Will there be TurboGL drivers for Windows2000

[bmcgarvey]

Does anybody know if there will be TurboGL drivers released for Windows2000? I installed 2000 about a month ago and removed it, just for the fact that the TurboGL drivers do not work in it. I even tried copying the Opengl.dll file (created by TurboGL) into Quake3, but Q3 just failed to start up in 2000. I would much rather use Win2k because i do music recording and it seems more stable with the NT kernel, but i don't want to sacrifice game performance.

[PaulS]

As long as they get the ICD up to speed, there isn't any need for the TurboGL. In any event, I doubt they will bother releasing one for W2k, they are having enough problems releasing stable drivers.

Paul

[Micko]

I'm sorry to say, but we do need TurboGL. ICD takes more processor power than TGL, take a look at crusher.dm2 scores with TGL and without.

With TGL -- 52 fps
with ICD -- 43 fps

Micko,
P3-560, 128mb, G400 DH 32mb...

[Gurm]

No, I understand that. However, he was talking about CRUSHER scores. If your crusher scores are ok, your average will be MUCH higher.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[franksch3]

Oh oh, here we go again. ;-)

Many people think that 30 fps is the maximum your eye can distinguish because a NTSC TV runs at 30 fps per second. That's a fundamental flaw.

Your TV looks smooth because of motion blurring, which is a natural process when taking a picture of a moving object. Even series like Star Trek Voyager use motion blurring in their special effects shots.

Since games don't use motion blur the effects are that you are looking at a complete still picture per frame. By using more frames per second, the eye gets fooled into seeing motion blurring. Thus the more fps the smoother everythings looks.

Frank

[Gurm]

Micko,

You'll get no sympathy from us with those scores. Many of us are firmly in the "your eye can't see more than 30fps" camp, anyway.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[spoogenet]

As much as I can agree with "your eye can not see more than 30fps," there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of the argument.

Although your eye can't really see any more than 30fps, games usually report the AVERAGE fps. This means that if you are AVERAGING 54fps, then you may actually be running up to 100fps at any given moment, and at any other moment you may be running at 5fps.

For gamers this is important if they want to play large networked games. The higher your AVERAGE fps tends to be then the less likely you will be to actually hit 5fps during game play. If you are averaging 200fps then it is unlikely you'll slow down to 30fps unless you are in one massive game. This is where high fps comes into play. It's not about what the eye can see, it's about what the computer can process. You want your system to be fast enough so that your computer can process enough fps that you'll never see any less than 30, in which case your eye will never see a difference. But if you only average 30fps, then believe me, your eye will see those 20fps portions of the game.

b

[waxling]

Yeah, I have to a agree that the TGL is still very much needed. Basically Quake3 looks like crap unless I use the TGL (shadow/texture problems), and after fixing the perfomance hit I was getting at work on our new athlon 600's (thanks Maggi, you were spot on about the sound card/irq ) TGl gets up to a playable 40 fps.

This, I think is only the case for p3/athlon users, as the SIMD optimizations give a good boost.

[Micko]

Gurm,
I used Crusher scores just to show that there is difference between TGL and ICD. TGL is faster in Q3 too, but difference is only couple of frames...

Micko,

[Ghydda]

I would put my money on franksch3, he is right on the nail!

Ghydda - doing somewhat okay in the FPS section...