~
Sega's Lindbergh Arcade Board is shown, taken apart. Now we know it
can be concidered a low to mid-range PC, with a single GeForce 6
series (GeForce 6800 ?) GPU, circa 2004.
This is not a surprise.
It has been known since the middle of last year that Lindbergh used an
Nvidia
shader 3.0 capable GPU.
The question was, did Lindbergh use the then-new NV47 / G70 / GeForce
7800,
or the older NV40 / GeForce 6800. well, now we know its an older GPU
from 2004.
along with a standard Pentium 4 CPU, this makes Lindbergh weaker than
many of todays midrange PCs, and far weaker than highend PCs.
Is Sega ever going to get serious about technology again with their
arcade games?
back in the mid-to-late 1990s, Sega's Martin Marietta powered MDEL 2
and Lockheed Martin powered MDEL 3 arcade boards kicked the ever
living **** out of the most powerful PCs including those equiped with
3Dfx Voodoo Cards in 1996-1998.
now we have $1000 PCs and a $300-$400 console
(with another $400-500 console on the way) that beats the most
powerful
Sega arcade hardware. sad!
SEGA, where is the highend NAMI 3 or MDEL 4 ?

<AirRaid1500@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1143089124.065262.65180@

~
--
Sega's Lindbergh Arcade Board is shown, taken apart. Now we know it
can be concidered a low to mid-range PC, with a single GeForce 6
series (GeForce 6800 ?) GPU, circa 2004.

This is not a surprise.

It has been known since the middle of last year that Lindbergh used an
Nvidia
shader 3.0 capable GPU.

The question was, did Lindbergh use the then-new NV47 / G70 / GeForce
7800,
or the older NV40 / GeForce 6800. well, now we know its an older GPU
from 2004.

along with a standard Pentium 4 CPU, this makes Lindbergh weaker than
many of todays midrange PCs, and far weaker than highend PCs.

Is Sega ever going to get serious about technology again with their
arcade games?

back in the mid-to-late 1990s, Sega's Martin Marietta powered MDEL 2
and Lockheed Martin powered MDEL 3 arcade boards kicked the ever
living **** out of the most powerful PCs including those equiped with
3Dfx Voodoo Cards in 1996-1998.

now we have $1000 PCs and a $300-$400 console
(with another $400-500 console on the way) that beats the most
powerful
Sega arcade hardware. sad!

SEGA, where is the highend NAMI 3 or MDEL 4 ?

maybe you forget, but when a mid range system like that can be fully taken
advantage of with specific optimizations made particularly for that
hardware, without having to worry about the LCDenominator, or overhead, and
only having one specific setup of hardware, amazing things are possible.

Sega doesn't have the resources to design today's graphics chipsets
with
300+ million transisters. Neither does Silicon Graphics. SGI
workstations
now use ATi FireGL video cards.

That's true -- but Sega should be using the best that Nvidia or ATI can
provide, not 1 year old technology at the time, which is now 2 years
old.

back in the mid-to-late 1990s, Sega's Martin Marietta powered MDEL 2
and Lockheed Martin powered MDEL 3 arcade boards kicked the ever
living **** out of the most powerful PCs including those equiped with
3Dfx Voodoo Cards in 1996-1998.

"They didn't. Arcade games running on Model 3 hardware got ported to
Saturn with minimal loss of quality, from what I remember. The Saturn
was
was nowhere close to the performance of the Voodoo."

That has got to be the biggest bunch of bull**** I've heard in a year.
First of all the Saturn did not get one single Model 3 game. Saturn VF3
was canned. Since you probably meant Model 2 games, it is still
bull****. Model 2 games were not 'ported' to Saturn with minimal loss
of quality. Model 2 games were translated to Saturn with a MASSIVE,
MASSIVE loss in quality everytime, dispite some translations being
better than others. the Saturn had N genuine 3D polygon processing
capabilities whatsoever. Saturn's 3D graphics was all hacked up, faked
3D.

Saturn *translations* or *adaptions* of Model 2 arcade games were not
even remotely close to being as good as the arcade. not even VF2,
dispite the fact that Saturn VF2 was running at the same framerate
(60fps) and in higher res than the arcade, there was a massive
reduction in the amount of (faked) polygons in the Saturn version. not
to mention textures. even the MUCH closer Playstation2 emulation of
VF2 is not as good as the arcade, with downgraded texture work.

And don't even get me started about Daytona USA or even Daytona CCE.
the Saturn versions were not even at 25% of the arcade game.

in terms of 3D graphics, Saturn vs Model 2, it's like comparing a
Hyundai to a Corvette, with Model 3 being a Ferrari

you are right though about Voodoo vs Saturn though Saturn was
nowhere near close to a Voodoo1 card, and a Voodoo1 was not as
powerful as Model 2, dispite the fact that Voodoo1 had a more modern
feature set (like Nintendo64). Model 2 had more polygon and texture
pusing power.

>Arcade games running on Model 3 hardware got ported to
>Saturn with minimal loss of quality
i was gonna correct you on this one, but raid beat me to the punch.

here are gamezero's comments on the martin marietta chip that powered
the model 2 hardware. this is a news post from april of 1995:

"We recently ran across some information regarding the internal
hardware for coin-op games like Daytona USA, Desert Tank, and Virtua
Fighter II. It turns out that one of the main components that makes
these games so graphicaly stunning is a piece of hardware manufactured
by Martin Marietta called REAL3D. REAL3D is a family of graphics
engines based on technology developed for astronaut training and high
performace combat sims. This hardware is capable up generating a
minimum of 500,000 visible, textured polygons per second with 24-bit
true color mapping Sounds great doesn't it? Well in a call with
Martin Marietta, Ferrari Man learned all of this and more. It turns out
that Sega never aquired the liscensing rights to include this hardware
in it's Saturn consoles! So this leads to the question of how
accurate the new coin-op translations will be on Sega's flagship
system?"

dont' be fooled by that 300+ million transistor count

3d engines are masively parallel you design a shader once and just cut &
paste it in same thing for the pixel shaders, etc. The entire pipeline
is just cut/paste. Add in cache and such and the acutal amount of design
work is far, far less then you would think

"Air Raid" <AirRaidJet@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1143164108.771188.248070@
Sega doesn't have the resources to design today's graphics chipsets
with
300+ million transisters. Neither does Silicon Graphics. SGI
workstations
now use ATi FireGL video cards.

That's true -- but Sega should be using the best that Nvidia or ATI can
provide, not 1 year old technology at the time, which is now 2 years
old.
>
>
>back in the mid-to-late 1990s, Sega's Martin Marietta powered MDEL 2
>and Lockheed Martin powered MDEL 3 arcade boards kicked the ever
>living **** out of the most powerful PCs including those equiped with
>3Dfx Voodoo Cards in 1996-1998.
>
"They didn't. Arcade games running on Model 3 hardware got ported to
Saturn with minimal loss of quality, from what I remember. The Saturn
was
was nowhere close to the performance of the Voodoo."

That has got to be the biggest bunch of bull**** I've heard in a year.
First of all the Saturn did not get one single Model 3 game. Saturn VF3
was canned. Since you probably meant Model 2 games, it is still
bull****. Model 2 games were not 'ported' to Saturn with minimal loss
of quality. Model 2 games were translated to Saturn with a MASSIVE,
MASSIVE loss in quality everytime, dispite some translations being
better than others. the Saturn had N genuine 3D polygon processing
capabilities whatsoever. Saturn's 3D graphics was all hacked up, faked
3D.

Saturn *translations* or *adaptions* of Model 2 arcade games were not
even remotely close to being as good as the arcade. not even VF2,
dispite the fact that Saturn VF2 was running at the same framerate
(60fps) and in higher res than the arcade, there was a massive
reduction in the amount of (faked) polygons in the Saturn version. not
to mention textures. even the MUCH closer Playstation2 emulation of
VF2 is not as good as the arcade, with downgraded texture work.

And don't even get me started about Daytona USA or even Daytona CCE.
the Saturn versions were not even at 25% of the arcade game.

in terms of 3D graphics, Saturn vs Model 2, it's like comparing a
Hyundai to a Corvette, with Model 3 being a Ferrari

you are right though about Voodoo vs Saturn though Saturn was
nowhere near close to a Voodoo1 card, and a Voodoo1 was not as
powerful as Model 2, dispite the fact that Voodoo1 had a more modern
feature set (like Nintendo64). Model 2 had more polygon and texture
pusing power.

Steve Muccione wrote:

>dont' be fooled by that 300+ million transistor count
>
>3d engines are masively parallel you design a shader once and just cut &
>paste it in same thing for the pixel shaders, etc. The entire pipeline
>is just cut/paste. Add in cache and such and the acutal amount of design
>work is far, far less then you would think

Nothing like a modern CPU, that's for sure


>"Air Raid" <AirRaidJet@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:1143164108.771188.248070@
>Sega doesn't have the resources to design today's graphics chipsets
>with
>300+ million transisters. Neither does Silicon Graphics. SGI
>workstations
>now use ATi FireGL video cards.
>>
>That's true -- but Sega should be using the best that Nvidia or ATI can
>provide, not 1 year old technology at the time, which is now 2 years
>old.
>>
>>
back in the mid-to-late 1990s, Sega's Martin Marietta powered MDEL 2
and Lockheed Martin powered MDEL 3 arcade boards kicked the ever
living **** out of the most powerful PCs including those equiped with
3Dfx Voodoo Cards in 1996-1998.
>>
>"They didn't. Arcade games running on Model 3 hardware got ported to
>Saturn with minimal loss of quality, from what I remember. The Saturn
>was
>was nowhere close to the performance of the Voodoo."
>>
>That has got to be the biggest bunch of bull**** I've heard in a year.
>First of all the Saturn did not get one single Model 3 game. Saturn VF3
>was canned. Since you probably meant Model 2 games, it is still
>bull****. Model 2 games were not 'ported' to Saturn with minimal loss
>of quality. Model 2 games were translated to Saturn with a MASSIVE,
>MASSIVE loss in quality everytime, dispite some translations being
>better than others. the Saturn had N genuine 3D polygon processing
>capabilities whatsoever. Saturn's 3D graphics was all hacked up, faked
>3D.
>>
>Saturn *translations* or *adaptions* of Model 2 arcade games were not
>even remotely close to being as good as the arcade. not even VF2,
>dispite the fact that Saturn VF2 was running at the same framerate
>(60fps) and in higher res than the arcade, there was a massive
>reduction in the amount of (faked) polygons in the Saturn version. not
>to mention textures. even the MUCH closer Playstation2 emulation of
>VF2 is not as good as the arcade, with downgraded texture work.
>>
>And don't even get me started about Daytona USA or even Daytona CCE.
>the Saturn versions were not even at 25% of the arcade game.
>>
>in terms of 3D graphics, Saturn vs Model 2, it's like comparing a
>Hyundai to a Corvette, with Model 3 being a Ferrari
>>
>you are right though about Voodoo vs Saturn though Saturn was
>nowhere near close to a Voodoo1 card, and a Voodoo1 was not as
>powerful as Model 2, dispite the fact that Voodoo1 had a more modern
>feature set (like Nintendo64). Model 2 had more polygon and texture
>pusing power.
>>
>

that's interesting, Pez D Spencer, but it is not QUITE correct.

Model 2's chipset was pre-REAL3D. that is, the ancestor of Real3D.
Although Model 2 *does* use much of the same technology that was later
put into the Real3D chipsets.

the various versions of Model 2, although different from version to
version, basicly consists of an Intel 32-bit CPU, a bunch of DSPs from
Fujitsu (and perhaps other DSPs) and some un-named custom, proprietary
3D rendering chips / software API, etc from Martin Marietta (formerly
GE Aerospace graphics). Sega got help from GE / MM for the Model 2
project when Sega had trouble upgrading their Model 1 board.

Model 2 was in development from probably 1992 to 1993. it was completed
sometime in 1993. An early version of Daytona was demo'ed in summer or
fall 1993. Then Daytona USA powered by Model 2 was released to
arcades in early 1994, shortly after Namco's Ridge Racer hit arcades
in late 1993. btw, Ridge Racer's System22 board also had DSPs, and
an Evans & Sutherland 'TR-3' rendering chip/ chipset, which has
certain advantages and disadvantages compared to the Martin Marietta
powered Sega Model 2. Also, the Evans & Sutherland powered Namco
highe-end System22 board has nothing to do with the Playstation-based
low-end System11 board that powered Tekken, Tekken2, Soul Edge, etc.

Sometime around 1995, Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed, thus
forming Lockheed-Martin. Then Lockheed took all of the graphics
technologies and engineers it had that were formerly at GE Aerospace
and Martin Marietta, and put them under a single new company, REAL3D
Sega and LM REAL3D worked in on the Model 3 board, though it was
delayed a lot. Model 3 did not show up until May 1996 when Sega demo'ed
Virtua Fighter 3. The game was not released until late 1996 in Japan.
I didn't see one in my area in the U.S. until early 1997.

So the point is, Model 2 used the forefather of REAL3D technology.
Model 3 used actual highend REAL3D Pro-1000 chipsets.

In addition to the Pro-1000, REAL3D produced a mid-range chipset called
REAL3D-100. this is NT to be confused with the very low-end and
disappointing 'Auburn' chip from 1997, which is better known as i740,
jointly developed with Intel, which Intel used in their crappy
intergrated graphics, and which Lockheed Martin Real3D sold to
consumers in the Starfighter cards.

The older but more powerful and better REAL3D-100 was not a consumer
product, although it was SUPPSED to be according to announcements in
1995. R3D-100 was supposed to be sold as a $180 graphics card that
could upgrade Pentiums and even 486s, allowing them to provide stunning
3D for the time.

The Real3D-100 was ALS supposed to be the graphics subsystem of Sega's
'Saturn2' which would've been either a new console for 1996 or used as
an upgrade to the existing Saturn - either way, the R3D-100 powered
Saturn2 was meant fight off the 3D-capable PS1 / N64. But the
Lockheed R3D-100 based Saturn2 (upgrade or stand-alone console) never
happened. but it apparently really was in development, or at the very
least, a serious proposal by Lockheed Martin, or at request from Sega.
It happened a few years before Sega developed two other new consoles in
parallal -- the 3Dfx-based Black Belt, and PowerVR-based Katana --
with Katana being selected, renamed Dreamcast, to become the approved
successor to Saturn.

(got side-tracked)

The REAL3D-100, although NT as powerful as the REAL3D Pro-1000 used in
Sega's MDEL-3 board, was still more powerful than the Sega MDEL-2
board that used technology that was the ancestor to REAL3D. but
REAL3D-100 was more powerful, offering 750,000 textured polygons and
more features that MDEL-2 lacked. because Real3D-100 had its own
on-board geometry engine, it did not depend heavily on the CPU to
provide it polygon transforms. making the Real3D-100 of 1995 a more
powerful chip than the 3DFX Voodoo of 1996 or PowerVR Series 1 (PCX1,
PCX2).

I don't by any means concider myself an expert on these things, nor
extremely knowledgable. I'm just going off of memory of what I've read.

here are some usenet posts from around 1995sorry if this seems like
alot of reading, those that are interested, here it is.

some of it comes from Next Generation magazine (and probably their
sister publication, EDGE, as well)

I remember reading several days ago from the latest issue of Next
Generation about the 3D graphics accelerator cards from Lockheed Martin
Corp. - the Real3D series. The article only mentioned the two earliest
cards in the *scaleable* family line - the low-end Real3D/100 and
high-end Real3D/1000. The R3D/100 (and I guess the 1000 too) is
basically composed of a graphics, a geometry, and a textureprocessor,
and will support GL and 3D-DDI. The cards will "only operate with
PCI33Mhz interface."

"LCKHEED ENTERS GRAPHICS BATTLE WITH ITS *$180* REAL3D PRCESSR: LMC
has announced a PC-based [PCINLY] 3D graphics accelerator which it
claims can move more polygons per second than any mainstream system
currently available. The acceleratoris said to be able to move
750,000 textured, shaded, depth-buffered, and MIP-mapped polygons per
second, more than Sega's Model 2 arcade board, currently the most
powerful board in the arcades. The Real3D technology is primarily a
result of Martin Marietta's [1/2 of Lockheed-Martin] longstanding
relationship with the defense industry. The firm was involved in NASA
research during the '50s and '60s, and in the '70s and '80s went on to
work for the US Defense Department on a variety of graphically
intensive projects. The technology's basics were then applied to other
fields: they helped to make Sega's Model 2 arcade board, with Martin
Marietta supplying its texture-mapping chips and TARGET database
generation system. LMC has invested more than $200 million in computer
graphics research and now owns more than 40 patents in the field,
including the 'unique anti-aliasing architecture' used in Real3D."

Then it goes on to list ALT of specs of each chip component in the
card, which look REALLY good :-) You gotta see the sample screenshots
they showed (very, very good)! Anyway, LMC has annual sales of ~$23
billion and employs more than 170,000 people (large company, to say the
least).

Next Generation magazine November 1995

"Now Sega has conceded internally that Saturn will face tough
competition from the Playstation and will not be able to match the
onslaught from the Ultra 64 in 1996. Lockheed Martin has therefore been
given the go-ahead to start work on Saturn 2, although it's not yet
known exactly what form it will take. The current understanding is
that the system will be a standalone console, but it's possible that
Sega could save money by using the existing Saturn as an I/ device, CD
drive and power supply. As with Sega's coin-op IG boards, Lockheed
Martin will be concentrating on the graphics side of Saturn 2,
providing a R3D/100 graphics chip which includes both a geometry
processor and a graphics processor. It's quite possible that Hitachi
will supply the front end (possibly PowerPC -based) - it was rumoured
that Yu Suzuki and other Sega coin-op honchos had wanted Lockheed
Martin to handle the whole project, but this was vetoed internally
because of delays with LMC's development of the Model 3 IG board."

USENET:

"First, let me start off by saying I am going to be buying a Voodoo
card. For low end comsumer grade flight sims and such, the Voodoo looks
like about the best thing available. Second, I am not necessarily
responding to just you, because there seems to be a hell of a lot of
confusion about Lockheed Martin's graphics accelerators. I have been
seeing posts all over the place confusing the R3D/100 with the
AGP/INTEL project that
L.M. is working on. The R3D/100 is *NT* the chipset that is being
developed for the AGP/INTEL partnership.

However, since your inference is that the Voodoo is faster than the
R3D/100, I have to say that you are totally dead wrong. While the
specs say that the Voodoo is *capable* of rendering a higher number of
pixels per second, or the same number of polygons per second as the
R3D/100, the specs fail to mention that these are not real world
performance figures any you probably will not ever see the kind of
performance that 3Dfx claims to be able to acheive. This does *not*
mean that the Voodoo is not a good (its great actually) card, just that
the game based 3D accelerator companies (all of them) don't tell you
the whole story.

The Voodoo uses a polygon raster processor. This accelerates line and
polygon drawing, rendering, and texture mapping, but does not
accelerate geometry processing (ie vertex transormation like rotate and
scale). Geometry processing on the Voodoo as well as every other
consumer (read game) grade 3D accelerator. Because the cpu must handle
the geometry transforms and such, you will never see anything near what
3Dfx,
Rendition, or any of the other manufacturers claim until cpu's get
significantly faster (by at least an order of magnitude). The 3D
accelerator actually has to wait for the cpu to finish processing
before it can do its thing.

I have yet to see any of the manufacturers post what cpu was plugged
into their accelerator, and what percentage of cpu bandwidth was being
used to produce the numbers that they claim. You can bet that if it
was done on a Pentium 200, that the only task the cpu was handling was
rendering the 3D model that they were benchmarking. For a game,
rendering is only part of the cpu load. The cpu has to handle flight
modelling, enemy AI, environmental variables, weapons modelling, damage
modelling, sound, etc, etc.

The R3D includes both the raster accelerator (see above) and a 100
MFLP geometry processing engine. Read that last line again. All
geometry processing data is offloaded from the system cpu and onto the
R3D floating point processor, allowing the cpu to handle more important
tasks. The Voodoo does not have this, and if it were to add a geometry
processor, you would have to more than double the price of the card.

The R3D also allows for up to 8M of texture memory (handled by a
seperate texture processor) which allows not only 24 bit texturemaps
(RGB), but also 32bit maps (RGBA) the additional 8 bits being used for
256 level transparency (Alpha). An addtional 10M can be used for frame
buffer memory, and 5M more for depth buffering.

There are pages and pages of specs on the R3D/100 that show that in the
end, it is a better card than the Voodoo and other consumer and
accelerator cards, but I guess the correct question is, for what? If
the models that are in your scene are fairly low detailed (as almost
all games are - even the real cpu pigs like Back to Bagdhad), then the
R3D
would be of little added benefit over something like the Voodoo.
However, when you are doing scenes where the polys are 2x+ times more
than your typical 3D game, the R3D really shines. The R3D is and
always was designed for mid to high end professional type application,
where the R3D/1000 (much much faster than the 100) would be too
expensive, or just plain overkill. I've seen the 1000 and I have to say
that it rocks!
I had to wipe the drool from my chin after seeing it at Siggraph (We're
talking military grade simulation equipment there boys, both in
performance and price!)

Now then, as I mentioned before, I'm going be buying the Voodoo for my
home system, where I would be mostly playing games. But, I am looking
at the R3D for use in professional 3D application. More comparible 3D
accelerators would not be Voodoo, Rendition based genre, but more along
the lines of high end GLINT based boards containing Delta geometry
accelerator chips (and I don't mean the low end game base Glint chips,
or even the Permedia for that matter), or possibly the next line from
Symmetric (Glyder series), or Intergraph's new professional accelerator
series."

"The Real3D, as I understand it, is what powers the Sega Model 2
hardware."

reply:

"The R3D/100 is said to be quite a bit more powerful. I know specs can
be pretty meaningless, but Lockheed-Martin rates it at around 750,000,
32bit RGB color depth,24 bit z-buffered, Gouraud shaded, textured,
anti-aliased, clipped and stenciled, 25 pixel triangles/second.

The Model 2 board is rated to do around 300,000 textured polygons a
second."

(1995)

Lockheed Martin 3D Graphics Accelerator offers real-time PC visual
system

performance.

Bethesda Maryland, March 20- Lockheed Martin announced today it is
entering the 3D graphics PC market with a high-performance chip set
based on real-time computer image generation technology that gives a
combination of dynamic response and realism previously available only
on dedicated graphics workstations and high end custom image
generators.

The Real3D(tm) brand name will be applied to a series of commercial and
consumer computer graphics products. The first product, R3D/100, is a
graphics accelerator that provides high throughput, high realism and
sustained real-time 3D graphics response. Key performance attributes of
the chip set include an embedded 100 MFLPS geometry processor, pixel
write rates of up to 33 million pixels per second, up to 750k polygons
per second, line processing up to 1.5 million per second, and provides
up to 192 color texture maps (128x128 mipmapped) in real-time. This
performance eliminates the jerky visual movement found in graphics
products that operate at less-than-real-time rates.

"Real3D(tm) products set a new price performance standard in such areas
as architectural and computer-aided design, object modeling, gameware
development, simulation and real-time visualization," said John Lenyo,
Commercial Visual Systems Business Development Director for Lockheed
Martin Information Systems Co. "Systems running Real-3D-based boards
will be able to function as supercharged graphics accelerators that run
3D graphics applications in real-time."

The new product is an outgrowth of Lockheed Martin's proprietary
computer graphics technology previously used in high performance
military simulation, engineering research and training applications
first developed for astronaut training and military flight simulators.
The company has invested more that $200 million in research and
development in this product area and owns more than 40 related patents
in the field.

Lenyo attributes much of the development success of the new commercial
PC product to experience gained in a highly successful adjacent
application developed for Sega Enterprises, Ltd - the Model 2 Computer
Graphics System. Model 2 is the host hardware platform for Sega's
latest generation of high performance arcade games. First released in
February 1994, Sega has shipped over 33,000 Model 2-based arcade games
such as the
top-selling Daytona USA(tm), Desert Tank(tm), Virtua Cop(tm), Virtua
Fighter II(tm), and virtual reality theme park ride system, VR-1(tm).

Lockheed Martin's R3D/100 chip set provides faster processing through
its patented hardware design which incorporates geometry processing,
rasterization and texture mapping. The R3D/100 embedded floating point
geometry processor removes significant processing burden from the host
CPU. The patented texture processor applies color mipmapped texture to
polygons in true 3D corrected perspective.

Designed as a true polygon processor with texture processing and
scaleable texture memory from the outset, the R3D/100 chip set includes
dedicated hardware acceleration of mipmapped texturing that provides
continuous high fidelity image quality. This chip set simulates
spotlights, fog and realistic curved surfaces. Additionally, improved
image quality is provided with multi-pass anti-aliasing.

The R3D/100 chip set directly interfaces with Microsoft 3D/DDI and
supports all 3D/DDI-compliant APIs, such as GL(tm) and comes with
device driver software and a device driver kit."

post about Daytona USA arcade

"it is based on Real3D chipset"

reply:

"For the LAST TIME: IT IS *NT* BASED N THE Real3D CHIPSET!!!!!!!!!!
The chipset is the next generation of technology from the Model 2 board
used by sega. If it used the chipset, don't you think it would be anti-
aliased? Get your information right before spouting it out.
- Rich "

"What hardware is there inside the arcademachine that runs
: Daytona from SEGA?"

reply:

"Hello Jonas:

I work for Lockheed-Martin in the game development group. We build
the boards used in several Sega games (Daytona, VF, VF2).

Daytona uses the Model 2 board. It's not *exactly* the same as the
Real-3D chipset (as a previous poster had said), but it's in the same
family. VF1 used the Model 1 board, while VF2 uses the Model 2. The
biggest difference between the two is, as you say, the texturing
capabilities. The Model 2 is also used in Desert Tank, the first game
done by our in-house Lockheed-Martin development team.

The texture mapping is all done in the hardware using an onboard
coprocessor specifically designed to push polygons around. The top
speed of the board is somewhere around 250,000-300,000 textured
polygons per second. "

i've never heard any reference to a "saturn 2" and i don't trust next
generation because they published blatant lies and half-truths in every
one of their issues. the lie that i had the biggest problem with was
when they stated that the virtuality system for the atari jaguar
ABSLUTELY PSITIVELY NEVER EXISTED. this is not true at all, because
i actually had an opportunity to play missle command 2000 on the system
in the presence of two virtuality reps and ron beltramo of atari at e3
1995. i think the confusion about that started because they didn't
show the system on the show floor only showed the stand-up
virtuality systems running zone hunter.

oh, and it was ****ing awesome!

oh, maybe the specs and schematics gamefan.com posted a bit before
their demise was the satrun 2it ran on hitachi chips, too

Pez D Spencer wrote:
oh, maybe the specs and schematics gamefan.com posted a bit before
their demise was the satrun 2it ran on hitachi chips, too

nope. what whatever GameFan had, they were publishing rumored /
reported (or made up) specs for Black Belt, Dural and Katana.

oh, but they DID publish some info on the Saturn upgrade which was
supposed to be using Real3D-100, as Next Generation reported.

well, if you've never heard of any reference to Saturn 2, you must not
have been reading enough back in the mid to late 1990s.

EDGE magazine and Next-Generation were pretty reliable back then. much
more so than GAMEFAN or even EGM.

the fact is, MANY MANY magazines and website reported on a Lockheed
Martin Real3D-based Sega system, to either upgrade the Saturn or
replace it. sometimes it was called Saturn2, sometimes it went by
other names, but just because YU have not heard of it, and just
because YU don't trust Next Generation, does NT mean it NEVER
EXISTED.

The FACT is, Lockheed Martin Real3D *was* in talks with SEGA to
provide technology for a home console platform (or upgrade).

quote:

Real3D and 3dfx

"With the collapse of the NVIDIA deal, Sega started looking for another
partner and eventually hooked up with Real3D, then a subsidiary of
Lockheed Martin. This seemed like a good match as Sega had worked with
Real3D on the development of the Model 2 arcade machine, and would
later work together again on the Model 3. The console chip would likely
have been at the same performance level or just slightly below Real3D's
PC chip, the Intel i740.
The console was codenamed "Black Belt". Sega reasoned that casual
gamers could get a "white belt" gaming system such as a PC, but real
gamers would want something better, a "black belt" system.

Although there were discussions between Real3D and Sega, Real3D never
made any silicon for the Black Belt. 3dfx had beaten Real3D by offering
better performance and a more robust feature set. , Real3D
stated that the business model for the console market did not create a
win-win situation with Sega as it did in the high-end arcade market."

quote:

"HGN: Given the nature of your relationship with Sega, we'd like to
know if Real3D was ever approached to work on Sega's next home system?
If so what happened? If not, than why do you think you weren't asked,
especially considering the work that you've done with their arcade
boards.

Real3D: We had some preliminary discussions with Sega regarding the
home console market, but both companies agreed the business model for
the console market didn't create a win-win situation like we have in
the arcade market."

well, i guess that's the end of my part in this discussion.

Pez D Spencer wrote:
i've never heard any reference to a "saturn 2" and i don't trust next
generation because they published blatant lies and half-truths in every
one of their issues. the lie that i had the biggest problem with was
when they stated that the virtuality system for the atari jaguar
ABSLUTELY PSITIVELY NEVER EXISTED. this is not true at all, because
i actually had an opportunity to play missle command 2000 on the system
in the presence of two virtuality reps and ron beltramo of atari at e3
1995. i think the confusion about that started because they didn't
show the system on the show floor only showed the stand-up
virtuality systems running zone hunter.

oh, and it was ****ing awesome!

more:

quote:

"It is revealed that Lockheed Martin had submitted several plans for a
new console over the previous year. In the end, Sega decides to design
its own console. "

http://www.tinyurl.com/c5rk7

quote:

"As soon as any console is launched, work is usually underway on a
replacement but the Saturn's troubles gave this process an unusual
urgency for Sega. By 1995, reports surfaced that US defence
contractors Lockheed Martin Corp. were already deep into the
development of a replacement, possibly even with a view to releasing
it as a Saturn upgrade. There were even claims that during Saturn's
pre-launch panic a group of managers argued the machine should simply
be scrapped in favour of an all-new LMC design."

>sometimes it was called Saturn2, sometimes it went by
>other names

well, i now have come to a conclusion on one aspect of this discussion:
you are a ****ing troll.

did you think i wasn't going to read all those links? not one ****ing
person of any importance at all even hints at anything called the
saturn 2or the Saturn2or whateverthe**** you call it. someone
mentions that designation once, but he's just some **** named stuart
wynne. who the **** is stuart wynne?

i'll say it again: i've never heard of anyone refer to anything as
"saturn 2." this has nothing to do with the argument about dural,
black belt, katana, dreamcast, whatever

well, if you so willing to dismiss everything I've said, and linked
too, I can just write you off as an ignorant ****, who I will not waste
any more time on.
bleh,

Pez D Spencer wrote:
>sometimes it was called Saturn2, sometimes it went by
>other names
>
well, i now have come to a conclusion on one aspect of this discussion:
you are a ****ing troll.

did you think i wasn't going to read all those links? not one ****ing
person of any importance at all even hints at anything called the
saturn 2or the Saturn2or whateverthe**** you call it. someone
mentions that designation once, but he's just some **** named stuart
wynne. who the **** is stuart wynne?

i'll say it again: i've never heard of anyone refer to anything as
"saturn 2." this has nothing to do with the argument about dural,
black belt, katana, dreamcast, whatever

I have also come to the conclusion that you are just a thick-headed
dumb****.

the Saturn2 name has been used by a number of sources. some I showed,
some I didn't

but the NAME Saturn2 is not that important

the 'Eclipse' may or may not have been the name for the same
thing a LM Real3D-based Sega home videogame system was also
reported to go under the name Mercury and Pulto, by EGM actually
one was a LM Real3D upgrade for Saturn, the other was a LM Real3D
next-gen console to totally replace Saturn, EGM said they would both
come out, even though neither did.

It was not just some random rumor printed by one or two sources, it was
WIDELY reported in many magazines and webpages in 1995, 1996 and early
1997 before it became apparent that Sega would not be using Lockheed
Martin Real3D in a console.

so just shut up about things that you are totally ignorant of, just
because YU have not heard of them or don't believe it.

i can just picture you sitting in front of your computer with some
recursive loop of fury steaming and buildingpicking at you and
irritating you until you have to make just one more comment on the
subjectsay just one more thing to put me in my place.

the point is this: no one of any importance had ever referred the
follow-up to the saturn as Saturn2. the point is not whether or not
anyone was talking about the successor to saturn, but whether or not
the comment that i made to set you off in your spiral of insanity was
true. as i said, it is true when i said that "i've never heard any
reference to a "saturn 2" and i don't trust next
generation." i've read through all your references, which i thought
you had posted to bolster your argument about the nickname you seem to
have assigned to a piece of sega equipment, and, again, the only person
who refers to the saturn succesor as saturn 2 is stuart wynne. who
stuart wynne is, i have no idea.

that being true, as it is, i still don't understand why you're getting
so worked up.

the statement you made:

"well, if you've never heard of any reference to Saturn 2, you must not

have been reading enough back in the mid to late 1990s."

was simply combative.

wait, i think i've figured out the mysteryYU'RE STUART WYNNE!

Pez D Spencer wrote:
who the **** is stuart wynne?
He used to write for Zzap64 back in the day sifnt know who Stuart Wynne
is, ****ing noob.

Pez D Spencer wrote:

>>sometimes it was called Saturn2, sometimes it went by
>>other names
>
>well, i now have come to a conclusion on one aspect of this discussion:
you are a ****ing troll.

Ya' think? This "Air Raid"/"Radeon350" is constantly cross-posting
spam and *constantly* nym-shifting to avoid kill-files. Here's a list
of 'nyms he's used in *this thread alone*

AirRaid1500@gmail.com
"Air Raid" <AirRaidJet@gmail.com>
"Air Raid" <AirRaid1500@gmail.com>

Air Raidwrote:

That has got to be the biggest bunch of bull**** I've heard in a
year.
First of all the Saturn did not get one single Model 3 game. Saturn
VF3
was canned. Since you probably meant Model 2 games, it is still
bull****. Model 2 games were not 'ported' to Saturn with minimal
loss
of quality. Model 2 games were translated to Saturn with a
MASSIVE,
MASSIVE loss in quality everytime, dispite some translations being
better than others. the Saturn had N genuine 3D polygon
processing
capabilities whatsoever. Saturn's 3D graphics was all hacked up,
faked
3D.

Saturn *translations* or *adaptions* of Model 2 arcade games were
not
even remotely close to being as good as the arcade. not even VF2,
dispite the fact that Saturn VF2 was running at the same framerate
(60fps) and in higher res than the arcade, there was a massive
reduction in the amount of (faked) polygons in the Saturn version.
not
to mention textures. even the MUCH closer Playstation2 emulation
of
VF2 is not as good as the arcade, with downgraded texture work.

And don't even get me started about Daytona USA or even Daytona
CCE.
the Saturn versions were not even at 25% of the arcade game.

Hmm. The only way this makes any sense at all is if you're confusing
the parallel scrolling backgrounds used in some Saturn fighters (VF2,
Last Bronx, maybe VF Kids and Fighters Megamix - not sure) with every
other model 2 game released on the console. Even then, Last Bronx had
a lot of 3D in the backgrounds, and Fighters Megamix of course had the
walled/caged arenas - all 3D.

maybe you're talking about sprites used in FPS games for enemies
and objects? If so then yes, Duke Nukem, Doom etc. did do that. But
what about Quake's full-3D engine? I assume you forgot about that
game?

Saturn 3D was fine. Yes, the quality of the graphics when compared to
the model 2 originals were poor, with lower resolution textures, less
polygons etc., but the 3D was very real. I could ask you to back up
your idea by explaining how games with 3D movement worked without
real 3D, but I'll save you the embarassment.

Check out

for a look at Shenmue running in FULL 3D on Saturn. A little digging
reveals that this was running on a stock Saturn with no booster
cartridges or anything like that.