Home Register Arcade Gallery Chatroom Members Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Log In
Go Back   Inside: SereneScreen Fan Forum > SereneScreen Products > Marine Aquarium 3 for Windows > Marine Aquarium 2 for Windows Archive
Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-30-2001, 04:29 PM   #1
feldon34
Forum Administrator
 
feldon34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,937
Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

Many people are just within the basic hardware requirements for Sachs Aquarium screen saver. This means they are getting an average of 20-30 frames per second with 7 fish turned on. Any processor-intensive features Jim would add would make the aquarium run choppy for these people unless they reduce the number of fish they have running at the same time.

But in order for the Aquarium to progress, the background is being rebuilt as a 3D real-time object, which will eat up 20-30% more of our computer's speed.

This 3D background will look nicer, and allow the use of 3D shutter glasses as well as introducing moving backgrounds (corals that sway in the water) and many other important features including shadows for fish that swim near the bottom plus shadows for invertebrates such as Octopus or Shrimp.

For users who are stuck with a slow PC/3D card and not interested in buying more hardware, they can stick with version .99G. However these users won't get new fish or features.

Should Jim proceed with completely redoing the background to 3D so he can add all of these things?

<table bgcolor=#FFFFFF border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 width="75%">
<tr><td bgcolor="#000000" colspan=3 height=1></tr><TR BGCOLOR=#0011BB><TD NOWRAP>
<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Yes, my 3D card can handle it easily</FONT>&nbsp</td>
<td height><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>546&nbsp;/&nbsp;80.2%</FONT>&nbsp</td><td><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/bar.gif width=240 height=10 hspace=3>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor="#000000" colspan=3 height=1></tr><TR BGCOLOR=#0011BB><TD NOWRAP>
<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Yes, I plan to buy a new 3D card to handle it (as well as other 3D apps)</FONT>&nbsp</td>
<td height><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>45&nbsp;/&nbsp;6.6%</FONT>&nbsp</td><td><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/bar.gif width=19 height=10 hspace=3>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor="#000000" colspan=3 height=1></tr><TR BGCOLOR=#0011BB><TD NOWRAP>
<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Yes, I'll turn off a few fish if necessary to make the Aquarium run smoothly</FONT>&nbsp</td>
<td height><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>75&nbsp;/&nbsp;11.0%</FONT>&nbsp</td><td><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/bar.gif width=33 height=10 hspace=3>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor="#000000" colspan=3 height=1></tr><TR BGCOLOR=#0011BB><TD NOWRAP>
<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>No, unless he maintains a backwards compatible 2D option.</FONT>&nbsp</td>
<td height><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>12&nbsp;/&nbsp;1.8%</FONT>&nbsp</td><td><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/bar.gif width=5 height=10 hspace=3>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor="#000000" colspan=3 height=1></tr><TR BGCOLOR=#0011BB><TD NOWRAP>
<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>No, I'm really attached to the current background!</FONT>&nbsp</td>
<td height><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>3&nbsp;/&nbsp;0.4%</FONT>&nbsp</td><td><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/bar.gif width=1 height=10 hspace=3>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td bgcolor="#000000" colspan=3 height=1></tr>
</table>
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

Last edited by feldon34; 11-01-2001 at 01:51 AM.
feldon34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2001, 09:48 PM   #2
Dave Snotear
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2001

Location: Pasadena,Texas
Posts: 20
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

As a registered user I resent the suggestion that I can always stop upgrading that for which I have paid.
Dave Snotear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2001, 11:06 PM   #3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
too bad

I bet you bought a copy of Windows 3.1 too, doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't going to upgrade the technology just so you can keep your old POS computer. If you don't want to upgrade your PC to run the newer versions, don't get the newer versions. The rest of us want to see MORE!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 01:06 AM   #4
hooters
Percula Clown
 
hooters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: Ummmmm
Posts: 84
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

I'm not touching that one with a 10 FoooooooooT poll- except to say well this could easilly easilly break up the very thing we all love so much hear the niceness that brings us peace. if theres not a cap put on it soon .weve all seen it happen on probly every other boared /comunity there is on here lets not let it happen hear .I'm not sayin it has or is but I can see it there lurking - ok well a 2 foot pole .
~RELAXATION IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT~
hooters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 02:24 AM   #5
Dave Snotear
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2001

Location: Pasadena,Texas
Posts: 20
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

Hey MO2K,Where you been for the last 4-5 months?I've been supporting this forum and the program.This is not about me.I'm having no problems and I'm running 1280X1024@100+FPS.Why would you want to keep loading your system to the point of degrading performance so badly that you have to cut back on it's content or just "don't download future versions"?There are other people here that if you had been reading the topics,you'd know,are not going to be able to hack it.So it's just tough for them huh?
Dave Snotear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 02:43 AM   #6
feldon34
Forum Administrator
 
feldon34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,937
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

Alright, let's not get evil here.

Dave,

I know where you are coming from, and that's why I raised the question and posted this Poll. We do care about the users of the Aquarium, especially contributors to the Forums.

The question is, how many people have hardware inadequate to take the changes coming in version 1.0. So far it seems like only 1 person out of 52+.

To be fair, this *IS* a Direct3D program. Some kind of 3D card such as a TnT Riva or ATI128 (which, as Jim stated, run about $15 at a used computer parts shop) has always been recommended for Direct3D software.

If Jim is really going to make the Aquarium backwards compatible, it would add a lot of time and effort between now and the next update, PLUS, he still wouldn't able to implement Invertebrates and many other features on a flat background anyway.

Whether he goes with backwards compatibility in a unified version, or there is a split between 1.0 codebase with 3D background, and a continued support for .99x versions, the only thing he'd be able to provide us with is more fish in the 2D mode.

We are still in the beta testing phase, and the final system requirements of the Aquarium have not yet been determined. I don't think Jim is trying to alienate anyone and as he said, we won't know how much more resources the 3D background uses until he programs it in and tries it.

If you have purchased the Aquarium and it is just too slow with a 3D background, 6 fish, an invertebrate, and moving coral, then I'm sure Jim will refund your money, or at least you can drop back to the 3 registered fish version if this becomes necessary. :/

I also felt rubbed the wrong way by "just stick with .99G" at first. But I will probably stay with .99G on my office PC and use the latest versions at home because I have a decent 3D card here.

Future screen savers by Jim will have even slightly higher hardware expectations so we might be revisiting this issue again.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
feldon34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 02:59 AM   #7
Dave Snotear
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2001

Location: Pasadena,Texas
Posts: 20
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

He won't have to refund my money.If my system gets to the point where it can't handle it I'll upgrade my system.That you can be guaranteed.I wasn't trying to rock the boat,only make a point.I want everything Jim can do with the Aquarium (and probably more).
Dave Snotear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 03:57 AM   #8
Lostboy
SquirrelFish
 
Lostboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001

Posts: 206
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

I keep trying to come up with some answer that will satisfy the people with high fps and low fps, and can’t think of anything that will totally satisfy everyone, without causing Jim some major programming nightmares.

But I’m just wondering, if progress continues the way it is, will people with low fps really loose THAT much fps on version 1.0? I have this program on two of my machines. One goes at 60fps whether I have 7 fish, or no fish on screen. My other computer runs at 20fps with no fish, and 15fps with all 7 fish. There is a little difference between 20 and 15, but nothing huge.

I don’t know about other people, but when I buy a program, I never expect that I can run every single option the program has and still get the same quality, as if I ran the limited. And as for this program, being a Beta version, I’ve always expected more hardware demand, before the release of v1.0.

I don’t know, that’s my $.02, I’m just trying to help work away around this problem, so everyone can be happy.

So what do I think should be done? I think that nothing should be done, except continuing to build this product as before this question came up. But I also think that the version with the last 2D background (possibly this one? ), should be made available, for the small amount of people who wish it.

Lostboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 04:32 AM   #9
hpman77
Blue Angel
 
hpman77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001

Location: Santander (Spain)
Posts: 285
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

Well, my answer is NO. Jim is trying to make incredible things with this awesome screensaver, and won't be able to do them limited to 2D backgrounds.

I'm sure ppl won't mind to turn off 1-3 fishes to improve their FPS

At my work, it's running, with 7 fishes at 18-20 FPS, and doesn't look choppy.

A good idea would be to make available the full versions to be downloaded, if the next version have many differences. (Like the last 2d version after releasing the 3d background one) so ppl can test the different versions, and decide what to keep, the 2d-better-frame-rate or the 3d-incredible depth-invertebrates-and-so-on-but-less-frame-rate.

It's one idea. My 2cents?

P.S. - Even with 2d backgrounds, it's great with shutter glasses, but maybe when making the 3d background, can Jim make the fishes go deeper?
.:: AMD Athlon XP 1700+ :: 512MB SDRAM :: Windows XP SP1 :: shappire ATI radeon 9600 PRO :: Soundblaster Live Player 5.1 :: Directx 9.0 :: (Always latest drivers for everything) ::.
hpman77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 11:06 AM   #10
Jav400
Administrator
 
Jav400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
22 Highscores

Location: Tennessee
Posts: 9,725
RE: Should it maintain backwards compatibility

Jim,
I had an very smart teacher (many years ago ) who told me that no matter what you do in life you will have :
45% of the people for you
45% of the people against you
10% who don't care
The odds may change some in any given situation, but the groups will all be there. Basically you can't please everyone no matter what you do, so do the best you can and go on. Time and Technology wait for no one. You've been planning and working on this for a long time now, and today's high priced cutting edge machines are tomorrows low priced entry level machines. Set your sights high and keep doing the best you know how, thats why everyone that looks at your work is so impressed with it. If I have to upgrade my machine to handle it, thats my problem not yours. If you start to let your standards fall when you get finished there will always be things you will wish you had done or tried, and besides, if you don't do it someone else will eventually anyway. Right now, you are the first, don't waste it. Good Luck and Great Job. My 02 worth
Jav400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 12:35 PM   #11
feldon34
Forum Administrator
 
feldon34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,937
Re: RE: Should it maintain backwards compatibility

Jim has 68 (97%) people for him and 2 (3%) people against him in this situation.

I think he can, without need for a revote or counting of hanging chads, proceed with all his hopes and desires for the screen saver. (As long as it doesn't run like molasses on my TNT 1 )
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
feldon34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 01:12 PM   #12
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Yes, it is just tough for them

I'm sorry if my post came off as mean but I was upset at the idea of people pressuring Jim to slow his creative work because their PC's are still in the dark ages. This is a computer program just like many others. People bought the current version because they liked it and it ran well on their machines. New versions of any program are almost always going to be more complex, aka, require more resources to run. Saying that Jim should not try to expand his program because you, "resent the suggestion that I can always stop upgrading that for which I have paid" is ridiculous. Maybe I we should call up EA Sports and tell them that NHL 99 or Need for Speed I is good enough since it will run on my old 166 Mhz machine and not to make any improvements because I won't upgrade my PC. Wonder what kind of response I would get? Hopefully the same response Jim will give to the people that want the aquarium to stay the same, that technology moves on and you can either stay where you are or try to keep up. The aquarium upgrades are an OPTION, not a requirement. We should be thrilled that Jim is giving the upgrades away to registered users. Remember Dogz, then Dogz II, then Dogz III? Those were not free upgrades and there was very little change between those versions at all. When you can no longer run your favorite applications in their most updated form, and you are unwilling to turn off some of the options to increase performance, it means it's time to upgrade your PC. It does not mean it's time for the software provider to downgrade the program.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 01:55 PM   #13
Pyros9
Registered
 
Pyros9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: Washington State
Posts: 49
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

Ok guys, I've been reading the posts in here with intrest because I was one of the two people who voted no. In retrospect, I would have to change my vote to a resounding yes. I have a newer Dell with a 64MB GeForce2, but said no thinking of my daughters computer which is a P200 with a 16MB VooDoo Banshee. She is getting about 35 FPS with five fish right now and I answered no mainly because I didn't think about the fact that she can just use the version she has now. At the time I also misunderstood the question. I didn't realize that by casting my no vote, I was indicating that Jim should completely stop working on the screen saver. I thought the question was more like "should he develope a version with 2D backgrounds for those with slower machines". My bad. Sorry.

Doug................(Pyros9)
www.faddis.net

My goal in life is to be as good of a person as my dogs think I am.
Pyros9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 03:53 PM   #14
feldon34
Forum Administrator
 
feldon34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,937
Re: Should it maintain backwards compatibility?

Pyros,

"A vote No is a vote for" (didn't we hear that during the election?

Seriously, a vote for No means that Jim would have to spend time adding fish to the old version, fixing bugs in it, as well as working gung ho on the new version. Supporting an older 2D background version would increase the amount of development time for each new feature to appear in the new version substantially.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
feldon34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2001, 05:28 PM   #15
Dave Snotear
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2001

Location: Pasadena,Texas
Posts: 20
Just a thought.

Count me in as one of the people who want everything Jim Sachs can and will give to us.I want it all.I'm not in favor of backwards compatibility any more than some of you.I don't think his creativity should be stifled.I in all likelyhood will continue to rev up my systems performance as this is my main hobby.Bring on the amazing visual treat that is the marine aquarium.Keep in mind though that this program is still in BETA form.All users should be considered.I don't believe anyone would disagree that the cost of this program has been well worth what we have received.I can honestly say that I would have paid more.I expect to be able to run this program to my satisfaction regardless of what direction it takes.This still doesn't change my opinion that all users are entitled to a V1.0 that the minimum requirement supports.

A Deluxe Key purchase entitles future fish,backgrounds,etc.It also entitles you to a premium creature of some sort.It is reasonable to expect this.

Perhaps a V1.0 that allows people to at least continue to add new fish would be a consideration."Fish-Packs" that are downloaded were mentioned on Jims Website and could address this.By allowing users with less powerful systems the prospect of at least getting some kind of upgrade without having to spend more money on upgrading their systems seems like a viable thing to consider.




SORRY,I STARTED WRITING THIS BEFORE YOUR LAST POST.FORGET IT................................................
Dave Snotear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2001, 01:31 AM   #16
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Poll...

Ok, to begin with, I'm a borderline user of this program. I eek out 30 FPS with a 300mhz computer with a TNT card. With all options on at the highest resolution. So if the performance does take a hit with a 3d update I wouldn't mind just taking off some options. So basically I favor a 3d version. Basing a decision on this poll is not very smart though. It takes 70 or so hardcore fans that have discovered the fan site, and discovered the forum and gets their opinion, not the mass's opinion. Most people that have bought this screensaver do not make it this far. Only people that understand the internet well, could make it this far, and go so far to find the poll and vote. These same kind of people that have voted also value a higher end computer and like being at the cutting edge. So I really don't think that you can go around waving this number that 98% want a 3D version on this very localized poll. Most likely the majority of people that purchased this screensaver have not seen this poll... (obviously since there are only 70 votes) and also the majority probably have slower computers then the voters. So before abandoning the 2D version, think twice about who's making the money for this screensaver. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's late and I'm getting tired. I'm just thinking in the best interest for everyone. The best situation would be 2 seperate screensavers. The 2d and 3d. Release the 3d first. Then slowly load up the 2d with enough stuff to make current customers with slower computers happy by adding a fish here and there. Meanwhile making the 3d the ultimate aquarium screensaver. I think it's important to keep them seperate though so that customers can have both installed. Ok.. I'm done.. night LOL
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2001, 02:24 PM   #17
Jim Sachs
Developer
 
Jim Sachs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 9,768
Re: Poll...

I'd say that the 98% figure is fairly accurate for the public at large. This forum is the only place where the subject of halting further progress has even come up. Not one of the 40,000+ emails has suggested it, though obviously anything that's added will need clock cycles to run.

If you are getting 30 fps now at a high resolution with everything on, you might expect 25 fps when you add a 3D background and a couple of invertebrates. This is still faster than movie film runs (24 fps).

--- Jim Sachs
Jim Sachs
Creator of SereneScreen Aquarium
Jim Sachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2001, 04:13 PM   #18
feldon34
Forum Administrator
 
feldon34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,937
Re: Poll...

Go for it Jim!
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
feldon34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2001, 04:43 PM   #19
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Poll...

It's all about keeping your computer system current enough to run current software. If you don't keep your hardware current, eventually, you're not going to be able to run the software you want. Blame Microsoft and Intel, or our unslakable thirst for more features, but there it is.

This is the most amazing piece of software I have bought in years. Let's see what Jim does next!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2001, 05:23 PM   #20
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
40000 + emails?

Wow, I thought I had too much mail!
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Inside: SereneScreen Fan Forum > SereneScreen Products > Marine Aquarium 3 for Windows > Marine Aquarium 2 for Windows Archive



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.