patching for mx cards

[gnix1979]

I have just downloaded the demo of Deus Ex: IW

What a disapointment about this pixal shading thing.

For all you cocky types with either radeons or Nvidia Ti/ FX cards, not everybody is that fortunate.

So what if Pixal shading has been around for 3 years, IW is the only game I have come across that requires such a thing. I boght my pc last xmas, and it came with a Geforce 4 Mx 440, as well as a P4 2.6. Now I am expected to buy another one. Fat chance, I will do with out for now.

Besides I can only asume that there are quite a few gamers out there who are in the same boat. Meaning not so many people will buy it, or will be making refunds as soon as they purchase it.

I have been a fan of Nvidia for some time now, and this is the first time I have been disapointed with them.

All I have to say now is role on for Half-life 2 and Doom 3. Both of which do not require pixal shading. I know because I have played the source code of each.

[KeoC4]

I don't see why you think nvidia are letting you down. Everyone knows thats mx cards are useless.

If you want a good card, you should have bought a PC which came with a ti card.

[Joxer1]

Originally posted by KeoC4
I don't see why you think nvidia are letting you down. Everyone knows thats mx cards are useless.

If you want a good card, you should have bought a PC which came with a ti card.
That's true.
MX Cards should have never been allowed to run on any good game - NOLF2, Morrowind, KOTOR, etc.

MX cards cost $90 when I first shopped for them. Any fool knows that to play a $50 game you need to invest in no less than a $150 card, and then throw it out when the next $400 card comes along.

In late 2004 I hope that games prevent lamers from using those old outdated rusty Radeon 9800 Super Ultra Mega Pro cards. By then everyone will know they're useless.

And if you don't have the money for new video cards every year? Screw you. Games are for the affluent. The problem with gaming today is that too many games come out supporting cards that have gone under $100. The video card companies lose money, and worst of all, I even have to suffer the indignity of playing online with a bunch of poor people from the other side of the train tracks.

Disgusting!

note: this is a satirical post.

[Rooklin]

Ahem!

My MX 440 can run Max Payne 2 at full resolution and detail, so don't tell me that they are useless.

It was nVidia's own retardism that they realeased the cards without the up to date features.

[Cadillacs57]

i have an mx card....
my computer is for working, i do some gaming, like dx 1 and some other classics to me, like dark forces, or the first jedi knight.
anyways, i have to upgrade my other computer too, i have....a voodoo 3 3000 16 mb at home :cool:
this vid card gived me a lot of great times.... now is time to change,
im going for the fx cards..... 5200.... as soon as i have some real money, im moving to a serious one... but for the money, that one is all i need now.
but.... i dont know why they added pixel shader, if it does not helpp at all in the game.
if you guide yourself by the nvidia logo and some reports i've read about how the mx cards are used by lots of pcs... you can actually think that this is a move just to make you upgrade...
same as MS, they allways find the way to make you upgrade
i can still run tons of games on my mx card at work... nfs underground, midnight club 2, unreal 2, max payne 2.
so i kinda... wonder why they used that feature...

[Meteor_of_War]

omg :o

Maybe next time you'll do a little research before buying something. The MX cards were NOT intended for gaming, no matter WTF you people think and no matter how it runs your other games...which probably run like crap anyway.

[KingRat]

http://www.techspot.com/reviews/hardware/evga_gf4mx440/evgamx-7.shtml

"Lacking in DirectX 8/8.1 features, which will become more apparent as time goes on."


personally I can't complain since it's good for my business :)

[Jock]

Really, the MX are just faster Geforce 2's. That is it. I almost bought one, but saw that they were not "Frag jocky" cards. They are budget. For the love of god, one cost $99 when it came out (MX) and one cost $400 when it came out (TI). Is it hard to see that one might last longer?

[Woggy]

I boght my pc last xmas, and it came with a Geforce 4 Mx 440, as well as a P4 2.6. Now I am expected to buy another one. Fat chance, I will do with out for now.

Buy a new card, not a new computer :rolleyes:
You dont want to upgrade, buy a X-box.

[Tassadar5000]

OMFG WHY THE **** DONT YOU ******* ******* GO ******* RESEARCH YOUR ************* PURCHASES BEFORE YOU ******* PURCHASE YOUR ******* VIDEO CARD. JUST ******* SHELL OUT SOME ******* MONEY AND ******* BUY A ******* BETTER VIDEO CARD OR STOP ******* ON THESE *** ******* ******* FORUMS!@!!!!!!!!1111

*Soon to be ex-owner of an Gf4 MX 440*

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by gnix1979

So what if Pixal shading has been around for 3 years, IW is the only game I have come across that requires such a thing. I boght my pc last xmas, and it came with a Geforce 4 Mx 440, as well as a P4 2.6. Now I am expected to buy another one. Fat chance, I will do with out for now.


So you dropped more than a grand on a shiny new system but didn't bother to do any research first?

$160 will get you a card that is more than capable of playing the game. $180 will get you an X-Box. For you, I suggest the latter. :rolleyes:

As for joxer, do some reading. Developers are moving away from multitexturing and lightmaps and towards pixel and vertex shading. Somebody had to be first - it just happened to be DX.

[KingRat]

Originally posted by thegrommit
As for joxer, do some reading. Developers are moving away from multitexturing and lightmaps and towards pixel and vertex shading. Somebody had to be first - it just happened to be DX.

If I'm not mistaken, ATI has had a big hand in that movement. I recall Orton mentioning the change when he announced the R9700.....

[Masai]

Originally posted by gnix1979
I have just downloaded the demo of Deus Ex: IW

What a disapointment about this pixal shading thing.

For all you cocky types with either radeons or Nvidia Ti/ FX cards, not everybody is that fortunate.

So what if Pixal shading has been around for 3 years, IW is the only game I have come across that requires such a thing. I boght my pc last xmas, and it came with a Geforce 4 Mx 440, as well as a P4 2.6. Now I am expected to buy another one. Fat chance, I will do with out for now.

Besides I can only asume that there are quite a few gamers out there who are in the same boat. Meaning not so many people will buy it, or will be making refunds as soon as they purchase it.

I have been a fan of Nvidia for some time now, and this is the first time I have been disapointed with them.

All I have to say now is role on for Half-life 2 and Doom 3. Both of which do not require pixal shading. I know because I have played the source code of each.

I also bought my new computer 1 year ago and they told me that it was a gaming computer at the time. Dropped (12 hun) after rebates kicked in and I thought I was doing something. I just was'nt informed enough, I did'nt know the right questions to ask. I knew Ti was better than MX but I did'nt know that MX was garbage. MX comes with a lot of computers.

I took the game back yesterday and got my money back, I'll upgrade as I get extra money, then pick up and play DX:IW a little later. This game is the only game that I can't play, all my other games play just fine...Matrix, Max Payne 2, Bond 007, MOH series, Hitman series, Deus Ex 1 plus more.

I am bummed out about it though, I waited for so long, with all their delays and crap, well that's just great.:mad:

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by KingRat
If I'm not mistaken, ATI has had a big hand in that movement. I recall Orton mentioning the change when he announced the R9700.....

Wasn't the GF3 the first consumer card to support shaders? Regardless, it makes sense for developers. They can create effects that aren't dependent on some hardwired feature of a given card.

Looking at the lighting in the DX2 demo, I can see why they went the direction they did - it fits Thiefs needs perfectly.

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by Masai

I am bummed out about it though, I waited for so long, with all their delays and crap, well that's just great.:mad:

Considering the gameplay and performance issues, I'm sure you'll get a better experience out of the game once it's been patched a few times. ;)

[Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames]

there was an other thread with a link to a software that can emulate pixel shader. I'll try to find it. apparently, it slows down the framerate, so you better have a good computer.

[KingRat]

Originally posted by thegrommit
Wasn't the GF3 the first consumer card to support shaders? Regardless, it makes sense for developers. They can create effects that aren't dependent on some hardwired feature of a given card.

Looking at the lighting in the DX2 demo, I can see why they went the direction they did - it fits Thiefs needs perfectly.

IIRC the R64 was supposed to be a DX8 card since it could use PS_1.0; however MS went with PS_1.1 in DX8 which the GF3 supported.....

[gnix1979]

Well only a few have come out with something constructive.

No matter what people think about Mx cards, Eidos will lose business, due to the very problem.

For those who got abusive for no need what so ever. "well when your aged 10 you like to act all hard and macho",
nobody is saying what is better or not, they are just suprised that the Pixal shader is a mandatory requirement. I bet even you kids have never heared about pixal shader till now, and don't even think about lieing, because it is abvious that you are with the level of abuse I have recieved.

[K^2]

Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
there was an other thread with a link to a software that can emulate pixel shader. I'll try to find it. apparently, it slows down the framerate, so you better have a good computer.
You can't emulate pixel shader. If someone told you otherwise, they lied. The only way arround is to emulate the entire video card. And that will slow your frame rate bellow playable.


However, I think that the game should be patched to in clude an option to run T&L through a fixed pipeline (or at least stop at vertex shader and do texturing through fixed pipeline). Sure, it will look no better then Q2 did (or Q3 if they do vertex shading), but at least it will let people with lower end cards to play the game.

[zanetheinsane]

Originally posted by Jock
Really, the MX are just faster Geforce 2's. That is it. I almost bought one, but saw that they were not "Frag jocky" cards. They are budget. For the love of god, one cost $99 when it came out (MX) and one cost $400 when it came out (TI). Is it hard to see that one might last longer?

I would just like to say that regardless of what benchmarks anyone has read, I have never seen a GeForce4 MX outperform a GeForce2 Pro, and I own alot of hardware. :D

I've owned lots of GF4MX's on lots of different systems, and even systems with better spec's the GF4MX is a real pos. I know the MX line is supposed to be the low-end, and the Pro is the top end of the GeForce2 line, but come on, a card that's two generations and years ahead and it's still that much crap.

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by gnix1979
I bet even you kids have never heared about pixal shader till now, and don't even think about lieing, because it is abvious that you are with the level of abuse I have recieved.

Don't judge everyone by your standards.

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2002q1/evga-gf4mx/index.x?pg=1

Dated: March 2002

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/vidcards/index.x?pg=1

Dated: December 2001

That article links back to an earlier (undated) discussion of the Geforce3

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/geforce3/index.x?pg=1


The keys to the GeForce3's new approach to rendering are two of the chip's main functional units, dubbed vertex and pixel shaders. By now, it's likely you've read a fair amount about these things