I'll need to find out what the current best-selling card is, and get that. As for quad-core, maybe.

NewEgg Top Sellers for Video Cards

Excluding anything over $130 and ranked by performance (which seems to closely follow price):

ATI Radeon X1950GT 256MB $130
ATI Radeon X1900GT 256MB $120

nVidia GeForce 7600GT 256MB $120
nVidia GeForce 7600GS 512MB $110
nVidia GeForce 7600GS 256MB $85
nVidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB $73


First, know that video card model numbers can be bewildering. It can be impossible to tell from a model number how fast the GPU runs. Tom's Hardware has great video card reviews and has a continually updated video card comparison tool, but they often leave out the most popular cards, generally leave out 512MB which is very useful for EverQuest II, or mention GPU speeds that don't sync up with anything written on the boxes.

Tom's Hardware The Best Video Cards for the Money May 2007 edition

Note that video cards vary from DDR2 to DDR3 memory. GS is a slower CPU than GT so a 7300GT might outrun a 7600GS.

Or he could get one of these which seems to be popular enough and isn't based on 2 year old technology (and that's being generous)... ;)

Seriously, why not buy a card that has so many features you'll never utilize all of them? Oh wait... I gotta stop giving advice to people other than myself... :drool:

Jim is writing Marine Aquarium 3 in DirectX 8 to run on millions of computers, not on a $400 DirectX 10 card. But maybe if Jim wants to play EQ2. I'd rather he play EQ2 after MA3 comes out. ;) ;)

I just had to bring these quotes over from the "Love and / or marriage; how did you meet your Significant Other?" thread. They belong over here, and are very informative. The "new program this year" remark by Jim, is so unorthodox, unJimlike, highly irregular, ect... I was just blown away by it.

A year from now that $400 card will be $100 and two years from now it will be integrated into $50 motherboards (you're usually the first person to point that kind of thing out)... Since that's probably time line for MA3 anyway I don't see the problem... Sorry, that was a little low, mostly joking, I'm just thinking about scalability, it wouldn't hurt to play with the features that card has to offer, they'll be standard soon enough and they're the beginning of a new era.

If MA3 doesn't blow people's minds I worry it won't find it's way onto millions of computers (at least not at full price)... :erm: Few are still impressed by DX8, and IMO going old school will only get you so far...

I'm not being disrespectful, I hope you guys know that, but I have serious doubts about the wow factor of this upcoming release, and it worries me because of how badly I want it to be great.

Jim's talent plus the power of today's tech is a guaranteed success, coupled with yesterday's tech I'm not 100% sure...

Exactly what effect in DX10 are you so interested in? My only concern is making something which appears absolutely real, and so far I haven't seen any DX10 feature which would do me much good and isn't available in DX8.

Hey Doc, you shouldn't compare your upgrade cycle with the average computer user, who is happy when the system runs fine and can connect to the internet to read some e-mails and surf a bit. These persons do an upgrade (or buy a complete new system) when the old one crashes down, but not earlier. I know a lot of people who use 5-10 year old computers with Win98 and AMD K6 processors and maybe GeForce2 cards in it, believe it or not! :eek:

At the moment I'm still obsessing over the idea of GPU physics accelerated swarms of bubbles... :o :o Other than that I haven't really seen enough DX10 demos to say. I know DX8 is in a completely different league than anything before it, I just keep thinking about the DX8 version of the aquarium that's already out there and I'm having a hard time pushing the thought out of my mind that DX8 this time around is going to mean little more than an engine upgrade with nearly identical visuals...

If you're really going to be taking full advantage of all the neat tricks DX8 brings to the table I'll stop worrying... :TU:

What DirectX 8 version of the Aquarium?

The current version is written in DirectX 6.

People make assumptions that bigger is better or higher numbers or recent technology is always better. Don't fall into that trap. Make up your mind yourself rather than reading the hype.

The only DX8 version there ever was to date is the Demo for MS.

The one made for the plus pack or whatever it was called... That was upgraded to DX8 for various reasons as I recall.

I'm not a hyped minded person, but I do get excited about potential. I simply think there's more potential for MA3 to be spectacular if it's aimed at looking it's best on a DX10 card (and all that implies) than on something from the Geforce3/Radeon 8500 timeline (early 2001)... I'm not saying it shouldn't run on PS1.0 hardware (though I'd honestly prefer PS2.0/DX9 be where that bar is set (even that hardware has been around since late 2002)) but lets face it, a generational iteration of has been missed, in technology terms we should be talking about MA4 now.

I'd like to see MA3 look like what MA4 would look like. That's all. Call me greedy if you want. ;)

Required reading for people who want to discuss DirectX versions (with pics):
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w...rectX_Versions
http://gear.ign.com/articles/567/567437p1.html

Unfortunately for Doc, I've found no DX10 reviews, but still interesting.

The feature I wish would be included is reflective scales on the fish. If I've understood correctly (being somewhat noobish here) this would require Shader Model 2.0 - i.e. DX9. Alan's Dream Aquarium was nice before, but it was when he got the scales to shimmer that DA surpassed MA2 (sorry, but it did).

Given the somewhat sparing frequency of MA iterations, I dare say it would be a good thing to consider scalability to make sure it still looks as good as it possibly can upon release. Knowing the ambition level of Mr. Sachs I know it will :)

Great links!

Yeah, there's not much in the way of DX10 yet but everybody who's anybody is gearing up for it. ;)

The are some Crysis comparison shots floating around though, and some Alan Wake ones as well I think...

..and some of 'em are faked...

Don't forget that the acclaimed realism lies in an important thing: the Art.
I'm tired of seeing software that implements the latest technologies and the final result is not as great as expected. I think that apart from hi-tech, there are other factors that easily contribute to a higher quality product.
And Jim is an artist. I'm sure that without the latest technology, Jim is going to amaze us again!.

Nope.

Reflective scales can be done in any version of DirectX you want. You just have to create multiple textures. Shader Model 2.0 means that the video card can do certain tricks on the card. That does not mean that this cannot be emulated in software. Reflections have been possible in software for years.

Also doesn't DA run in DirectX 8?

Gears of War takes full advantage of the effects and everything looks very realistic, but everything is so unreal and desolate and torn apart, it doesn't get an opportunity to shine. I guess I would have liked to see pockets of beauty in between the grunge and despair.

Ok, but how come the screenshots in the links I posted have extremely boring appearances in the DX6 & DX7 versions?
I dunno about Alan's.

That's part of the reason I said this awhile back, "I know that imperfections look worse the more realistically things are rendered but that's where the artist part of the job comes in." I HATE seeing bloom effects, HDR, and shots from upcoming games using motion-blur and dept-of-field effects poorly... Don't just throw some fancy trick in because you can, do it because it unanimously improves the look of the program. I want nothing more than to see all the high tech trickery used so well you don't even notice it; simply because it looks so gosh darn real. Nobody's done that yet.

Yep. It's like the Koi screensaver someone posted about a few weeks back. They added refraction to the water and it looked worse with it turned on but still was left in the final product becaus it was another feature...

Yeah, if he made a DX 10 aquarium, than only 0.1% of the world's population that has a computer would be able to buy Jim's aquarium.

Reflective scales - If I find any worthy saltwater species that need this effect, then I'll implement it. In the current version, the only critter that's shiny is the Copper-Banded Butterflyfish, and I've always been able to handle its shine using specular lighting. The simple fact is that nearly all the saltwater fish that people deem worthy of putting in an aquarium are as flat as velvet. No shine, no visible scales. In my Freshwater program, all the fish are shiny. In fact, the Cardinal Tetras have three types of shine - for the body, the red, and the blue-green stripe.

There are a couple of effects for which I do plan to use pixel shaders. I will be experimenting with motion-blur, especially for the bubbles. My current monitor is able to clearly freeze-frame the bubbles, which now rise much faster than they did in old version. This leads to a strobe-like impression, which detracts slightly from the overall realism. A small amount of motion-blur may be effective in curing this.

Come on, why are we being so dramatic? I keep saying scalability, doing it DX10 only would be suicide, no one is saying he should do that. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm tense...

Game developers have to make a choice.

Do they spend a lot of time writing software emulation to do effects that DX8 and DX9 can do on-the-card?

There's a lot of variables in play, such as, if you try to guess what computer the typical user of a DX7 card will have and if it will be able to handle the native DX7 graphics plus some software emulation that tries to show some of the goodies provided by DX8 and DX9.

In the case of Marine Aquarium, the concern is not overtaxing the CPU or video card in most cases, since it runs on some pretty low end hardware. The concern is whether people have DirectX 9 cards and DirectX 9 even installed. So I think it's a good fit for MA3 to do some of the graphical effects on DX8 that are freebies in DX9 and DX10 by writing some extra code.

I'm glad to hear that Jim had gotten the Cardinal Tetras the proper reflection in FA. Most people either don't realize, or are daunted by the fact that Cardinal Tetras have 3 different types of reflective scales. Maybe some day I will get to see it in motion. ;)

The main difference between DX8 and later versions is just more Vertex and Pixel Shader registers in the Video hardware. I doubt if I'll come anywhere near using all the available registers in DX8.

As I said, I'm totally open to incorporating advanced techniques, if they are actually needed (and assuming I can understand them). But so far it's kind of like telling Da Vinci, "Hey Leonardo, forget oils - today you could be painting with fluorescent glitter paint on velvet!"

:lol:

Understood. I'll be good. :silent:

Morg,
Ok. And DA runs on DX8.1 according to Alan.

Frank,
1. MA3 wouldn't be released today, but more likely in early 2008 - that allows for a lot better penetration of the market for DX10 capable systems.

2. The quoted percentage is not interesting as such a large share of the world's PCs aren't likely buyers of MA. Would you like to venture an estimate of how many of the potential MA3 buyers will have a DX10 capable system?

3. Nobody said anything about a DX10 only MA3. It was only talk about using features if they were available, just like if your card can't handle AA and/or a high resolution you won't be able to use it.

Jim,
A big ok on the reflections.

Doc,
So, what else is up? :)

TT - All correct, except that MA3 will be released in 2007.

I *love* being wrong!

Wow! Another hint at a release date! I'm flabergasted! :)

October, October, October!!! :D

Jim,
Are you considering incorporating something along the lines of Ronald's Fish Picker in MA3?

I don't remember exactly what it looked like, but it seems like the current interface is fairly close. Drag and drop the desired fish in each slot. The main difference is the max number of fish will be greater.

The main feature of Ronald's fish picker, at least to my knowledge, was cycling the RANDOM fish on an interval. One of those features that Prolific was going to integrate into their unified Settings panel.

Sooner each day
 

"TT - All correct, except that MA3 will be released in 2007."

"The main difference is the max number of fish will be greater."

Been a long time since a MA release has been in the foreseeable future. Me and my newer computer are really looking forward to it!

Definitely in 2007. This is 2005, right?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :sad: :D:D

Earth to Jim..................................

Chorus:

Let's do the Time Warp again
Let's do the Time Warp again