long time. I decided to buy a 3D card in order to take advantage of the 3D accelerated effects. Sin alone has a dozen or more 3D accelerated effects- volumetric lighting, alpha channel for models, lensflare, etc. These were not visible in software mode.<br><br>I still play games at 800x600 resolution, but now that it is 3D accelerated, I get better performance and all the effects. <br><br>So no, I wouldn't play Q3 at 640x480. But I wouldn't play it at 640x480 in software mode either (I don't know if Q3 even supports software mode).<br><br>

[randall]

Hmmm, I just reread my previous reply. I guess I failed miserably at clarifying my previous statements. Oh well