🚀 go-pugleaf

The government wants you to think that, in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video, "Skid" <sk...@mediaone.net> wrote:

:It's a fact that Nocturne was programmed from the start to use 32-bit
:textures and it IS going to look better that way. Another fact is that V3
:can't handle 32-bit textures, and as a result Nocturne will not look as good
:as it does on other cards. I have the full version of Nocturne running on a
:K6-III 450 with a TNT2 and V2 SLI. The games runs fluidly at 800x600 32-bit
:on the TNT2, and looks WAY better than on the V2. I understand the framerate
:versus image quality argument may favor the V3 in a Q3 fragfest, but in a
:single-player game with graphics the quality of Nocturne, you're giving up a
:lot more than you imagine in 16-bit.

I am well aware of the limitations of the V3, and I'm not a 3dfx-only
person (I like the Matrox G400 series a lot).  I just found it snotty
that the game's programmers suggested bypassing the V3 entirely and
using software mode.  I know 16-bit color has it's limitations, but
every game I've seen that runs 32-bit color does it incredibly slowly
(note: I have not seen a GeForce in 32-bit mode yet).  I have not
played Nocturne, although it looks interesting, since there's no net
gaming I don't see much reason to buy it.  The requirement for a
gigabyte of free disk space made it seem even less appealing.  
The screenshots (that I've seen) looked kind of uneven, almost like
glQuake1 shots on steroids, but I'd probably have to see the game to
say anything on it's image quality.  
I was really just trying to answer the guys question, sorry for going
into the 3dfx rant.