Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?

Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?

Post by Robert Simps » Thu, 09 Nov 1995 04:00:00



I'm curious if anyone has done any experimenting with Intel's 3DR engine.  
Personally, it looks way too good to be true.  Realtime 3D animation, light
sourcing, transforms, texture mapping, etc etc etc...The list seems to go on
and on...and at the end:
"It's free!  Submit the order form for your free CD-ROM, no licensing fees, no
redistribution restrictions on the runtimes, no fuss no muss." [ed]

My logical mind just rejects the entire notion...So I went to a friend's house
that had Caligari's Truespace 2.0, which uses the 3DR engine for its
quickrenders.  Yes, it was fast, but not game-speed fast.  I'm willing to
accept that Caligari may have many of 3DR's functions set for image quality
vs. speed (not to mention the fact that Caligari has its own overhead to deal
with when you rotate perspectives)...

So anyway...if anyone has any first-hand experience with the engine, I'd
appreciate some comments.  I ordered the CD (why not?) but I'm impatient for
some sort of benchmarks or SOMETHING!!

Robert Simpson
Programmer at Large
BC Software
Phoenix, AZ

BTW:  Intel's 3DR engine homepage is http://www.intel/com/IAL/3dr/index.html

 
 
 

Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?

Post by denr.. » Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:00:00


I heard that, as of a week or two ago, Intel has turned over 3DR
driver development to Microsoft.

 
 
 

Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?

Post by Jeremy Gordo » Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:00:00



> I'm curious if anyone has done any experimenting with Intel's 3DR engine.

It doens't strike me as being a great engine for use in a fast 3D game,
I've been using it for utility development, and on a P-90 with a decent
PCI card I've gotten around 4390 z-buffered, gourad shaded quads/sec,
each represented as 4 lines (wireframe type of view).  It's completely
unoptimized, and a rather lame way of doing it (I just slapped it up
in a day or two, I'm working on another part of the program).  The best
thing I can say for 3DR, is that it literally took a single day to get
stuff happening (relatively complex models from Alias PowerAnimator
being displayed with z-buffer, and arbitrary light position, rotateable
with thier virual trackball interface). Dunno if that helps you at
all ;)  When the CD comes, check out the genex[1-6] examples to get
stuff up and running quick.

                                        -jeremy

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Gordon                    Public key is available by finger:
Hyper Image, Inc                        

 
 
 

Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?

Post by Robert Simps » Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:00:00




>Subject: Re: Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?
>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 03:28:55 -0500

>> I'm curious if anyone has done any experimenting with Intel's 3DR engine.
>It doens't strike me as being a great engine for use in a fast 3D game,
>I've been using it for utility development, and on a P-90 with a decent
>PCI card I've gotten around 4390 z-buffered, gourad shaded quads/sec,
>each represented as 4 lines (wireframe type of view).  It's completely
>unoptimized, and a rather lame way of doing it (I just slapped it up
>in a day or two, I'm working on another part of the program).  The best
>thing I can say for 3DR, is that it literally took a single day to get
>stuff happening (relatively complex models from Alias PowerAnimator
>being displayed with z-buffer, and arbitrary light position, rotateable
>with thier virual trackball interface). Dunno if that helps you at
>all ;)  When the CD comes, check out the genex[1-6] examples to get
>stuff up and running quick.

Thanks for the info.  I knew it was too good to be true.  My search for 3D
engines continues!

Robert Simpson
Programmer at Large
BC Software
Phoenix, AZ

 
 
 

Intel's 3DR 2.0 Engine...any good?

Post by denr.. » Sun, 12 Nov 1995 04:00:00


: > I heard that, as of a week or two ago, Intel has turned over 3DR
: > driver development to Microsoft.

: I'm skeptical about this. Why would Microsoft want 3DR since they already have
: Reality Lab? RL is a lot more complete than 3DR. Are your sources reliable?

Your skepticism not withstanding, I think that the plan is to use
3DR as a back-end for one of the two 3D packages Microsoft currently owns.
My source was a CompuServe forum, I think one of the tech support people
for either Elastic Reality or Caligari. Probably not strictly unimpeachable,
as I am not, but, still, I expect neither of us gains all that much in
lying either. :)