PDA

View Full Version : Why use Shader 3 in TRU?



tiger
2nd Nov 2008, 23:38
I and a zillion other players played and enjoyed TRL and TRA, quite nicely, with Shader 2 cards. . .
So, technically, what would we be losing without Shader 3 graphics, please?

And if S3 isn't a big deal then can we get CD to produce another version of their exe, without it? :thumbsup:

(Or do we have to wait until Eidos realizes that half of their PC market is like gone?) :rolleyes:

trlestew
3rd Nov 2008, 00:41
i was thinking something similar that Eidos could realease a patch for the DEMO (not the final realease) to make it playable on cards without shadermodel 3.0 (and yes i know that makes it look uglier but im not a graphics freak)

tiger
3rd Nov 2008, 05:47
PC demo players - are you able to play the demo OK? (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=137354)

And who knows how many simply didn't vote, discussted by the problem? :rolleyes:

*** I have no problems with Shader 2 graphics of TRL and TRA. *** :)

rg_001100
3rd Nov 2008, 05:56
And if S3 isn't a big deal then can we get CD to produce another version of their exe, without it? :thumbsup:

(Or do we have to wait until Eidos realizes that half of their PC market is like gone?) :rolleyes:

Eventually there needs to be a technological minimum for PC hardware (or should they port TR:U for Win95 systems? :rolleyes: ) It seems they've drawn the line that Shader 3 technology is widespread enough for them to be able to use it in games.
Increasing hardware requirements for games? It's not such a massive issue for PC players I think. Maybe for those that it is, they should buy a console to avoid the need to upgrade hardware...


i was thinking something similar that Eidos could realease a patch for the DEMO (not the final realease) to make it playable on cards without shadermodel 3.0 (and yes i know that makes it look uglier but im not a graphics freak)
What's the point in having a Demo with LESS system requirements than the full thing? It's going to have people complaining that they could run the demo but not the actual game. (One of the things the demo is supposed to do).

Ol.a
3rd Nov 2008, 06:12
I and a zillion other players played and enjoyed TRL and TRA, quite nicely, with Shader 2 cards. . .
So, technically, what would we be losing without Shader 3 graphics, please?

And if S3 isn't a big deal then can we get CD to produce another version of their exe, without it? :thumbsup:

(Or do we have to wait until Eidos realizes that half of their PC market is like gone?) :rolleyes:

+1 :thumbsup:

GoranAgar
3rd Nov 2008, 06:39
LOL, I remember very clearly a thread from when Anniversary was released (or was it Legend) titled:

Why no Shader3 in the new TR? :lol:

You see, there is always someone not happy with whatever gets presented.

trlestew
3rd Nov 2008, 10:26
Eventually there needs to be a technological minimum for PC hardware (or should they port TR:U for Win95 systems? :rolleyes: ) It seems they've drawn the line that Shader 3 technology is widespread enough for them to be able to use it in games.
Increasing hardware requirements for games? It's not such a massive issue for PC players I think. Maybe for those that it is, they should buy a console to avoid the need to upgrade hardware...


What's the point in having a Demo with LESS system requirements than the full thing? It's going to have people complaining that they could run the demo but not the actual game. (One of the things the demo is supposed to do).

im not talking about porting it to win95, im talking about buying a brand new pc with vista pre-installed with an intel chipset (your average $1000 store bought pc :rolleyes: . And for the demo only, since no profit is given and since Eidos are partners with nVidia, if people upgrade, it will be no gain or loss for Eidos. But for the final game it will since people pay for the full game and upgrade which is a double plus for Eidos.
Not everybody has this type of tech that bought pc's like 1 month ago at a high price for an intel chipset.

bingojubes
3rd Nov 2008, 13:47
when planning to purchase a pre-built system, you have to think in future terms, anyways. a good deal on a PC a month ago already is asking to be upgraded SOMEHOW. Undeworld, yes, presents a challenge to one month old machines, but if you bought it to game in the first place, u should have been expecting to upgrade, anyways. if not NOW, unfortunately NOW for a lot of players has arrived. (see sig).

ray50
3rd Nov 2008, 15:27
I also have a shader 2.0 video card (X700) which I got for TRA. Seems all my video card upgrades over the years have been for TR games (of corse many other games are faster also). When I saw Shader 3.0 I checked and found an ATI replacement (HD 3650) which will work fine for `$50USD. I can't complain as this is the cheapest TR upgrade yet. And don't forget Shader 4.1 is out there.

tiger
4th Nov 2008, 01:27
LOL, I remember very clearly a thread from when Anniversary was released (or was it Legend) titled:

Why no Shader3 in the new TR? :lol:

You see, there is always someone not happy with whatever gets presented.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be Shader3 quality for TRU.

I'm just trying for find the answer for a Shader2 version to go along with it, you know.
(And simply trying to guarantee a GREAT market for it, like TRL and TRA, at the same time.) ;)

And I wonder what a lot of folks would be saying if TRU was only for Shader4, mate? :cool:

pleomax
4th Nov 2008, 13:19
And I wonder what a lot of folks would be saying if TRU was only for Shader4, mate?

My cards below recommended, and is shader model 4.

Got it covered, lol.:lmao:

My cards getting quite old now and is starting to struggle, so i could ague that before my card becomes a paperweight why can't i have a shadermodel 4 tombraider.

tiger
6th Nov 2008, 20:26
High dynamic range rendering (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_rendering)

Well, HDRR seems to make it prettier, contrast wise, between light and dark areas.
(But TRA and TRL look pretty nice to me, in Shader2, already?) :cool: