ConQueso

When the GeForce4 MX's come out, be aware that they lack some important features present in the GeForce3 line. Might want to consider them updates of the GeForce2 MX line. John Carmack of Id even criticized the NV17 being called a GeForce4 MX. More info: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2847063,00.html

Quote: Do you think that retailers will drop GeForce3 Ti200 prices down after the GF4 Ti's and MX's come out? Don't know. The cheapest true GF4 will be at around $200, and as the $50 drop to the GF3 Ti 200 is still a significant difference, there may be little reason to drop prices (well, at an increased rate than their already dropping, that is). The GeForce3 Ti 500 may drop more, though. With the GF4 MX being more a GF2 MX2, the GF3 Ti 200 still has it's place at it's price.

Quote: I was having a think about this today, do we really need these fancy features? No, but do we want them? We will once we see Unreal II run with said features, especially if more games start taking advantage of them. We just haven't seen them implemented yet, so of course we may think "ya what good are the features". You don't know how good chocolate is until you try some.

Worse yet, if the gaming industry slows in full DX8.0 support, many gamers might settle for the GF4 MX, as at it's price, it makes perfect sense to buy--but _only_ if games don't take advantage of the GF3 and _true_ GF4s features. So, if this happens, it will only _further_increase_ the amount of consumers that don't have full DX8.0 supported video cards, and thereby further _decreasing_ the incentive for the gaming industry to make full DX8.0 supported games. Which of course ends up in a circle. Let's hope for a GeForce5 MX that might actually--_get_this_--_have_ GeForce5_(and GF4, and GF3)_features. Obviously that's not something to be taken for granted these days.

Quote: ...it would've just been better to dump this post in the "Other" forum, as all 2k/XP users go there. I am a Win2k user, and I've never (yet) been to the "Other" forum. (though I am just about to check it out to see what IS talked about there) And I figured that people looking for relevant info on hardware would look in hardware rather than other, as hardware somehow seems more appropriate. Back to the topic, maybe name the NV17s "GeForce2 MX2 420/440/460" which is much more accurate. The GF2 minumum base features, and a new MX (hence the MX2). Unfortunately this isn't going to happen. (though if it did, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong ) The worst part is, that while nVidia has been pushing the 3D PC gaming industry forward the past few years, it might now actually be slowing it down. Game developers now know that MANY computers will be equipped with such cards (the name sounds good, and the cost is low, so you'd better believe they'll be slapped many mass produced big name brand computers), and as they must make games for the mass market (for mass sales) many games that might have implimented full DX8.0 support (had the GeForce 4 MX been named something more accurate, thus greatly reducing its sales and therefore market presence) now won't impliment full DX8.0 support because of it. Sorry for makeing that such a run-on sentence. It's a slap in the face for those who've spent good money for GeForce3s and also to those who'll buy _true_ (as in non-MX) GeForce4s, since the features they paid their hard earned cash for will now take longer to emerge fully. Oh, and its also a HUGE slap in the face for those who buy GeForce4 MXs assuming (rightfully) that they were getting a slower GeForce4, rather than a souped up GeForce2.

Quote: I have not seen a good space sim/shoot (X-wing type) for a long while and thought I might bring up the old WC series to see if it will work. Oh well... Tachyon: The Fringe is a game you might like. It shares some aspects of X-wing games and WC games. My main complaint was the enemy AI (oh, and the occasional enemy flying through solid structures without damage) was a bit weak. Stepping up the difficulty didn't help much. But all in all, well worth the 15 bucks. The option to kill the engines and coast (and therby turn around and shoot while flying backwards) was pretty cool. Being able to fly away from a capital ship while shooting at it was a welcome change of pace. Remember to coast to save afterburner energy. Oh, and the sense of scale (space structures are HUGE) was also cool. The game is NOT better, though, than either X-wing or Wing Commander.

The merged thing is good, (thanks, SHS) but as I _don't_ wan't to be wasting moderator and administrator time (and of course, can't merge threads myself), I'll just be doing the above mentioned linking, (should I even need to again) in the future. Oh, and by the way, the GeForce4 MX lacks some key features found on the GeForce3.

About the whole "GeForce4 MX" cross-posting: I didn't think to post a _link_ to avoid the cross-posting. Just wanted to get the word out on the GF4 MX is all. I actually went to update the smaller thread (this one) (as Brian suggested, thanks for the idea ), and updated it to link responses to the thread in the Win2000 forum, and then went back to the Win2000 forum to post a reply (this reply) and apologize for not thinking of the link idea. When I got back to that forum, I realized the thread was closed, so I went back and took out the updated link from the XP thread as it is now pointless to link future post requests to a closed thread that cannot be posted to. I didn't think, however, that there'd be any significant response in either forum. And there wasn't (on-topic discussion that is), except for the whole cross-posting ordeal. Just wanted to get the word out, as I myself, upon hearing about the GeForce4 MX was STOKED, making the (what I thought safe at the time) assumption that it would have the primary GeForce3 technology packed into it. When I found out more about the NV17, I figured I'd post it, and didn't want to leave out the XP folk, so I put the post here too. So, I apologize for the cross-post. Should there be a reason for a similar circumstance in the future, I will have one of the threads _only_ linking to the other, to keep all responses in one thread. By the way, why wasn't the _this_ thread closed, as it was the one with the _least_ response. (this message should have been a reply in the busy thread, and the cross-post problem solved by my up[censored] this smaller thread, by linking (and requesting) future responses to the busy thread) (the busy thread being the http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20023 one, and I figure linking to it does no harm, as it is closed now so no one can post to it anyways thus keeping all further responses in this thread) Didn't mean to frustrate anyone. (Only meant to avoid having potential GF4 MX owners from getting frustrated themselves) Thank you, Brian Frank, for the linking-posts idea. And thank you, M4Carbine, for the backup. Both were appreciated.

Well, I posted in both hardware forums so that the folks who don't check _both_ because they don't have both of the OSes. Why alert the XP folk only? (or vice-versa) It's not as if this is going to get into a multi-page thread that would have ideally (therefore) been in only one forum. So what's it matter?

Well, considering the features that the GeForce3 has that the GeForce2 doesn't aren't even really being used in games, (but will be soon with games such as Unreal II coming out) there seems to be a bit more of a reason to get a GeForce4 than a GeForce3 (ignoring the prices, and when refering to the 3D gaming scene). The GF4 is better at not rendering things that won't appear (z-axis occluding) and has better anti-aliasing with less performance slowdown. So, these things can actually have more an effect in current games, compared to the GF3. However, the GF4 _MX_ lacks some important features of the Geforce3, and getting one would only boost current 3D games while not being able to do advanced features that newer games such as Unreal II will take advantage of. So, relative to the GF3, a GF4 _MX_ could hurt in the long run. Factoring in price, though, I'd say the GF3 Ti 200 is the way to go. That, or the GF4 4200, which I guess will be the budget _true_ GeForce4. To save money, though, if current games run at acceptable levels, hold out until they don't before upgrading. More info about the GeForce4 MX: http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20023 Good informative review of the GF4 scene: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=1

Alan, Is there a reason you haven't upgraded to DirectX 8.1? Also, do you have Service Pack 2 installed for Win2000? I think the latest Apcompat needs SP2 (whether to be fully functional or prior to install, I don't know) I DO know that the only way I could get the game to run was using QFixApp, (the other compatibility modes (modifying shortcut properties, etc.) didn't work) and since my joysticks are Win2000 compatible, I had to uncheck EmulateJoystick to get them to work. About not knowing all the "Fixes" to check, simply click on an OS under the "Layers" tab in QFixApp, and it will check and uncheck default settings for simulating that OS. Then, you need only check or uncheck exceptions you think might apply to the specific game. Maybe this isn't the cause of the problem, but from what I've experienced, the game didn't run well until after I installed DX8.1 and _only_ ran when using QFixApp. And if you have problems with the solid screen color bug (if you do get it running), read the posts in the link in my prior post above.

Dude. Use QFixApp. And get DirectX 8.1. All the fixes? That's what layers are about, click a layer, it'll set default fixes. Then you can change one or two if need be. Read this thread: http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=18028&highlight=racer Let me know if you have any more difficulties running Racer. (except the solid color screen issue, still don't have that one COMPLETELY fixed.

Thanks for the input. Though, doesn't Half-Life use the Lith-Tech engine?

I agree. As much as I love 3dfx cards (still work great for UT), get a GeForce card. Remember that the GeForce2 MX 200 is actually _slower_ than the original MX. So, if you're going budget, get the GeForce2 MX 400. If you want the best performance, look for one with faster than reference RAM (5ns RAM will pull 186Mhz opposed to 166) and as that card's main bottleneck affecting performance is RAM speed, it'll help. They have PCI versions out also, in case stuck with an integrated AGP port. Here's some upgrade advice from eVGA, a vid card maker (their MX400 models use 5ns RAM chips) about cleaning the 3dfx files from your computer, prior to installing a new card. http://www.evga.com/articles/public.asp?AID=8

Hey, how fast can your system get to now? Mine maxes out at 75Hz, and I was wondering if this nvreffix perhaps automatically adjusts the Direct draw rate to the current monitor refresh settings?

Well, I guess LAN gaming has yet to be supported by NFS:PU. (and online gaming is beta) Check out http://www.earacing.com/PorscheUnleashed.phtml for more info.

I figured it out.

Are you talking LAN (local area network) or online multiplayer?

Actually, don't. I misunderstood what you were asking. But from what I read on another site, maybe try running it in WinME compatibility mode. If you can get direct input to work with your mouse and the compatibility mode, that may help even more. But, if not, let me know when you figure out a solution. My friend just got an XP system, and is probably stuck with the same problem, as he did horrible--even while hosting--his first day playing UT on his new XP system.

Anyone know if this acceleration problem also affects UT? A friend of mine just bought a laptop with XP. We played UT over a lan with 6 players, and he just plain did _bad_. He was hosting, too, so I figured he must just've been having a bad day. So, XP has mouse acceleration BEFORE mouse drivers can even affect it?!? Next time he comes over, I'll test his mouse and see if the windows update we did afterwords got rid of the acceleration as Bilston suggested it might. Maybe direct input (the UT option) might help, but normally it's buggy unless used in Win9x. If it's still accelerated, will the modifiers -noforcemparms and similar ones work for UT as well? Are they Half life or XP modifiers? Are there any truly solid solutions to this prolem?

Check what I wrote in the "UT mousespeed" post.

Under Options>Preferences>Input (tab) Untick direct input if your still having mouse problems. This setting is for Win9x machines. If you're not using direct input, be aware that your windows mouse settings will affect your UT mouse settings. So, you may want to consider going back into windows, click Start>Settings>Control Panel>Mouse>Pointer Options (tab) Here, take note of where your pointer speed is set. If you want your exact UT mouse sensitivity back, yet your UT settings haven't been changed, odds are good the pointer speed was changed in windows. Here is where you can turn it back. Also, here's something many UT players may not realize to change (though for Win9x players using direct input, they need not worry about it): Make sure that "pointer acceleration" is disabled or set to it's lowest setting (you may have to look for an advanced button to change accelleration). The problem is, if pointer acceleration is on, it can affect your aim. If you slowly turn a 180 in ut, and then quickly pull another 180, the second 180 will require that you move the mouse less distance (since you moved it faster, acceleration cause the same 180 with less mouse movement). This inconsistancy will affect "snap" aimed shots to not be as accurate. Turn pointer acceleration _off_ and this will eliminate the problem. a 180 will always require the same distance fast or slow. As will any other heading change. You'll become accustomed to the consistancy, and eventually "snap" or quickly aimed shots will much more likely be on target. You'll notice a difference after turning Acceleration off. It's a must for any skilled UT player (that is, one that must run without direct input, which eliminates acceleration) Just a note: Under Options>Preferences>Video (tab) GUI mouse speed will affect how fast the mouse pointer works as a pointing device in the UT menus. It has _no_ affect on your gameplay (aiming) mouse settings.

It didn't link my link. Guess I needed the http. http://msdn.microsoft.com/compatibility

I'm not sure if this will help, but it might. You've mentioned you tried everything, next time, list what you've tried so people know what you haven't. If you've truly tried everything, how could anyone here help? Okay, I'm not sure about running joysticks through gameports in Win2000 (all that I know that works is USB) but I did notice in QFixApp there's a joystick emulator. Does anyone know if this might correct the problem? I'm guessing not, but if you want to try go to msdn.microsoft.com/compatibility and download Win2000 Application Compatibility Toolkit version 1.5 (on the right side of the page) Open QFixApp (comes with toolkit) while logged on as admin, browse for the game executable, pick a compatiblity layer, then click the fixes tab and look for EmulateJoystick about 1/4th the way down on the scrollable list. If it's not checked, check it, then click the run button to try the game with the joystick emulated. When I use QFixApp, I end up DISabling Joystick emulation, since I'm running Logitech joysticks/gamepads with Win2000 drivers. Care to now more about the joystick emulation fix? This is a quote from QFixApp about it: "Fetch JOYCAPS data for given joystick number and copy number of requested bytes to apps structure. If the return value is an error then fill the JoyCaps structure with the same values as Win9x" I honestly doubt it will reverse the directional output, but hey, you never know. Even if it doesn't work, having QFixApp is a good thing to have anyway. A few of my favorite games won't run without it.

Okay, I've got some network problems. Thanks ahead of time to anyone who can give any insight to any or all of them. Had 6 computers (95/98/ME/ME/2000/XP) on a network for some Unreal Tournament with the addresses 198.138.98.1 to 198.138.98.6, and I thought I had everything connected and configured well enough. UT uses TCP/IP, so TCP/IP>network card, Client for Microsoft Networks and file and printer sharing were on all computers. Tried to host on my Win2000 system, but the XP system didn't register a lan game. Also, the XP system would pause for up to a minute after right clicking on files (on the XP system) over the network in a shared folder, before popping up the window to even cut/copy/paste/properties etc... In hindsight, I wonder if the XP system would have registered the LAN game if we waited a minute or two. So, we tried hosting on the XP system. This worked okay, but on occasion there were simultaneous crashes (UT froze) on only the two WinME systems, after which one of them couldn't even be rebooted with CtrlAltDelete. This only happened during longer, team games for some reason. Then, after everything seemed to be going well, one WinME system (a laptop if that matters) would still recognize lan games (when searching for them), but after trying to join would almost immidiately be "rejected by server". To see if it was a problem on the hosts computer, I tried hosting on the 2000 system, which worked fine, once: the the next several attempts were also rejected, so we stopped using the WinME laptop. No settings were changed after we first started playing, so I can't make any since out of it. Also, while I'm at it, I've tried to create shared folders on my Win2000 system, but anyone who tries to access it gets a password window (even though 'everyone' is assigned to the permissions). Must I have all computers log in to a NT network? Or is there something else I'm missing? I don't know if this is a bunch of separate problems, or one big one, so I put it all in one post. Any help would be greatly appreciated.