> my mate mark was saying Model 2 has monochromic textures and the way it made
> colour was by stacking several together? Got any more info on this, it sounds
> really unusual!
>
I cannot answer this one for you, others probably already have.



> Also he said it was dervied from military flight simulator chipsets, hence why
> it's so hard to get docs on it!
>
The Sega MODEL 2 board is indeed based on flight simulator chipset technology, from Martin Marietta and Fujitsu. not necessarily military flight simulator technology, but that makes no difference really.

MODEL 2 is, in a nutshell, a heavily upgraded MODEL 1 board with texture mapping and more polygon performance. the Martin Marietta / Fujitsu chipset technology is pre-Lockheed Martin Real3D that was used in Model 3.... (thus, Model 2 is not Real3D technology but an older subset of it).

MODEL 2 dates back to 1993, first used in Daytona USA which was also first seen in 1993, and released in completed form in early 1994, shortly after Namco's System 22 Ridge Racer came out in fall 1993.



> But Model 3 was a real 3dfx-type chip yeah?
>
Model 3 does not use 3Dfx whatsoever. it uses FAR superior technology. Model 3 uses Lockheed Martin's Real3D/Pro-1000 technology: 2 of those graphics processors in parallal. each Real3D/Pro-1000 GPU can do 750,000 rectangle polygons (4 sided polys) per second, each. with texture mapping, g-shading, lighting, anti-aliasing, filtering, etc. applied to those polys with no performance drop. Model 3 can do over 1,000,000 polygons with that quality, per second, sustained. (1,500,000 peak, 1,000,000 sustained). compared to a PC 3D graphics accelerator that has similar performance on paper, Model 3 blows them out of the water.

I would say that one polygon on MODEL 3 is worth 10 polygons of a 1990s PC 3D chip. so for example, a 3Dfx Voodoo2 which can supposedly do 3 million polygons per second peak, gets blown out of the water by supposedly weaker sounding Model 3 board. Voodoo2 probably only does 400K to 500K polygons in actual games with everything turned up.

It takes a Gamecube or an Xbox to rival & surpass the quality and performance of MODEL 3, in practice.

Dreamcast and PS2 cant match MODEL 3 in many areas, in games, even though both have higher paper specifications. sure, the PS2 and DC can outperform MODEL 3 in some areas, but those consoles get left behind in other basic areas of 3D graphics. feature for feature, Model 3 is better. examples:
both PS2 and Dreamcast can do mip-mapping. but Model 3 does mip-mapping better. both Dreamcast and PS2 can do some forms of anti-aliasing, but Model 3 does AA *MUCH* better, and in EVERY game, at 60fps. very few PS2 and DC games even use AA - and their methods of AA are not as good, and it usually comprimises framerate and other things.

MODEL 3 also has alot of texture space, so typically MODEL 3 games have more texture variety even though DC can do higher res textures.

the proof is in the games. a lot of Dreamcast and PS2 games look like shit compared to MODEL 3 games. only the best DC and PS2 games beat Model 3 games graphically in every single area at 60fps. That is when the developer has maximized the strengths of DC or PS2, and hidden or minimized their weaknesses.

the sorry fact is, DC and PS2 are much newer than Model 3.
the Model 3 technology was completed in 1995. it was demoed by Sega in May 1996. the first game (VF3) did not hit Japan until late 1996, and Model 3 games were not widespread in the U.S. until 1997. Dreamcast came out in 1998, PS2 in 2000. given Dreamcast and PS2's higher specifications on paper, you'd think that they'd thrash Model 3 completely. not the case. although the graphics chips in DC and PS2 are better than 3Dfx and other early PC 3D chips, the quality polygon for polygon is still not as high as Model 3. the only reason why PS2 and DC can even compete with Model 3, is because they can push more polygons and more pixels. so it is quality (Model 3) vs quantity (DC, PS2).






> Newsdee's Love, Glory, and Discussion Boards
>