Re: 3d today instead of when MS wants to go...

[Peter Petrakis <peterpan wn net>]

If you really want to go 3-D with lots of power and usability I would go with a
Permedia 2, Permedia 3, GLINT, or Oxygen chipset. Design the API around OpenGL
which is
allready widely supported and go from there. You could even use voodoo II's for
graphics acceleration.  Imagine what E could do if it could use a OpenGL based
API.
Don't worry about "Oh but nobody's computer can do that sort of thing at a
reasonable price". If you didn't know there is a processor called the Alpha that
could handle what you propose today for under $2500. It's a great idea, You
should now let others know about your efforts so they can help too. Whatever
happened to Gnome GL anyways?

Alpha Powered,
Peter Petrakis
--
peterpan@wn.net
http://math.stcc.mass.edu/petrakis
Alpha Guy =)

Jesse D. Sightler wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hibbard M. Engler <hib@kcd.com>
> To: gnome-list@gnome.org <gnome-list@gnome.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 8:24 PM
> Subject: 3d today instead of when MS wants to go...
>
> >Todd- Raster who suggested that I code it before I flaunt it.  I might
> >well do that.  It just seemed better for the future of Linux and freeware
> >to discuss this here first.
> >But perhaps the 3D video cards are not the best option.  Lets say we
> >figure out how to link with a Nintendo 64? That has a very smooth video
> >chip designed by SGI
>
> Er, you can get a 3D card that blows these away for about $70 in the form of
> that new Intel based board (i740).  Now, I'm not very fond of that
> particular board myself, but I can tell you that if Intel is making boards
> that run 8megs of Video RAM and a decent 3D chip for under $80, you can bet
> some of the other 3D boards are going to be similar in capapbility at that
> price point as well.
>
> In other words, the game system really isn't better unless you run it at
> television class resolutions (320x400).
>
> >Geoff - not X-windows.  I understand it is possible to provide X
> >extentions for 3D.  Hard, but possible.
>
> Agreed.  No reason at all why X would be the primary limiting factor here.
> Admittedly, in the long run a nice clean KGI based implementation would be
> better, but my guess is it won't even get that far.  <sorry>
>
> >Ian - fluff + illusion.  Lets stray the hardware a little bit beyound the
> >college student's $200.00 486 for one second.
> >  It should be possible to use some I-gogs (the real 3d kind) semi
> >effectively- although thir resolution is limited.
> >  Another possibility is attach two CCD's to the I-gogs and run those into
> >the video cards as background.  Now instead of pretend reality,  you have
> >"augmented reality".  As for real-estate,  the ability to rotate , move to
> >another room, dive into or pull back from a set of documents is much more
> >useful for switching application sets then the 9 screen trick that most
> >WM's do.
>
> I think the prospect of selecting files and documents by merely turning and
> looking at them is a good idea.  If you have the hardware and expertise to
> do the development, by all means do it.
>
> >Thats it for my counter-arguments.  But really, people need more than
> >"better windows" to drop Microsoft.
>
> Yeah, they need better windows, cheaper.  :)
>
> --
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.