cloofoofoo wrote:The dreamcast if you didnt know wasnt actually all that easy to program for
The whole point of Dreamcast's architecture was to facilitate easy programming.
They FINALLY settled on triangles, they used known and widespread hardware, the standard CPU-GPU RAM-VRAM-configuration and a GPU that came directly from the PC-sector.
Compare that to the complicated Saturn or even more so the complicated Model 3, which had none of these advantages (or - to a lesser degree - the PS2, which came after it).
Sega lost a lot of developer support due to the complicated hardware of the Saturn, that is widely known, and they learned from it. Launching another console system was risky and they had to make sure the got all the support they needed.
The dreamcast didnt live long enough to get that optimized state
That is correct, compared to systems like the PS1 the Dreamcast did not have as long a lifespan.
Still, we're talking of about 2.5 years from the japanese launch here and games were released even after that.
On model 3, we're talking about only 3 months from Step 1 to Step 1.5 and 6 months to Step 2. No time to optimize anything and also, no need to.
Not sure why youre mentioning triangles vs quads the comparison up there if you read the numbers are both triangle vs triangle.
Yes, I know. You were not comparing Model 3 to Dreamcast, but two Dreamcast-games.
It was only a reminder that should you compare M3 and DC, just consider this when doing the counting.
For example the author of model 3 emulator mentioned very little games actually used the hardware lod system and he couldnt see why unless there likely a performance penalty because in the end the games still uses cpu based lod systems.
That is only speculation. He mentioned other possible reasons like devs not accustomed to the hardware-LOD as well. Some games use it, others don't and some use it to do transparencies.
I think it's very impressive that Real3D had this feature, or things like the micro-texturing!
I do agree with you on genki, they got virtua fighter 3 finished in a couple months with unfinished tools
It's amazing how protective people are when it comes to the Dreamcast. Yes VF3 on the DC was troubled and there are many problems when you release a game at launch.
But so was Model 3's release, which was also highly troubled, with the final specs only arriving a few months before the release. This went so far that they even had to release a game on Model-2 instead since the hardware arrived so late.
So no smooth ride here either, and I find it to be very selective if people only look at the difficulties for the Dreamcast but ignoring them on other platforms.
I always bring up doa2 because it uses naomilib like vf3dc and fv2dc. Its running over 2x the detail of vf3 and 3x detail of fv2. Not sure how you not conclude 1:1 are very likely if the budget and effort was actually put into these.
Dead or Alive 2 is a PRIME example of what I'm trying to explain here.
The original game ran on Naomi, which is without doubt more powerful than the Dreamcast.
It has twice the RAM, twice the VRAM (both of which are THE limiting factors in Dreamcast's polygon and texture-capabilities), more Sound-RAM, higher bandwidth due to the higher clocked memory-bus and also has almost zero loading times, even when the GD-drive is used. The rest is identical, so we know Naomi is clearly the more powerful system.
Now if you compare DoA2 (and many other games!) on both systems, they almost look identical!
(The only differences I could EVER spot are ever so slight differences in the mountains in the background and some textures are slightly less sharp.)
Considering the VAST memory advantage Naomi has, you should think they had to make cuts all around, the games SHOULD look a lot worse on Dreamcast, right? But they don't.
Does that mean Dreamcast is as powerful as Naomi? Nope. It means the games were either not very well optimized on Naomi (texture compression, for example) or they were very well optimized on DC. Or both.
Sega rally 2 was very interesting, its pretty much devoid of lighting on model 3 except for the night stage but on dreamcast they added lighting to the track( which unfortunately makes it dark) and shadows that darken the car when in them and a red point light that lights up the track and car when the muffler goes off. So that was actually upgraded while detail was downgraded.
I remember Riviera having decent lighting on the original arcade hardware. Not sure about the other tracks as they are in daylight anyway, but maybe they added some lighting. They did similar with RR1 on the PS1 as well.
In total, SR2 on Dreamcast was really no match for the arcade.
Arcade had higher draw distance, more detailed textures, higher polygon count on cars and landscape, anti-aliasing and most of all, a pretty stable framerate which Dreamcast did not.
It is also worth mentioning that if you activate the 60fps-mode on the Dreamcast, a LOT more details are cut just to have the same framerate as the arcade (and it still doesn't quite reach it).