Marine Aquarium 3 Rumors and Speculation

[Jim Sachs]

These HPs have Intel chips. The program MUST work on the stock chipset in the most popular computer in the world.

[Jav400]

Jim what exactly are the specs on your machine there?

[Jav400]

Jim,

I might be kind of "out of line" with this, but I can't a totally see the point of where you are coming from here. I realize from a distribution standpoint that you would like the largest customer base you could have, but on the other hand, limiting yourself expotentially just doesn't cut it either.

I have seen some of your work through the years, and to me its amazing. I certainly know I couldn't do it. Your nautilus, the paintings, the aquarium, etc. etc. To me your statement is like saying da Vinci should have painted La Gioconda using only 1 brush with 3 bristles. IMHO you should concentrate on producing the best work you can and generally let us worry about what it takes to run it.

I know the machine I am planning on is "bleeding edge" as Morgan likes to say, and I can see where designing for that exclusively would be limiting, but overall no more so than severely limiting yourself the other way either. Technology moves forward, and your work needs to move with it. Once again, JMHO.

[Jim Sachs]

It's all about customer support. The average user buys a computer from a mass-retailer and never replaces the stock graphics chip. The new Aquarium must look spectacular on that machine, or we will get (literally) millions of complaints. Now that baseline machine is FAR more capable than the minimum hardware that existed when I wrote the first program. There MAY be a few extra features for those with high end equipment, but writing a bunch of special versions is a slippery slope that can lead to many years of extra work (and by then the hardware has changed again, so you can never really catch up).

[Lostboy]

Just to throw in another thought about audience. If you were to make this absolutely life like quality, it may limit many users that won’t have the equipment; however it would open it up to another kind of audience. There are many people out there with high end equipment that are begging for something to challenge their system to a good show. There are a lot of games flying off the shelves right now that require top end systems, and I think a big part of it has to do with them just looking very pretty. I know when I spent a few thousand on my computer a few months ago, I went out and got Oblivion simply for no other reason then because of the graphics (but luckily it’s a great game too). I wanted to give my computer a good test to justify myself spending that kind of money and be satisfied by saying “Now that’s what my computer can do!” People with high end systems may not be the majority, but they are often hardcore spenders. Also I would imagine the word would spread, “Dude, you gotta check out this screensaver. The graphics are insane, and you’d swear it’s real.”

[feldon34]

We had a poll on January 30th, 2001. Nearly 6 years ago.

98% of 600 people polled indicated that they either had the video card to run the 3D version of the Aquarium or would buy one.

If we're really going to limit ourselves to a .99 cent graphics chip, I would keep 2 products going:
Marine Aquarium 2.x which is the 2D background
Marine Aquarium 3.x which is the 3D background

Every boxed version of 3.x would come with 2.x and a hardware tester as part of the installer and it would suggest which version of the Aquarium to install.

Either that or hide objects that the graphics card cannot display.

[nicksteel]

I can understand both sides of the issue, but have to side with Feldon. A real fact of life is that every software generation places greater demands on hardware. I usually "cycle" my computers about once each three years. Even Windows itself places larger and larger demands on processor speed and storage. It is no fun running a "new" version of any program that operates slowly or with decreased features due to processor/memory limitations, but the only choice is upgrading. Remember, ALL software is changing, not just MA.

Also, I think one has to revaluate what the "typical" computer looks like. Everything I've seen for the past 2-3 years has memory, speed and graphics adequate for increased MA capabilities. The lower prices of hardware has really increased the "cycle rate" of old equipment.

Only practical solution is two versions, generic that will fit about everything and current which should run on typical machines 2-3 years old.

[Jim Sachs]

And that's exactly what I'm going for - Generic (v2.6) which runs on everything, and current (v3.0) which runs on my 2-year-old HP.

[nicksteel]

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

And that's exactly what I'm going for - Generic (v2.6) which runs on everything, and current (v3.0) which runs on my 2-year-old HP.  

I'd say "Great minds think alike", but I don't have to do the programming. I do get to grumble and whine about how long it takes. It's good to be the User!!!!!

(And the oldest of my 2 computers is a 2 year old HP)

[Jav400]

2 years old is quite some time, thats 32 years old in computer years, which is 2x dog years.

[drfish]

Why not make the Vista w/ Aero requirements the baseline for MA3?

/half serious

[feldon34]

A GeForce 2, which cost $40 6 years ago, should run the Aquarium nicely. The problem is depending upon these $1 graphics chips that Intel includes in some of their motherboard designs and people think they have a 3D graphics card when they don't.

And of course nVidia doesn't want to keep affordable graphics cards on the market so they never allow any graphics card to stay at $40 very long before they discontinue it. Comparatively, a GeForce 4 should cost $20 now, but they were discontinued so nVidia can keep the entry point price of video cards $50+.

[feldon34]

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

And that's exactly what I'm going for - Generic (v2.6) which runs on everything, and current (v3.0) which runs on my 2-year-old HP.  

Sorry, but that $1 chip that Intel includes on their motherboards is not a graphics card. Marine Aquarium 1.0, 2.0, and 2.6 all indicate at SereneScreen.com and on the carton that they require a graphics card. You're saying 3.0 won't require a graphics card? That would suggest you are LOWERING the system requirements of 3.0 compared to what they were with 1.0 which came out 5 years ago.

Originally posted by Jav400:

2 years old is quite some time, thats 32 years old in computer years, which is 2x dog years.  

That's a silly argument. Jim can make 3.0 run on computers 5 years old THAT HAVE A GRAPHICS CARD. The Aquarium will run on a Windows 98 machine released 8 years ago IF it has a graphics card.

[nicksteel]

My Gateway MCE 2.8 Dual Core has only the on-board Intel graphics. Runs MA2.6 at highres at over 100fps. I do use Nvidia drivers for a HDTV Wonder board. (I do intend to add a GeForce for the HDTV out port, but the onboard performs well. Maybe this machine is an exception.)

My older HP has a GeForce 6200 that works well.

[drfish]

Maybe I'm more than half serious about the Vista thing... There are after all integrated graphics chipsets that can run Aero just fine... Aero/Vista are bound to be the defacto standard in the coming years, why not tie into them right away. Prolific support will have a lot of help if the same people complaining about not being able to use MA3 are also unable to run Vista with Aero... Sure it's a long term plan but it's simple...

[IXNAY]

Finally I got a new PC so it will work fine on my System

[feldon34]

I hope people realize that there is no anger or even frustration in my posts. It's hard to communicate emotion on a web forum. I'm simply concerned that 3.0 will be compromised.

[Jav400]

Jim,

I hesitate to ask, but since you mentioned it in the other thread............... What's the problem with the !@#$%^& cave?

[Jim Sachs]

It's just rather difficult to make it look real. Keeps coming out looking like an object in all those other aquarium programs - you know, pasted on with an airbrushed shadow around it.

[Jav400]

We have faith Jim, you will get it right.