agradeneu Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 10 minutes ago, CyranoJ said: They are, but none use 3D acceleration, they're all software renderers (which is what the Jaguar does) - And the first two need a 486. Don't say they run on 386, I had a 386 when they released, they crawled. Yeah, so they are not "shite" and you were wrong but nonthless you are moving the goalpost. If you look at the cost of a 486 during Jaguars time, it just reenforces that fact that Jaguar was about to design a cheaper and capable custom chipset for rendering 3D graphics, opposed to a general purpose CPU by Intel. Saying both are the same is hilarious. But lets test your sentiment on 2D graphics? By you rule, any 2D graphics on 2600, ZX Spectrum or anything was "shite" because what came after them was wayyyy better. If you consider the development of computer graphics an evolution, a rather questionable point of view? Edited July 22 by agradeneu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 The blitter is actually slower at drawing short lines than drawing them with a CPU. And 3D is a lot of short lines. Jaguar has *some* hardware for 3D, just nowhere near enough of it at sufficient power. It's a bit like saying you can make a car using a stone hammer, because you can upgrade the hammer 10,000 times before using the result of that to make the car. I also don't believe the Jaguar could even remotely run x-wing. It could, maybe, render a scene, but not with all the computation for the game/strategy/flight engine as well. But, at the end of the day, none of this is worth arguing about 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericde45 Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 so , in the end, the conclusion is that the Jaguar is not able to run the more advanced neo geo games. which was the original question ( and if you want to do 3D, just go ps1 ) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 5 minutes ago, Ericde45 said: so , in the end, the conclusion is that the Jaguar is not able to run the more advanced neo geo games. which was the original question ( and if you want to do 3D, just go ps1 ) Lets cut to the point. The only reason it couldn't is because of storage on the cart. A single level of one, yeah it probably could. A whole game from end to end? No chance. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agradeneu Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 9 minutes ago, CyranoJ said: The blitter is actually slower at drawing short lines than drawing them with a CPU. And 3D is a lot of short lines. Jaguar has *some* hardware for 3D, just nowhere near enough of it at sufficient power. It's a bit like saying you can make a car using a stone hammer, because you can upgrade the hammer 10,000 times before using the result of that to make the car. I also don't believe the Jaguar could even remotely run x-wing. It could, maybe, render a scene, but not with all the computation for the game/strategy/flight engine as well. Have you benchmarked both or is this just a guess? And how about shaded polygons vs.flat shaded? Jaguar not being able to run XWing is most likely due to the lack of a fast CPU, as the 6800 would be too slow to handle the game logic and simulation aspects. The graphics rendering is something different, IMO Cybermorph looks more detailed than X Wing. However, this again is moving the goalpost, as Jaguar is a console and not a PC and its price is the fraction of that of a 486 PC. From pure graphics detail, Iron Soldier is more impressive than both XWing and TIE Fighter. Anyway, Jaguar shpuld be compared to contemporary custom solutions like SuperFX chip or SVP, that accelareted 3D graphics. Edited July 22 by agradeneu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agradeneu Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 The sentiment that Jaguar did not accelarate 3D graphics much is laughable if you look at the impact that SuperFX chip and other custom chips had on the performance of SNES and Genesis. They even used SuperFX2 to barely run DOOM on SNES. IMO is not even worth to discussing such distorted way of rewriting history any longer. It might explain why there is no 3D from homebrews though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayler Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 As an outsider, it is pretty clear that the Jaguar is a Master of 4D graphics as it's been 30 years and there's still confusion on what it is. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42bs Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 1 hour ago, agradeneu said: It might explain why there is no 3D from homebrews though. Because 3D means a lot of coding on the Jaguar. A lot of mathematics. I mean, you can fit a rotating cube in 512b. But shading it needs likely three times more computation. Esp. it needs a lot of divisions. And that's where the Jaguar is very very bad at. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42bs Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 2 hours ago, agradeneu said: In a 3D scene for a game, you need the whole image, not just some triangles. I do not understand what you mean. A whole 3D scene is (in most cases) broken down to a bunch of triangles. All coloring or texturing is based on these triangles. And since the Jaguar cannot draw triangle (which the Lynx can ), you need to raster them. JagNICCC2000 runs at 60FPS. But only because there is _no_ 3D calculation involved and no 3D->2D projection. So it is only the poly rendering. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 Honestly, nobody is going to agree here, and I really, really don't care enough to argue with friends. So unless Philip or JagArseChris post something here, I guess I'm done 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42bs Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 1 minute ago, CyranoJ said: Honestly, nobody is going to agree here, and I really, really don't care enough to argue with friends. So unless Philip or JagArseChris post something here, I guess I'm done Yes, it is an "academic" discusision with no real result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipj Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 7 hours ago, Zerosquare said: No, it doesn't. And you've been told this many times already. You'll do anything to troll people... even lie to your teeth... The PS1 GTE processor is hardwired to polygons and is well documented. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericde45 Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 27 minutes ago, philipj said: You'll do anything to troll people... even lie to your teeth... The PS1 GTE processor is hardwired to polygons and is well documented. the GTE is a kind of coprocessor integrated to the mips, so it is hardwired to the mips. and it is designed to handle calculations, that you can use to calculate 3D rotations and projections to 2D, but a lot more. very close to the jaguar GPU but more advanced. it can calculate lightning using vectors and normals some reading : https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/playstation/#tab-2-2-geometry-transformation-engine to improve 3D, GTE is able to : Matrix or vector multiplication and addition; and vector square. Perspective transformation (used for 3D projections). Outer product of two or three vectors (the latter is used for clipping). Many interpolation functions that use different parameters. Depth Cueing and colour value from a light source (used for lighting and colour operations). Z/depth average (I suspect this is for the ‘ordering table’, more details in the ‘Graphics’ section). 3D calculations is not only polygons. it can help to put sprites in a 3D space for example. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42bs Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 1 hour ago, philipj said: You'll do anything to troll people... even lie to your teeth... The PS1 GTE processor is hardwired to polygons and is well documented. From your post it was not obvious you meant the PS1 but rather the Jaguar. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alucardX Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 8 hours ago, CyranoJ said: The Jaguar hardware can do exceptional 3D compared to what came before (Provided the programmers create their own entire 3D pipeline), but absolutely crap 3D to what arrived almost immediatetly after its release (which did most if not all of that in hardware). The problem is, the 3D that came before was... shite... and the 3D that immediately arrived after it was groundbreaking. 2D its a MONSTER. Why make a compromised and janky 3D game when you can make a 2D marvel? Would it be feasible to do some fantastic 2D with some elements of 3D? To anyone that can and is willing to answer this: Also, I am asking and not telling but how is it that optimizations were able to be made to get openlara running on a GBA but not on a Jaguar. I realize the GBA is a much newer architecture but what makes this impossible on the Jaguar? Is it limited scratch ram in the GPU? I'm not trolling or anything but asking quite sincerely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alucardX Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 I'm in agreement with @agradeneu and @cubanismo here. The Jaguar was clearly designed with 3D in mind. Just because a racing car from 1933 could never compete with a racing car from today does not mean it wasn't purpose built for racing but rather that is a reflection of the the limitations of design and technology for the time. SNES FX and MegaDrive SVP were 3D accelerators for their respective systems and Jag could out perform those all day long. Jag kills 2D on the MD and SNES and kills 3D from the FX and SVP. It seems as though they knew what they were designing the system to do and it was well suited for the 3D expectations of the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mittens0407 Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 Interestingly, the 32x has no hardware acceleration for 2D or 3D, yet 100% of it's library is made up of 2D and 3D games. 😛 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericde45 Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mittens0407 said: Interestingly, the 32x has no hardware acceleration for 2D or 3D, yet 100% of it's library is made up of 2D and 3D games. 😛 Quite wrong : https://segaretro.org/Sega_32X/Technical_specifications#CPU CPU features advanczd mult and div GPU Can do polygones 3D polygon geometry calculations:[fn 3] Polygon transformations: Up to 260,000 polygons/sec (130,000 polygons/sec per CPU)[fn 4] Lighting calculations: Up to 230,000 polygons/sec (flat),[fn 5] 180,000 polygons/sec (Gouraud)[fn 6] Theoretical 3D polygon rendering performance, with both CPUs dedicated to graphics: Flat shading: Up to 160,000 polygons/sec[fn 7] Gouraud shading: Up to 100,000 polygons/sec[fn 8] Texture mapping: Up to 50,000 polygons/sec[32][fn 9] Texture Gouraud shading: Up to 40,000 polygons/sec[fn 10] Practical 3D polygon rendering performance, with one CPU dedicated to graphics: Flat shading: Up to 80,000 polygons/sec Gouraud shading: Up to 50,000 polygons/sec Texture mapping: Up to 25,000 polygons/sec Texture Gouraud shading: Up to 20,000 polygons/sec 2D sprite/tile capabilities: Scrolling,[34] scaling, rotation, alpha blending[35][21] Colors per sprite/tile: 128 (8bpp), 256 (8bpp), 8192 (16bpp), 32,768 (16bpp) Tile size: 8×8 texels, 64 bytes (8bpp), 128 bytes (16bpp) Sprite sizes: 8×8 to 320×240 texels, 64 bytes to 150 KB Maximum sprites/tiles per frame: 3800 sprites/tiles (8bpp, 8×8, 237.5 KB), 1900 sprites/tiles (16bpp, 8×8, 237.5 KB) Maximum sprites/tiles per scanline: 1463 texels, 182 sprites/tiles (8×8) Edited July 22 by Ericde45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mittens0407 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 4 hours ago, Ericde45 said: Quite wrong : https://segaretro.org/Sega_32X/Technical_specifications#CPU CPU features advanczd mult and div GPU Can do polygones 3D polygon geometry calculations:[fn 3] Polygon transformations: Up to 260,000 polygons/sec (130,000 polygons/sec per CPU)[fn 4] Lighting calculations: Up to 230,000 polygons/sec (flat),[fn 5] 180,000 polygons/sec (Gouraud)[fn 6] Theoretical 3D polygon rendering performance, with both CPUs dedicated to graphics: Flat shading: Up to 160,000 polygons/sec[fn 7] Gouraud shading: Up to 100,000 polygons/sec[fn 8] Texture mapping: Up to 50,000 polygons/sec[32][fn 9] Texture Gouraud shading: Up to 40,000 polygons/sec[fn 10] Practical 3D polygon rendering performance, with one CPU dedicated to graphics: Flat shading: Up to 80,000 polygons/sec Gouraud shading: Up to 50,000 polygons/sec Texture mapping: Up to 25,000 polygons/sec Texture Gouraud shading: Up to 20,000 polygons/sec 2D sprite/tile capabilities: Scrolling,[34] scaling, rotation, alpha blending[35][21] Colors per sprite/tile: 128 (8bpp), 256 (8bpp), 8192 (16bpp), 32,768 (16bpp) Tile size: 8×8 texels, 64 bytes (8bpp), 128 bytes (16bpp) Sprite sizes: 8×8 to 320×240 texels, 64 bytes to 150 KB Maximum sprites/tiles per frame: 3800 sprites/tiles (8bpp, 8×8, 237.5 KB), 1900 sprites/tiles (16bpp, 8×8, 237.5 KB) Maximum sprites/tiles per scanline: 1463 texels, 182 sprites/tiles (8×8) Oh god PLEASE don't take any rubbish on SegaRetro as fact. The 32x is nothing more than two SH-2s and a VDP that lets them plot pixels. Not counting the use of any underlying Genesis hardware, pretty much everything on the 32x is software driven. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alucardX Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Even on the Saturn some rendering techniques were done in software because of complications in hardware design. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagChris Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 15 hours ago, 42bs said: Yes, it is an "academic" discusision with no real result. Tell CJ keep.my name out of his mouth. Is this the game he says the Jag has no hope of doing? Flat shaded at 320x200. No textures We seen more advanced 3D on the original Iron Soldier. And for the guy who can't decompress data while doing music and telling everyone in typical fashion of the undeservedly arrogant that he KNOWS it's impossible because HIS code can't do it well learn to be a better coder. They accomplished that 30 years ago and these were kids just out of school they didn't have decades of experience behind them. But you guys go ahead and keep rewriting history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 On 7/15/2024 at 9:39 AM, Mittens0407 said: IDK, they seem to disagree with you in the JTRM. Not so many use cases for Gouraud shading in 2D games I believe 😛 (I've seen some neat 2D experiments in N64 homebrew tho) 40 minutes ago, Mittens0407 said: Oh god PLEASE don't take any rubbish on SegaRetro as fact. The 32x is nothing more than two SH-2s and a VDP that lets them plot pixels. Not counting the use of any underlying Genesis hardware, pretty much everything on the 32x is software driven. Please try and be consistent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alucardX Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) Looking at that x wing video and comparing it to other things the jaguar did I wonder if it could pull it off. Some choices made in cybermorph like full poly environments weren't a great trade off in some ways. If they limit polys to vehicles and a few obstacles much like starfox or from what I saw in that vid, x-wing, it could probably pull off a pretty nice playing game in that graphical style. It seems like later x-wing games were more advanced though. Perhaps that is what CJ was referring to? Edited July 23 by alucardX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mittens0407 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 26 minutes ago, CyranoJ said: Please try and be consistent. Document written by HW designers ≠ wiki that is known for being notoriously inaccurate by anyone who isn't a keyboard warrior fanboy lol. Unless you'd like to take a look at the 32x dev docs and prove me wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 25 minutes ago, Mittens0407 said: Document written by HW designers ≠ wiki that is known for being notoriously inaccurate by anyone who isn't a keyboard warrior fanboy lol. Unless you'd like to take a look at the 32x dev docs and prove me wrong? You just said one is acceleration, and one is software renderer, when, by your defn, they are either both s/w or both h/w. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.