Truespace 7: Nvidia 5000/6000 vs. 9000 series from ATI 2005-05-31 - By DAVID STUBBS
Back
Hello Jason,
Piecemeal ? It always will be.
1): video card with high ram 128 to start -
Video cards : Matrox parhelia: check the specs as it has 10 very interesting
points 128 mgs or 256 agp or pci www.matrox.com I think they are in the
realm of high end gaming cards but are made for 3D graphics designers. 3Dlabs
as well www.3Dlabs.com
2): ram next and is a requirement for XP , 1Gig
3): Test XP on your machine upgrade to it if working fine
4): mainboard next get a fine one, consider a dual cpu board- be sure
your current cpu can be installed - with expansion for cpu upgrade
5: upgrade cpu(s)
Keep your parts and use the pieced out parts to build a second machine
for testing finished products as a user
How about that ?
David
Jason Lechak <frootee@(protected)> wrote:Hi folks. Does anyone have any
opinions on Nvidia cards such as the 6000/6000 series versus the ATI 9000 / X
series of cards? The one thing I notice is the ATI cards are more expensive. I
have an older GeForce2 and would really like to upgrade in order to take
advantage of the benefits of TS7.
Also, I need to determine the best upgrade path based on cost. Currently, I
have:
AMD Athlon XP 2000+
Windows 2000 SP4
512 MB PC2100 memory
GeForce2 video card, 32 or 64 MB (not sure which)
I need to upgrade piecemeal, so I think the best course of action would be to
upgrade to an additional 512 MB and upgrade the video card. Is there a more
significant benefit with upgrading to Windows XP or the CPU/Mainboard?
Thanks,
Jason
-- ---- -- Forwarded Message -- ---- --
GeForce2 will work but it will not show any of that fancy stuff like real time
shadows or pixel shaders. For that you will need DX9 compatible card like 5000
or 6000 series from NVidia or 9000 or X series from ATI.
Roman
> At 03:44 PM 28-05-05, Dave Gray wrote:
> >Thanks to all for the praise, comments and suggestions. All noted - Kris,
> >Tony and John being the latest.
> >
> >I must admit I am battling with the island size(scale) and texture. I did
> >add an anchor rope for the boat (image not posted) and because my wife liked
> >it the way it was I have submitted it to the Gallery. :-)
>
> I don't know whether this will help, but there wa a plug-in available a
> while back (might still be, I just don't know) called trueScape, by Ted
> Southard. It's a tool that lets you convert a greyscale bump map. I think
> the file has to be a greyscale image (but check...) and it accepts BMP,
> JPG, GIF, PNG, TGA, and TIFF files.
>
> It was a tS4.x plugin, but works just fine (as far as I've expereinced) in
> tS5.x and tS6.x.
>
> So, if you wanted, you could use that to create an object using it. Run it
> through "Solidify" (an old plug-in), which makes it more stable. You can
> then use the deform tools, point edit tools, booleans (most of the time),
> and so on.
>
> To enhance it even more, you can then apply the original bump/transparency
> to the Color part of the Shader tool to the object - so, for example, if
> you have bumps that are to be boulders, and say the lower areas are to be
> gravel or grass or whatever, you can use one texture-image as the base via
> the Shader tool, and then, as above, create a second layer and apply the
> original bump/transparency to the Color part of the Shader tool to it ((BUT
> you have to remember that, although Black is transparent on Layer One, this
> is reversed on layers 2 and higher)). Also remember to apply the layer-2 (See http://yer-2.ora-code.com)+
> transparency to the Reflectance shader - that way, you cold make shiny
> grass dotted with matte boulders, also, if you add a third layer, you could
> use a separate transparency only for the reflectance (make all others
> transparent with the bar a tthe bottom of the color and bump shader boxes)
> and that way, you could make the lower parts of the island lookn wet (since
> the waves would be lapping up on the shoreline).
>
> Don't ask me about alphas (I never use them ebcause I always seem to get
> black "haloes" around the objects rather than fuill transparency, so I gave
> up on them a few years ago and exclusively use specific transparency
> maps). I don't use Symbiont because I had trouble with it from the
> beginning, couldn't get it to map properly. So I exclusively use Shader Lab.
>
> That being said, tho', SL has soem transparency procedurals and I'm sure
> that Symbiont would as well, so, if you hate using transparency maps, you
> could probably usea shader. It's just that, using the same image as the
> basis for the obect and the bump and the texturing, everything meshes
> properly and you know exactly where the transparencies are going to be
applied.
>
> Another little trick with transp. maps is that you can finagle your image
> to create droplets. So, you could for example have the shoreline all shiny
> at the bottom, and then add in a sprinkling of Noise (in PSP at least) to
> make it look like maybe some spray had hit higher up. ((This is also neat
> for making fountain spumes.))
>
> In connection with this, ther is a cool shader for ShaderLab called
> Invisible that lets you cast shadows through a greyscale/B&W image without
> any artifacts appearing on the parts that are supposed to be invisible.
>
> If that's confusing, let me know and I can prob. dash off a few
> illustration/screen caps, upload, and provide the URL.
>
> One thing I've done is to make the background of my bump map solid black,
> and then start the future object with a mid-grey - that way, it's easy to
> boolean subtract a cube so that you're just left with the actual object
> (this also of course reduces your polygon count). You can also copy,
> mirror, rotate, etc., to get a "mirror" of the object, and then boolean the
> 2 halves together - although sometimes it won't boolean (I guess very
> roughly maybe 2% to 5% of the time...)
>
> One trick is to lower all the numbers in the Boolean Properties box to
> their minimums and UN-check "delete edges" . I've found over the years
> that this leads to *much* more success than the default settings.
>
> HTH!
>
> - Kris Krieger
>
>
> __ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
> ****************************************************************************
> ********
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
> E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
>
> To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
> Manager.
> ****************************************************************************
> ********
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
****************************************************************************
********
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
Manager.
****************************************************************************
********
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
****************************************************************************
********
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
Manager.
****************************************************************************
********
<DIV>Hello Jason,<BR><BR>Piecemeal ? It always will be.<BR> <BR>1):
video card with high ram 128 to start - <BR>Video cards : Matrox parhelia:
check the specs as it has 10 very interesting points 128 mgs or 256 agp
or pci www.matrox.com I think they are in the realm of high
end gaming cards but are made for 3D graphics designers. 3Dlabs as well www
.3Dlabs.com<BR> <BR>2): ram next and is a requirement for XP , 1Gig
<BR>3): Test XP on your machine upgrade to it if working fine<BR><BR>4):
mainboard next get a fine one, consider a dual cpu board- be sure <BR
>your current cpu can be installed - with expansion for cpu
upgrade <BR> <BR> 5: upgrade cpu(s)<BR> <BR>Keep your parts and
use the pieced out parts to build a second machine <BR>for testing finished
products as a user<BR> <BR>How about that ?<BR> <BR>David<BR>
<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Jason Lechak
<frootee@(protected)></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER
-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hi folks. Does anyone have any opinions on Nvidia
cards such as the 6000/6000 series versus the ATI 9000 / X series of cards? The
one thing I notice is the ATI cards are more expensive. I have an older
GeForce2 and would really like to upgrade in order to take advantage of the
benefits of TS7.<BR><BR>Also, I need to determine the best upgrade path based
on cost. Currently, I have:<BR><BR>AMD Athlon XP 2000+<BR>Windows 2000 SP4<BR
>512 MB PC2100 memory<BR>GeForce2 video card, 32 or 64 MB (not sure which)<BR>
<BR>I need to upgrade piecemeal, so I think the best course of action would be
to<BR>upgrade to an additional 512 MB and upgrade the video card. Is there a
more significant benefit with upgrading to Windows XP or the CPU/Mainboard?<BR>
<BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Jason<BR><BR><BR>-- ---- -- Forwarded Message -- ---- --<BR
>GeForce2 will work but it will not show any of that fancy stuff like
real time shadows or pixel shaders. For that you will need DX9 compatible card
like 5000 or 6000 series from NVidia or 9000 or X series from ATI.<BR>Roman<BR>
<BR><BR><BR>> At 03:44 PM 28-05-05, Dave Gray wrote:<BR>> >Thanks to
all for the praise, comments and suggestions. All noted - Kris,<BR>> >
;Tony and John being the latest.<BR>> ><BR>> >I must admit I am
battling with the island size(scale) and texture. I did<BR>> >add an
anchor rope for the boat (image not posted) and because my wife liked<BR>>
>it the way it was I have submitted it to the Gallery. :-)<BR>><BR>> I
don't know whether this will help, but there wa a plug-in available a<BR>>
while back (might still be, I just don't know) called trueScape, by Ted<BR>>
Southard. It's a tool that lets you convert a greyscale bump map. I think<BR>
> the file has to be a greyscale image (but check...) and it accepts BMP,<BR>
> JPG, GIF, PNG, TGA, and TIFF files.<BR>><BR>> It
was a tS4.x plugin, but works just fine (as far as I've expereinced) in<BR>>
; tS5.x and tS6.x.<BR>><BR>> So, if you wanted, you could use that to
create an object using it. Run it<BR>> through "Solidify" (an old plug-in),
which makes it more stable. You can<BR>> then use the deform tools, point
edit tools, booleans (most of the time),<BR>> and so on.<BR>><BR>> To
enhance it even more, you can then apply the original bump/transparency<BR>>
to the Color part of the Shader tool to the object - so, for example, if<BR>>
; you have bumps that are to be boulders, and say the lower areas are to be<BR>
> gravel or grass or whatever, you can use one texture-image as the base via
<BR>> the Shader tool, and then, as above, create a second layer and apply
the<BR>> original bump/transparency to the Color part of the Shader tool to
it ((BUT<BR>> you have to remember that, although Black is transparent on
Layer One, this<BR>> is reversed on layers 2 and
higher)). Also remember to apply the layer-2 (See http://yer-2.ora-code.com)+<BR>> transparency to the
Reflectance shader - that way, you cold make shiny<BR>> grass dotted with
matte boulders, also, if you add a third layer, you could<BR>> use a
separate transparency only for the reflectance (make all others<BR>>
transparent with the bar a tthe bottom of the color and bump shader boxes)<BR>
> and that way, you could make the lower parts of the island lookn wet (since
<BR>> the waves would be lapping up on the shoreline).<BR>><BR>> Don't
ask me about alphas (I never use them ebcause I always seem to get<BR>>
black "haloes" around the objects rather than fuill transparency, so I gave<BR>
> up on them a few years ago and exclusively use specific transparency<BR>>
; maps). I don't use Symbiont because I had trouble with it from the<BR>>
beginning, couldn't get it to map properly. So I exclusively use Shader Lab.<BR
>><BR>> That being said, tho', SL has soem transparency procedurals
and I'm sure<BR>> that Symbiont would as well, so, if you hate using
transparency maps, you<BR>> could probably usea shader. It's just that,
using the same image as the<BR>> basis for the obect and the bump and the
texturing, everything meshes<BR>> properly and you know exactly where the
transparencies are going to be applied.<BR>><BR>> Another little trick
with transp. maps is that you can finagle your image<BR>> to create droplets
. So, you could for example have the shoreline all shiny<BR>> at the bottom,
and then add in a sprinkling of Noise (in PSP at least) to<BR>> make it look
like maybe some spray had hit higher up. ((This is also neat<BR>> for making
fountain spumes.))<BR>><BR>> In connection with this, ther is a cool
shader for ShaderLab called<BR>> Invisible that lets you cast shadows
through a greyscale/B&W image without<BR>> any artifacts appearing on
the parts that are supposed to be invisible.<BR>><BR>> If that's
confusing, let me know and I can prob. dash off a few<BR>> illustration
/screen caps, upload, and provide the URL.<BR>><BR>> One thing I've done
is to make the background of my bump map solid black,<BR>> and then start
the future object with a mid-grey - that way, it's easy to<BR>> boolean
subtract a cube so that you're just left with the actual object<BR>> (this
also of course reduces your polygon count). You can also copy,<BR>> mirror,
rotate, etc., to get a "mirror" of the object, and then boolean the<BR>> 2
halves together - although sometimes it won't boolean (I guess very<BR>>
roughly maybe 2% to 5% of the time...)<BR>><BR>> One trick is to lower
all the numbers in the Boolean Properties box to<BR>> their minimums and UN
-check "delete edges" . I've found over the years<BR>> that this leads to
*much* more success than the default settings.<BR>><BR>> HTH!<BR>><BR>
> - Kris Krieger<BR>><BR>><BR>>
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______<BR>>
****************************************************************************<BR>
> ********<BR>> This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
Cable & Wireless<BR>> E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by
MessageLabs.<BR>><BR>> To purchase this service, please contact your
Cable & Wireless Account<BR>> Manager.<BR>> *************************
***************************************************<BR>> ********<BR><BR>____
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __<BR>***********
*****************************************************************<BR>********<BR
>This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
<BR>E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.<BR><BR>To purchase
this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless
Account<BR>Manager.<BR>*******************************************************
*********************<BR>********<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<BR>
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______<BR>
****************************************************************************<BR>
********<BR>
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless<BR>
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.<BR>
<BR>
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account<BR>
Manager.<BR>
****************************************************************************<BR>
********<BR>
|
|
