But is it real? It looks to be about the level of the Namco System 21 (http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=536&gid=1313#1313) hardware, however like in the case of SEGA CD Silpheed (http://nfggames.com/games/silpheed/) it can be easily faked.
What do you think?
As for me, I want to believe it's real, but the simple fact that FX Fighter had to be FMV makes me skeptical.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Keranu on May 14, 2007, 03:29:39 PM
Well it could be possible since from what I know any system can do polygons, but it sucks up all the hardware which can make it run really slow and barely have any shading. There are a few Genesis games that show off real polygons (can't remember their names, they were mentioned in the Ranger X thread) and looked awful, so with the more powerful PC-FX hardware it could be possible. Or maybe this game used that unreleased 3D card thing.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: GUTS on May 14, 2007, 06:55:58 PM
I doubt its real, although that screenshot doesn't really look much better than Virtua Racing on Genesis so it might have been possible.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: handygrafx on May 15, 2007, 05:55:07 AM
NEC's 32-bit console was in development for over 4 years, a long time for a console to be in R&D in those days.
that picture is realtime polygon graphics generated by the Project Tetsujin board aka IronMan aka Hudson 32-bit board from 1992, basicly the early PC-FX when it was going to have some level of 3D polygon capabilities. Hudson & NEC did away with / scrapped the polygon capabilities, and instead improved the FMV playback quality, for the final system.
see this thread for more detailed info on the changes the PC-FX went though during its development.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: FM-77 on May 15, 2007, 06:54:55 AM
I wonder why they didn't make it capable of handling 3d? A strange decision.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Necromancer on May 15, 2007, 08:02:59 AM
Easy question - $$$
NEC wanted to cut costs to be price competitive with the Saturn and the PlayStation (which was still cheaper). Unfortunately, they weren't competitive by any other measure.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on May 15, 2007, 09:23:41 AM
NEC's 32-bit console was in development for over 4 years, a long time for a console to be in R&D in those days.
that picture is realtime polygon graphics generated by the Project Tetsujin board aka IronMan aka Hudson 32-bit board from 1992, basicly the early PC-FX when it was going to have some level of 3D polygon capabilities. Hudson & NEC did away with / scrapped the polygon capabilities, and instead improved the FMV playback quality, for the final system.
see this thread for more detailed info on the changes the PC-FX went though during its development.
Sweet. Thanks! :)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: FM-77 on May 15, 2007, 10:23:58 AM
Ah, I get it then. They wanted it to be a failure. Good move.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Necromancer on May 15, 2007, 11:17:43 AM
They gambled and lost big time. They must have thought that 3D was nothing more than a gimmick and that gaming would remain 2D. Definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer. ](*,)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on May 15, 2007, 11:25:37 AM
They gambled and lost big time. They must have thought that 3D was nothing more than a gimmick and that gaming would remain 2D. Definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer. ](*,)
See also:Sega Saturn
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: handygrafx on May 15, 2007, 12:19:12 PM
I weap everytime I read these old EGM Quarterman Gossip columns
May 1990 (http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7516/nec32bit9tz.jpg)
June 1992 (http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/364/rsznec32bitmt6.jpg)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on May 15, 2007, 01:34:53 PM
As for me, I want to believe it's real, but the simple fact that FX Fighter had to be FMV makes me skeptical.
if the PC-FX would use FMV to show the upper pic, it would look in minimum a 100 times better than that. i'm sure it's fo'real. and not that impressive though, since even a SFC with FX-chip could handle this few polygons.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: termis on May 15, 2007, 07:17:46 PM
I can't recall how accurate Quarterman was with his reports, but it was a good read back in the days when I actually cared about new system & game gossip.
Reading over his columns now (where we know if it became true or not) is kinda fun in its own right.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: handygrafx on May 16, 2007, 05:52:17 AM
btw this image (http://www.pcenginefx.com/PC-FX/assets/images/facts_rumors_sss3d03.jpg) seems to be 100% believable to me. Looks like a leap beyond what SNES SuperFX, SuperFX2 and SEGA's SVP chips can do, yet significantly BELOW the polygon power of Namco's System 21 and SEGA's Model 1 arcade hardware.
The above doesn't look like pre-rendered CG/FMV like these infamous shots:
EGM rox. They're the only mag that employs guys who would be normal if you met them in real life, every other mag is chocked full of internet nerds.
So you should probably have realized that I don't read game magazines. The Internet is free and mroe frequently updated, my friend.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: FM-77 on May 16, 2007, 12:22:34 PM
Yeah, but also full of said nerds.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Tatsujin on May 16, 2007, 06:07:18 PM
but anyway. i remember how excited i was at that time, to see such great 3D grafx, which would be soon possible in our own four walls :lol:
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on May 17, 2007, 04:20:42 AM
I'm not crying that the PC-FX didn't have the same polygon-generating capabilities the PSOne and Saturn did.
Those first-generation polygon graphics looked like absolute SHIT. I thought so at the time, and even more so today. They completely lacked the beauty and intricacies that made "pixel art" and sprite-based graphics so great in the "16-bit" era. Jagged, jerky, uninspired, and filled with bland, boring, vomit-inducing "textures". Playing the original Playstation at a friend's house was what prompted me to completely skip the "32-bit" generation of consoles. During those years I really just concentrated on playing my Turbo, Genesis and NES games, completely igonoring the gaming scene of the day.
Today, a few console generations later, polygon-based graphics have improved 999.9% from 1994. While I'll still happily take a 2D side-scroller over a 3D game any day, there are lots of really good-looking 3D polygon-based games out there that don't make me want to commit suicide over their mediocrity.
In retrospect, it's a pity I didn't own a PC-FX at the time. That would've been my console of choice to succeed the 16-bit and 8-bit consoles I loved so much. Unfortunately, I didn't know much about it other than it would be extremely hard to get one.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Tatsujin on May 17, 2007, 05:31:17 AM
absolute agree so far, but you may forgot, that a lot of excellent highgrade 2D software came out on the PSX as well as saturn during the whole 32 bit era. i started into 32 bit game in '97 with gradius gaiden and akumajou dracula x gekka no yasoukyoku. unforgetable time.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on May 17, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
but you may forgot, that a lot of excellent highgrade 2D software came out on the PSX as well as saturn during the whole 32 bit era. i started into 32 bit game in '97 with gradius gaiden and akumajou dracula x gekka no yasoukyoku. unforgetable time.
Did not forget, but my younger ignorant self was unaware of this. All my friends who had Playstation's were playing things like Tony Hawk. Nobody I knew had anything 2D on the Playstation so the impressions were formed completely based on the shittygon-based 3D games of the period. Ignorant of me to not investigate further, but there it is.
It wasn't until the end of the '90s and the GameCube/PS2/Dreamcast were looming on the horizon that I realized there had been some real quality 2D stuff I'd missed. Live and learn, I guess.
Still, there is no arguing the fact that the craptacular early 3D games are what dominated the market at the time.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: FM-77 on May 17, 2007, 07:12:31 AM
While PS1 3d is a horrific thing to experience, it was a large part of what made the system so incredibly successful. Obviously, most people didn't care about the nasty graphics. Had NEC used equally horrible 3d for the PC-FX, maybe it wouldn't have been such a monumental disaster.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: handygrafx on May 17, 2007, 08:41:34 AM
I would've been happy with PC-FX being the kind of system that SEGA had originally envisioned the Saturn to be, when the Saturn was being developed as the GigaDrive; the ultimate 2D sprite pushing machine. on the software-side, I would've wanted the PC-FX to go in the same direction as the PC-Engine, CD-ROM2, SuperGrafx, SuperCD-ROM2, etc, in 32-bit quality. no 3D polygon graphics, and a balanced mixture of sprite-based an FMV/anime based games.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on May 17, 2007, 09:31:23 AM
I would've been happy with PC-FX being the kind of system that SEGA had originally envisioned the Saturn to be, when the Saturn was being developed as the GigaDrive; the ultimate 2D sprite pushing machine. on the software-side, I would've wanted the PC-FX to go in the same direction as the PC-Engine, CD-ROM2, SuperGrafx, SuperCD-ROM2, etc, in 32-bit quality. no 3D polygon graphics, and a balanced mixture of sprite-based an FMV/anime based games.
The PC-FX kind of already is as you say. The game library is not as balanced as you imply, but the selection is there. Contrary to popular belief, the PC-FX game library is not all FMV/anime games.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kaminari on May 19, 2007, 10:43:36 PM
Contrary to popular belief, the PC-FX game library is not all FMV/anime games.
Yeah, there's that one space shooter, and Team Innocent, I can't think of anymore off the top of my head though.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on May 20, 2007, 10:34:49 AM
Off the top of my head:
Miraculum: The Last Revelation (overhead RPG) Last Imperial Prince (sidescrolling action RPG) Super God Trooper Zeroigar (shooter) Team Innocent (Resident-Evil style) Boundary Gate Chip Can Kick (Bubble Bobble-style arcade) Der Langrisser FX (sequel to Warsong on the Genesis) Return to Zork (utilizies a little FMV, otherwise a graphic adventure like Myst) Little Red Riding Hood Cha-Cha (board game) Blue Breaker (RPG sidscroller) Zenki FX (side scrolling beat 'em up adventure)
..and the list could go on. These are games in my personal PC-FX collection that aren't of the FMV anime genre. Many of those are real gems, too. There are many more that I don't own.
My point is that it's not quite fair to write off the PC-FX as a simple FMV anime player.
If by mostly, you mean more than 50%, then you might be technically correct. But you have to remember there are less than 100 PC-FX titles to begin with. The library is certainly a little heavy on those kinds of titles, but there is a good mix in there of other stuff.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Black Tiger on May 25, 2007, 02:29:31 PM
They gambled and lost big time. They must have thought that 3D was nothing more than a gimmick and that gaming would remain 2D. Definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer. ](*,)
See also:Sega Saturn
The Saturn was capable of rendering cutting edge 3D when it was developed. The PSX just raised the bar at the last minute as a 3D centric console. So Sega thew in a few extra parts and shipped it as-is. Turned out pretty freaking well considering.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: rag-time4 on September 01, 2007, 07:34:53 AM
Der Langrisser FX (sequel to Warsong on the Genesis)
..and the list could go on. These are games in my personal PC-FX collection that aren't of the FMV anime genre. Many of those are real gems, too. There are many more that I don't own.
My point is that it's not quite fair to write off the PC-FX as a simple FMV anime player.
Warsong is available on PCE CD-ROM as well. I tracked it down immedeately when I found out. I always enjoyed Warsong on the Genesis.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on September 02, 2007, 06:44:40 PM
The sequel on the PC-FX is just f*cking awesome. I'm not usually a fan of turn-based strategy RPGs but I can't put it down whenever I play it.
As for the original Warsong, how does the PCE version compare to the Genesis version?
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: SuperDeadite on September 03, 2007, 02:03:43 AM
The PC-E version of Langrisser is actually a remake with different (superior) battle maps from the Genesis original. The PC-E version's maps were used for the Saturn and PS1 ports which came much later. PC-E also has absolutely stunning Redbook arangements of Noriyuki Iwadare's awesome soundtrack. The game is very cheap, and the soundtrack is worth the price alone!
Personally I don't like "Warsong" cause the game's localization was terrible. They totally butchered Satoshi Urushihara's character designs. Overal though Langrisser Dramatic Edition (Saturn) has the best version of Langrisser and Der Langrisser. If you get Langrisser Tribute, you get the best versions of all 5 games in one package. :mrgreen:
However, Der Langrisser FX has some interesting oddities that don't appear elsewhere. For example, characters actually shout the name of spells when they cast them. Also it has "hard" mode which features a total script rewrite that turns the whole game into a comedy, full of drinking, gambling, and women lusting. :wink: But the Saturn version was the last one made and has the most story paths to play through (2 more then the FX and 1 more then PS1), is in high-resolution, and has redrawn character portraits that don't appear anywhere else.
As a crazy Langrisser fan, I have every version of each game except for the PC versions of Langrisser and Langrisser III (these were Korean releases only). I've beaten Der Langrisser like 30 times now, but am still having a blast with it! :clap:
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 03, 2007, 02:58:45 AM
As for me, I want to believe it's real, but the simple fact that FX Fighter had to be FMV makes me skeptical.
Its probably real since if it were faked it would look better. However it was probably a non-playable graphic demo that ran at 4 fps or so, like many 3D trade show demos were at the time.
I'm sure some people, like NEC themselves, and probably Hudson, tried to get some 3D going on the FX, and it just proved to be impractical. The PC-FX just...it just sucks. Even the 2D on the FX is pretty unimpressive, so I can't imagine it was sitting on all this untaped 3D power or whatever.
Shouldn't this just be a factual matter anyway? I mean, don't we know what chips are in the FX, and wouldn't that give us a clue to the 3D power? I mean, Sony worked really hard to get the 3D lead, and Sega...threw a ton of chips in the Saturn, so really we know what they can do, at least on paper.
Wikipedia says, "32-Bit NEC V810 RISC running at 21.5MHz, 15.5MIPS, 5-Way Superscalar". Well, that could surely do Virtua Racing Mega Drive style, or Stunt Race FX...but who wants to play that stuff?
I guess I agree that I'm glad the FX never became a 4th rate showcase for lame 3D, but I'm still disappointed that it also sucked so bad for everything else you can name. The FX is even more of a disappointment to me than that N64 was, and that's saying something. The 64 did manage 3 or 4 good games though, so its light-years beyond the FX.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: GUTS on September 03, 2007, 05:35:23 AM
The PCFX has some good games, they're just all $100+ other than Boundary Gate (which totally rules).
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on September 03, 2007, 06:47:22 AM
GUTS is right...
I can't agree that the PC-FX "totally sucked." It was a system that took a different approach to the "32-bit era" and it ended up not taking off. There are a few real gems as far as software goes and I have a lot of fun with mine.
Which reminds me, I've had Boundary Gate sitting here for like 8 months and I haven't started it yet.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on September 03, 2007, 06:51:49 AM
I've never played a single PC-FX game, but from what I've read, I love the entire PC-FX library. :mrgreen:
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Keranu on September 03, 2007, 10:59:20 AM
Its probably real since if it were faked it would look better. However it was probably a non-playable graphic demo that ran at 4 fps or so, like many 3D trade show demos were at the time.
Not necessarily. It could've still been faked to make it look like it was powerful enough just to handle some simple polygons just like Silpheed for Sega CD or Sapphire for PCE.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on September 03, 2007, 11:44:00 AM
Shouldn't this just be a factual matter anyway? I mean, don't we know what chips are in the FX, and wouldn't that give us a clue to the 3D power? I mean, Sony worked really hard to get the 3D lead, and Sega...threw a ton of chips in the Saturn, so really we know what they can do, at least on paper.
The production PC-FX has no 3D graphics chip. Read: it does not support polygons through hardware. And you're right, this is simply the fact of the matter. This doesn't mean there aren't some games that do pre-rendered stuff like Sapphire, though. Team Innocent has lots of pre-rendered 3D stuff, for example, and it all looks really nice.
The prototype boards included a 3D chip that could do polygons on a lesser scale than the Saturn and Playstation (One). Why they removed it for the production run is anyone's guess. Maybe they figured the polygon support the chip offered was too poor to compete.
What's interesting is that these chips were never removed from the development kits. These kits consist of an ISA board compatible with older DOS/Windows computers that is essentially an exact duplicate of the PC-FX. Except they still include the 3D GPU.
There is another recent thread here where one of our members talks about this ISA card (he apparently has one) and how it works. Apparently there is a PC-FX game out there that actually uses polygons thru the 3D processor. The game is only playable on a computer that has the PC-FXGA card since the actual console lacks the 3D chip.
For anyone that missed the original thread, he was nice enough to make a video of the game for anyone interested:
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: ceti alpha on September 04, 2007, 06:51:19 AM
Hi all! I'm new to these forums, though I've been coming to this site for quite some time now. :)
But in regards to the polygon graphics, I've read (I forget exactly where...some Turbo site) that the HuCard game Falcon used, quite minimally mind you, polygon graphics. I actually had that game for the TG 16 back in the day. It wasn't actually that bad of a flight simulator and I remember being quite impressed with the "different" type of graphics for the buildings and whatnot.
Just saw this and wondered if Falcon (never seen Gunboat) could be considered a VERY primitive polygon game.
Peace
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on September 04, 2007, 06:57:37 AM
I know Falcon on the PC is really using polygons, but I would imagine that the TG-16 is faking it. I would be VERY SURPRISED if it was using polgyons.
Now the PC-FX with the 3D chip could EASILY do Falcon 1.0...
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on September 04, 2007, 08:48:46 AM
Hi all! I'm new to these forums, though I've been coming to this site for quite some time now. :)
But in regards to the polygon graphics, I've read (I forget exactly where...some Turbo site) that the HuCard game Falcon used, quite minimally mind you, polygon graphics. I actually had that game for the TG 16 back in the day. It wasn't actually that bad of a flight simulator and I remember being quite impressed with the "different" type of graphics for the buildings and whatnot.
Just saw this and wondered if Falcon (never seen Gunboat) could be considered a VERY primitive polygon game.
Peace
Welcome aboard and that's a nice starting post you got there! I also love your avatar and signature :) .
Yes Falcon and Gunboat used real polygons (well I assume Gunboat did too) and it's certainly believeable because of how slow those games run. I think the polygons look really cool myself, but never was able to get into those games.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: SignOfZeta on September 04, 2007, 01:27:37 PM
I know Falcon on the PC is really using polygons, but I would imagine that the TG-16 is faking it. I would be VERY SURPRISED if it was using polgyons.
Now the PC-FX with the 3D chip could EASILY do Falcon 1.0...
I'm not sure why you would say that. Super low frame rate 3D was really common back then, especially on computers, but the TG-16 is just as powerful as the consoles from around that time. Not just DOS, but Amiga stuff like Falcon, Club Drive, Race Drivin', and Mac stuff like that one sub game, or Falcon. I first played Falcon on a Mac SE, and I think it would have run on a Mac Plus, which had a 8mhz chip so...pretty much anything remotely capable could do Falcon.
Even the Master System version of Falcon uses some polygons, and it predates the computer versions by a couple of years.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on September 04, 2007, 03:29:20 PM
Wow. :shock:
The Turbo goes up a notch in my book.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: malducci on October 17, 2007, 02:12:49 PM
I just realized the "base" PC-FX has hardware assist for flat shaded polygons like the 32x has. I wonder why they never used it for such.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Keranu on October 17, 2007, 04:54:31 PM
Interesting!
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on October 17, 2007, 04:58:19 PM
I just realized the "base" PC-FX has hardware assist for flat shaded polygons like the 32x has. I wonder why they never used it for such.
How did you come to this realization?
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: malducci on October 17, 2007, 05:16:45 PM
Because I was looking over detailed tech specs for the 32x last week and talking with Charles MacDonald, he said the RLE mode of the 32x was used for flat shaded polygon acceleration . Basically a run of X pixels save cycle times instead of just plotting each pixel. It's hardware RLE bitmap decompression and the 32x used this. The PC-FX also has hardware RLE bitmap decompression for one of it's many layers.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 17, 2007, 07:07:25 PM
I just realized the "base" PC-FX has hardware assist for flat shaded polygons like the 32x has. I wonder why they never used it for such.
Because 32x sucked?
Haha.. but seriously what does that have to do with the PC-FX not using this hardware feature for polygons acceleration? :-k
The polygons might look bad in comparison to the other competitors, so they figured to focus on it's stronger features. Just my guess :P .
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: malducci on October 18, 2007, 05:58:23 PM
You mean like FMV? Pfft! Those fools....! The PC-FX can be quite a 2D beast IMO. 'Shame they never opt'd for that side of the system. I mean common up 6 BG layers, 1 cellophane layer and 2 sprite layers and more ram than you can shake a stick at. What where they thinking in not tapping into that?
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 18, 2007, 06:57:40 PM
I just realized the "base" PC-FX has hardware assist for flat shaded polygons like the 32x has. I wonder why they never used it for such.
Because 32x sucked?
Haha.. but seriously what does that have to do with the PC-FX not using this hardware feature for polygons acceleration? :-k
Wasn't 32X on the decline by the time the PC-FX was released? Maybe they figured polygons were a dying fad (kinda like Sega did before they saw the light and bolted 3D onto the Saturn).
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: malducci on October 18, 2007, 07:44:28 PM
The 32x came out in Nov '94, the PC-FX Dec '94.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 18, 2007, 07:51:11 PM
So we all know this pic of SSS3D: But is it real? It looks to be about the level of the Namco System 21 (http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=536&gid=1313#1313) hardware, however like in the case of SEGA CD Silpheed (http://nfggames.com/games/silpheed/) it can be easily faked.
Actually, what that article says about MCD Silpheed is technically incorrect. In truth, things were far more complicated and Game Arts deserve some credit for what they accomplished with the hardware.
Mega CD Silpheed actually renders all of the textures (in this case, flat shaded polygons) in real-time. What's being streamed off of the CD (in FMV-like format) is the actual vector data to which the polygons are applied. So the cinemas and the in-game backgrounds are both streamed and generated in real time.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Turbo D on October 26, 2007, 04:04:57 PM
32x had insane ports of afterburner and space harrier :) But I guess that alone didn't help it as a console err addon.. whatever the hell it was :lol:
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 27, 2007, 04:46:57 PM
Mega CD Silpheed actually renders all of the textures (in this case, flat shaded polygons) in real-time. What's being streamed off of the CD (in FMV-like format) is the actual vector data to which the polygons are applied. So the cinemas and the in-game backgrounds are both streamed and generated in real time.
If you're kidding, that's very creative and reminds me of the notebooks of fake tech specs I write when I'm bored.
If you're serious, SEGA CD is the most rocking system EVER.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Turbo D on October 28, 2007, 01:08:24 AM
silpheed is a pretty bad-ass game 8)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 28, 2007, 08:17:47 AM
Not really. I only have the old DOS version. It has some nice music, but it gets old fast.
Here's a cool MP3, this is from Game Arts' musician. It was sent to Sierra as reference for what the Silpheed theme should sound like on a proper synthesizer, because Silpheed in Japan has no Roland MT-32 support, Sierra had to code it in and re-compose the music. http://66.49.226.244/digital/quest/silpheed1.mp3
Quest Studio says that little cut in the song is because the cassette tape was bad. But this is my favorite version of the Silpheed theme song.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Turbo D on October 28, 2007, 10:57:52 AM
:o wow, I didn't know there was a dos version :) That song is definitely bad-ass 8)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: SignOfZeta on October 28, 2007, 02:04:35 PM
I seem to remember the DOS version being a totally different game (a side scrolling shooter).
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 28, 2007, 05:06:41 PM
I seem to remember the DOS version being a totally different game (a side scrolling shooter).
Are you kidding? The DOS game is a vertical scrolling shooter and a really boring one at that. Perhaps you're thinking of Thexder?
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: nat on October 28, 2007, 06:16:43 PM
I have Silpheed on my Apple //GS.
I have no idea how it compares to any of the console versions since I've never played them. But it's an OK game, although Kitsunexus is right-- not too exciting.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on October 28, 2007, 06:57:38 PM
32x had insane ports of afterburner and space harrier :) But I guess that alone didn't help it as a console err addon.. whatever the hell it was :lol:
considering that 32x was released in 1994, as was its port of AfterBurner II, it's extremely disappointing that it ran at 30fps, compared to the 1987 arcade version on Sega's 'X Board' which ran at 60fps. the 32X graphics are also more pixelated than the arcade, even though all (or most) of the graphic detail is there.
the 1996 Saturn version, the 2001 Dreamcast (Shenmue II), and 2002 Xbox (Shenmue II) versions of AfterBurner II all run at 60fps.
32X Space Harrier was the first arcade-quality port to home console, although it wasn't exact. there's boarders so its not full-screen and the colors are somewhat off, among other things.
Also, I would not call Saturn's 3D polygon capabilities cutting-edge. it was much lower-end than Sega's MODEL2 arcade platform that powered Daytona USA, Virtua Fighter 2, Sega Rally and dozens of other games. MODEL2 pre-dates Saturn by a year. The Saturn was never designed to run polygon graphics, although it could fake polygons decently. even though Saturn was more powerful than MODEL 1 in terms of CPU and faked texture-mapping, the truth is, the Saturn was not capable of reproducing MODEL 1 games perfectly, such as Virtua Racing and Virtua Fighter.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Keranu on January 01, 2008, 04:44:30 PM
handygrafx strikes back!
Hey, handygrafx, is the Turbo Grafx 16 port of Space Harrier arcade perfect? I think it has to be.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on January 01, 2008, 07:52:21 PM
The Saturn was never designed to run polygon graphics, although it could fake polygons decently.
OK, so you mean either:
1. The Saturn never pushed any polygons, it was all pre-rendered and streamed from the disc.
2. The Saturn used clever voxel tricks.
3. You made a typo and meant to say that it faked texture-mapped polygons decently.
4. The Saturn was just a mass LSD-induced hallucination and whenever we see one at a yard sale, we're just having a flashback.
Either way I'm confused.
I think what they mean is that the Saturn was not designed to do 3-D graphics. It is a fact it was not. They did add a chip to it in a moment of desperation though to give it some 3-D ability, but the Saturn was ment to be a powerful 2-D system.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on January 02, 2008, 07:06:09 AM
I think what they mean is that the Saturn was not designed to do 3-D graphics.
Yeah, I know the chip was bolted on at the last minute, but at least to my understanding, it's doing real 3-D math and crunching real polygons. It isn't faking.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: MissaFX on January 02, 2008, 07:09:22 AM
I think what they mean is that the Saturn was not designed to do 3-D graphics.
Yeah, I know the chip was bolted on at the last minute, but at least to my understanding, it's doing real 3-D math and crunching real polygons. It isn't faking.
I cannot quote any hard facts, but my understanding is that the 3-D part of the saturn is a vector engine or something, not what most people call a polygon producing chip. It does make polygons though with whatever chip it has for this purpose. I believe the number of polys is under 100k also assuming it is not one of the cheaply produced, 1 cpu titles.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on January 02, 2008, 07:14:54 AM
I bet it's version of "Another World" is kickass then. :lol:
(offtopic, but was Fade To Black PS1-only?)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Necromancer on January 02, 2008, 07:29:42 AM
There is no dedicated 3d hardware in a Saturn; the extra chip added at the eleventh hour was a second SH-2. The Saturn didn't have to have the second chip to do 3d, but it certainly helped keep games from looking like Falcon.
There is no dedicated 3d hardware in a Saturn; the extra chip added at the eleventh hour was a second SH-2. The Saturn didn't have to have the second chip to do 3d, but it certainly helped keep games from looking like Falcon.
The game was also on PC. The song is by Metallica.
Ok, so the VDP1 is actually the video processor which is producing polys (3-D sprites in this case). The VDP2 is a video processor which takes load off VDP1 processor by producing bitmap backgrounds and by performing rotation math (and a few other effects)?
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Necromancer on January 02, 2008, 08:24:01 AM
Ok, so the VDP1 is actually the video processor which is producing polys (3-D sprites in this case). The VDP2 is a video processor which takes load off VDP1 processor by producing bitmap backgrounds and by performing rotation math (and a few other effects)?
Yessum, that's the way I understand it anyhow. Saturns also have a DSP that's responsible for geometry calculations, but I don't know if it's limited to backgrounds, sprites, or whatever.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: handygrafx on January 02, 2008, 10:58:07 AM
what I meant was, the Saturn cannot do true polygons - the Saturn's various processors produce distorted sprites to fake 3D polygon graphics. there are no dedicated 3D processors in Saturn unlike the PS1 and Nintendo. there is no z-buffer in Saturn at all. (there isn't in PS1 either but its 3D subsystem is closer to a true polygon engine, which N64 had). All of Saturn's chips are designed to push sprites & background layers, scaling & rotation.
the Saturn was upgraded several times to be more powerful. not only was a 2nd SH-2 CPU added, but also a 2nd VDP. originally there was only 1 SH-2 CPU and 1 VDP. the SCU DSP, embedded into one of the other chips, was also probably a late addition.
about 'distorted sprites' - I didn't make that up -- I got that from Next Generation magazine.
Quote
The saturn has a powerful sprite engine, so that all 3d stuff must be calculated by the CPUs and passed on to the sprite engine, which will display them.
I'm looking for the specific NG article, but until I find it...
Quote
Along with the SH2s, the VDP and its frame buffer draws 3D objects on screen as distorted sprites. The geometry engine is effective, but also more of an afterthought on Sega's part, primarily to combat the PlayStation's built-in powerful 3D chipset.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on January 02, 2008, 06:37:03 PM
Wow, so the Sega Saturn is just a vector-capable Superscaler? BEST SYSTEM EVER.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: handygrafx on January 02, 2008, 06:56:16 PM
Saturn evolved from a 32-bit system Sega was developing starting around 1990 or 1991 called the GigaDrive. roughly the same time NEC started developing IronMan/Project Tetsujin.
the main processor started out as either 68030 or NEC V60. Then in 1992 or 1993 Sega switched to a SH-2, then two SH-2s, and all kinds of video/graphics chip changes & upgrades, most of which are pretty much unknown.
late in the development, in 1993, there was Jupiter, a cartridge-only version of Saturn (which did not have the final Saturn chipset) Also SoA developed their own 32-bit upgrade, the Mars, which was the 32X. basicly a downgraded version of Jupiter, I think (not 100% certain of that.)
there were numerous plans, some real, some rumored, of upgrading the Saturn with various 3D accelerator chips, and also the 3DO M2. any of the real planned upgrades were obviously scrapped in favor of designing two rival prototype systems to completely replace Saturn: BlackBelt and Dural/Katana. the Dural was selected, officially named Katana, and given the consumer name, Dreamcast.
Dreamcast was NEC's next move in videogames, but they only manufactured the Videologic-designed PowerVR2DC graphics chip.
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Kitsunexus on January 02, 2008, 07:01:33 PM
Blackbelt was powered by 3DFX. I can only imagine Shenmue, but with blurry textures. :lol: :lol:
As much as I rag on them though, the Voodoo2 was my best friend. ;)
Title: Re: PC-FX: Polygon Capable?
Post by: Michael Helgeson on January 02, 2008, 10:28:40 PM
Some things need to be clarified here. The Saturn had a more capable brute force polygon drawing ability then the PS1. It could do more at a higher res when the programmers knew what they were doing too. Neither system,PS1 or Saturn had what you would consider a separate from the cpu, expensive hardware accelerated 3d chipset made specifically to pump out high end,high res texture mapped polygons. This kind of stuff did not happen until Videologic and Nec did Power VR and 3DFX did the Voodoo chipset 3d Accelerator chips in the PC market replacing the typical 2D 64-bit graphics cards that did 3d polygons via software with the cpu,with, depending on the computer, a math co-processor installed also doing all the calculations with the cpu.
A example pic of how this looked: Need for Speed 2 Se in software mode on Pc: (http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/Amakusa666/NFS2SE_lotus_gt1_non-glide.png) Need for Speed 2 Se in Glide 3d Accelerated mode on Pc: (http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/Amakusa666/NFS2SE_lotus_gt1_glide.jpg)
Notice how pic 1 is how the game pretty much looked on PS1 also,just in lower res?
Till then (3D accelerated graphics chip age) the polygons drawn by the Saturn and PS1 both were both resembling visually what you would call drawing polygons in software mode on 2D accelerator cards on Pc,as this is how the end look always appeared,as seen above. The PS1s 3d calculating engine was located in its main cpu,as was its 2D engine for decompressing video playback. The PS1s ability was to draw 360,000 flat-shaded polygons per second and 180,000 texture mapped and light-sourced polygons per second with a output res of 256×224 to 640×480. Mostly 256×224 was used for anything 3d on PS1 because they wanted to maintain a fluid 60fps as much as possible.
The Saturn with its massive selection of chips could pump out 500,000 flat shaded polygons per second and 200,000 texture-mapped polygons per second at 352x224,640x224, and 704x480. Also, the Saturn rendered quadrilaterals,not triangles like the PS1. Because of this there was alot less texture distortion unlike 3d games on PS1 which suffered greatly from this. Another thing to bring up is this,later after learning how to better use the hardware they were able to achieve true transparency effects on the Saturn by using simple polygon stipples.
You want to see proof of all the above Saturn wise? Just play Dead or Alive,Toshinden URA,Last Bronx,VF2, Daytona CE,Burning Rangers,Radiant Silvergun,Quake,Grandia,Panzer Dragoon 1-Saga,Shining Force 3,All Japan Pro featuring VF,and plenty of others if you don't just limit yourselves to US releases. In the cases where titles are on both systems the Saturn's 3d visuals are typically (DOA and Grandia) always better unless the programmers just sucked.
If you look at the specs of actual Model 2 hardware,its pretty amazing to see how well Sega did in general of providing home ports of their arcade titles on the Saturn. They maintained most of what made the game fun,audio wise and visually. Only a few home ports sucked,like House of the Dead. Not bad considering they were using way lower costing chips rated at far lower performance.
Both the PS1 and Saturn were impressive for their time,each in their own ways,because they both had 3d based titles that were very impressive. Neither system failed to show off what it could do.
Kits,ditch the Voodoo 2,buy my spare Voodoo 4500 :P http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=260198996088&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=016