Vertex Shader 2.0 on Parhelia

[Indiana]

Ah, I see. I never tested NTSC.

[chmodman]

I don't agree with the excuse of:
"Lets not implement VS2.0, that feature it not used right now and by the time it is the card will be too slow anyway."

If this is acceptable business practices, then why dont they just re-release the G200, but rename it as Parhelia 2 and sell it for $400. They can claim it can to DirectX 10. Heck, there are no DX10 games yet, and by the time there are who would want to play on it with this card anyway....

Come on people this is outrageous

Sorry, I spent $320 hard earned dollars for features advertised, in anticipation of yet to be released games. I want the support before the game comes out, that is why I pay a premium. I am an early adopter of technology which is risky, but if they have used deceptive marketing, then I will never buy Matrox again.

[Kruzin]

Just when you think a useless thread is dead is shows back up.

VS2.0 is unused in any real app or game today.
When it is used, Matrox will have it implimented.
Until then, there are more important things to address.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Kruzin

Just when you think a useless thread is dead is shows back up.

VS2.0 is unused in any real app or game today.
When it is used, Matrox will have it implimented.
Until then, there are more important things to address.

So why is it okay now, when Matrox had EMBM implemented from the outset, even though it was <B>unused</B> in any real app or game of the day?

[Kruzin]

When G400 released with EMBM, several games implimented it right off the bat, so it was more used than VS2.0 is today.
(I remember testing Drakan, Descent3, Far Gate, and others while G400 was still top-of-the-line)

http://matrox.com/mga/3d_gaming/embm.cfm

[Jon P. Inghram]

Why does it have special support for displacement mapping then?

[Kruzin]

Titles using DM are closer to release than anything using VS2.0 (ex: HalfLife2, which will use DM extensively)
Plus, DM made the reef demo look really cool (selling cards, and the idea of DM to developers)

[Amiga Blitter]

Thiefs

I buy my Parhelia card for 430 € but the support for the driver is really poor.

Why the other company, are implementing more and more features each realase of their driver?

2. I want to develop application using vertex shaders 2.0 (in hardware).

This behavior from M is really incorrect.

Strike!!!!

[albatorsk]

What I'm mostly worried about here is that a game which requires VS 2.0 is released, and matrox will take a month or two to implement it in their drivers.

[Sasq]

As I said before and now I'll say it again. VS 2.0 isn't used right now. However right now I'm using Linux, also I would prefer all other bugs and features working at their best THAT are used now.

Dan

[Indiana]

Originally posted by chmodman
but if they have used deceptive marketing, then I will never buy Matrox again.

That's OK. But then you should never buy nVidia, ATI, SIS, S3, Trident again, either - because ALL OF THEM have used the exact same deceptive marketing in the past as well (and most likely will continue to do so in the future...)

[Nowhere]

Kruzin, I've just thought a little about using DM in HL2...I realised that this is great way to have deformations of objects from bullets or collisions. Remember the way the old games used to "simulate" those things? Usually with some kind of "marks"/darker areas on the textures. Now all you have to do to have real deformations is do the same thing with displacement map.

Does what I've said make any sense?

[Slougi]

Originally posted by Sasq
As I said before and now I'll say it again. VS 2.0 isn't used right now. However right now I'm using Linux, also I would prefer all other bugs and features working at their best THAT are used now.

Dan

I agree. I am currently looking for a video card with
1) Good Linux drivers (this includes xv, xaa, opengl and so on)
2) Good image quality

Now, nvidia satisfies 1), while Ati satisfies 2). The Parhelia (under Linux), currently satisfies neither point, but could. IMHO, before implementing VS 2.0, which was promised, but has NO use right now, they should release good Linux drivers, which were promised and ARE relevant now.
As someone already said, I believe Matrox is currently missing a bigger market due to lack of Linux drivers than due to the lack of vertex shader 2 support....

[Marshmallowman]

It may be that instead of a generic VS 2 driver, the VS is better off being implemented on a per game basis by the games developers for performance and other reasons..

But it is still a nasty trick advertising something and then not implementing it. Saying they will only implement it if they get enough user feedback is BS, people do buy video cards based on "THE PUBLISHED SPECS"!!!

but matrox isnot the only one

ATI has done the same thing with fullsteam for the 9000,9100, and 9200 based cards as well as a standard FSAA for the 9500 and up cards

[leech]

I completely agree with the fact that Linux drivers should be done first. VS 2.0, even when Games DO start using it, isn't going to be as common as how many people (professionals in many fields mind you) use linux.

Linux drivers are WAY more important to me and many others than support for something that pretty much nothing uses yet. XV and OpenGL in linux would be quite nice. Especially considering I pre-ordered my Parhelia when I was first able to, and was hoping and praying that Matrox would deliver on their promise of full linux drivers. But we haven't gotten much lately (since Nov.)

Leech