Has somebody tried x3dfxgamers lastest driver (Voodoolizer Beta6 für Win 9x/Me/2K/XP) with voodoo3  ???
http://www.voodooalert.de/content/x3dfxgamers.php
I'd like to know if it's good...

Hm, I've followed their progress on this "Voodoolizer", but I've always thought it just was the 3dHQ Core with slight .inf modifications....

I might be wrong though, I just never found alot of feedback for this Driver (?)

yes, I have tried it in my v3. Nothing new :(

http://www.voodooalert.de/content/x3dfxgamers.php

Beta6 respektive dem internen RC1 Release auf.

Hier erste Infos zur Fixliste: (!!Vorläufig!!) Änderungen werden kurz vorm Release bekannt gegeben.

- Volle Directx 9.0 Kompatibilität
- Kleinere Probleme bei Directx Anwendungen wurden behoben
- Geschwindigkeit bei verschiedenen Spielen sowie die Darstellungsqualität wurde unter Directx verbessert.
- OpenGL wude von dem RC1 übernommen
- Glide wird noch durchgetestet, da evtl. die komplette Glide Schnittstelle durch eine alternative Lösung von uns (Beta6 Win9x) in den 2K/XP Treiber integriert wird.
- Unterstützung der V5 6000
- Glide beinhaltet schon den Pfad der auch im kommenden Banshee Treiber genutzt wird. (sofern die Win9x Lösung) noch integriert werden kann.

Could somebody translate that into English  ???
(I don't understand German so much that I could read that whole reply above   ;D )
I tried Voodoolizer Beta6 and I had some problems with opengl: I tried to play Half-life and I had only black screen with sounds. I hope that this problem is fixed.

Free Translation :

Voodoolizer 1.05.00 is coming

RC1 has been canceled. The 1.05.00 is presently in Beta testing. The Driver is based on the Beta6, respectively the internal RC1 Release Candidate.

Here some initial Info's about the fix-list :
(preliminary! Changes will be announced shortly before the Release)

- Full DirectX 9.0 compatibility
- Smaller Problems with DirectX Applications were fixed
- Performance with various Games, as well as the Visual Quality under DirectX was improved
- OpenGL was used from Release Candidate 1
- Glide is still being tested, since the entire Glide API in the 2K/XP Driver is possibly replaced by an alternative Solution by us (Beta6 Win9x)
- Support for V5 6000
- Glide already contains the Path, that will be used in the upcoming Banshee Driver (as long as the Win9x solution can still be integrated)

That should be enough for now. Overall, we are proud that we can announce our first final Driver. It will certainly not be the last one.
Deadline : last week of April/first week of May
-------------------------------
Well, alot of promises and that is quite a pack of advertised features...

I guess we'll see what this is all about when they release.

I've heard mixed opinions about the "Voodoolizer", and therefor have mixed feelings about it ::)

Okidok, I've checked their latest release "V1.04.01 beta3"...

Readme says :
Direct3D (r) Display Driver and Miniport: 1.04.01.3 XP/2K
OpenGL(r) Driver Version: 1.04.01.3 XP/2K
Glide(tm) 2.X Driver: 1.04.01.3 XP/2K
Glide 3.X Driver: 1.04.01.3 XP/2K

In reality, those are :
Direct3D (r) Display Driver: 3dfx 5.00.2195.0232
VSA Miniport Driver : 3dfx 5.01.00.2601
OpenGL(r) Driver Version: 3dfx 1.0.0.0761 ICD
Glide(tm) 2.X Driver:       KoolSmoky 1.00.01.0103
Glide 3.X Driver: KoolSmoky 3.10.00.2605

--------------------------

http://www.falconfly.de/img/wtf.gif

Well, I don't think I have to say any more, the Files speak for themselfes ::)

this file works with my 3d monster 2???
I´m actually using this driver...

MONSTER VOODOO 2 series
drivers for win9x 4.10.01.207
release 1.01

I want (if exists) a better driver, this one (I Have)not run with dirext 7 o newer, and dont let me play C&C renegade because do my screen flashes, OH please please me...
P.D: Thanks and sorry the language I dont know much English :-[

Hey,

x3dfxgamers have written their own driver source code (i think) and it's not the one of 3dhq! The 1.05.00 is already released fpr Win 2k/xp but not for Win9x/ME. wait a few days, it'll be released soon! In this driver set they have fixed some bugs of the 1.04.01beta6, but it's nearly the same.  ;)

greetings

I've checked out both V1.04.01 beta6 and this V1.05.00...

Well, you do not find this Driver in the Archive, and this will not change for a good reason.

PS.
Have a close look at the Core Files, and compare them to known ones...

I do not want to be bothered with these "Creations"...

@falconfly
i think your stupid man. th people works great and thats not a mixed driver or old files!!! check this.  >:(

lol

Dude, I > did < check very carefully, and alot of things just turned out "surprisingly strange" (expressed in diplomatic words). http://www.falconfly.de/img/wtf.gif

That's it, no less, no more.
Since it contains valid Driver Core files (originally 3dfx & GlideXP), it sure will work...
And if you are happy with it, that's perfectly fine...

Yet, [diplomatic mode=on] in my humble opinion [/diplomatic mode=off] it is not what it claims to be.

Feel free to download it, use it, praise it and spread it... but I shall quote myself at this point :


wrote on 11.05.03 at 09:49:56:

I do not want to be bothered with these "Creations"...

http://www.falconfly.de/img/worried.gif

i dont understand you. the drivers are googd and i cant think they mixed it. for mixing they run too good. other side all people believe in x3dfxgamers. now let the people believe. i believe too. this discussion is not the right way for the rest of the 3dfx community. i think x3dfxgamers works great and thats the only think what counted.

The original 3dfx 1.07 work *great* too
Should i rename them to DenisFX Drivers and say i made them?

wrote on 14.05.03 at 10:58:51:

i dont understand you. the drivers are googd and i cant think they mixed it. for mixing they run too good. other side all people believe in x3dfxgamers. now let the people believe. i believe too. this discussion is not the right way for the rest of the 3dfx community. i think x3dfxgamers works great and thats the only think what counted.

Well, noone ever said they wouldn't work, or were actually bad...
Quite ironically, it actually may be nice Drivers...

But anyway, if you can't think they didn't do it, check it out for yourself, and view the facts on your very own monitor, and draw your own conclusions.

- Compare "Date Modified" of File properties and File size

Self explanatory. A File recently created ( supposedly (c)2003, remember? ) will naturally carry an actual, more or less current Date. Now if it doesn't, something is already really shaky, and warrants deeper investigation. In most cases, this will directly lead to the original Files used. In several cases, both File size and Date match absolutely 100.00%.

- Grab the corresponding, original GlideXP, 3dfx OpenGL and 3dfx DirectX Files matching the found Date/Timestamps (most do match downright to the very same second in Time), and view/find the actual changes in a good HEX-Editor, in side-by-side comparison..

A truly different, reprogrammed and/or recompiled File will show a multitude of differences, in rather many different positions inside the File. You will find differences only in 2 (!) single spots , the only reasonably different being (surprise) the modified Property Pages alone. No more questions asked from there on. Difference in File size in some cases was upto 512 Bytes... Note that some Property page entries were deleted, thus matching this small loss in size.

Voila, that's all you need to see it yourself.
After you found the matching, original Files to compare, the Results will be blatantly obvious and persistent for literally all Core Files.
--------------------------------------
To believe can be a very nice thing, but in the past it too often turned out to be important to double-check.
And sometimes, it just pays off to confirm, rather than believe.

To make sure, I'll say it again :
They might very well work just fine, ironically as it is.
Yet, I cannot accept this (from my perspective) as "fair play", neither can I believe, trust or confirm any of the promised features. That's it...

And certainly, if anyone had a reasonable explanation for those findings, I'd be happy to change my mind.
Yet, I could hardly think of any, as the discovered evidence is literally overwhelming.
---------------------------------------
Those that still want to use it can find it for download in several places (Voodooalert, 3dfxzone), so there's really nothing lost :)

Also, I do not want to start any mudwar inbetween 2 3dfx Sites, I simply presented my findings, for everyone who is interested to see. Not less, and not more. From this point on, I just don't care about it anymore...

with wich programm oder editor (i have no idea) can i check the things you said??

Using the latest "Voodoolizer V1.05.00 Win2k/XP" 3dfxOGL.dll as a "live example", here's how to get the Info out of it :

Basic things like the File properties are reached by right-clicking the File, and select "Properties" from the Context Menu. It will show Tabs like this :

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-1.jpg

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-2.jpg

For ease of viewing the "Date modified" for an entire Directory, you can display the Files in the Explorer by selecting "View Details" :

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-3.jpg

(I highlighted the Items of interest)

Now let's compare them side-by-side to an "old friend", the 3dfx OpenGL 1.1 ICD V1.0.0.0761 for Win2k :
(left = 3dfx original, right = Voodoolizer)

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-4.jpg
(here, the Difference in File Properties... nothing unusual so far)

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-5.jpg
(here, it gets odd, doesn't it? Date is "different" in 2 positions, yet looks all but too similar (and old for something (c)2003 IMHO). File size is 100.0% identical)

------------------------------
I use a nice Freeware Tool for viewing & comparing :
http://www.hhdsoftware.com/hexeditor.html

In there, the actual amount of real difference between 2 Files can be searched for, and displayed side-by-side.
After a mere handful of bytes at the beginning of the File, about 98% passes with 100% match, and beyond that, you'll quickly discover the mentioned, only Area of major difference : It is the File's Properties...
----------------------------------------
Repeat process for glide2x.dll, glide3x.dll, 3dfxvs.dll, 3dfxvsm.sys ...

Example of the contained glide dll's ( (c)2003 x3dfxgamers ) :

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-6.jpg
(I compared them to Colourless' GlideXP 1016. Looks odd again, right?)

http://www.falconfly.de/img/vz-7.jpg
(the glide3x.dll matches by the second of creation & 100% File size... All by accident ?)

If you have time to spare, repeat the entire thing again for the other Releases. And after that, look at the previous Releases (e.g. the v1.04.01 beta6).

You'll find the very same pattern, only slightly older matching original Files (e.g. older GlideXP).
------------------------------------------
Now after doing all this, I really cannot think of any other conclusion but the one I have described.
You'll also see that so far, I have been more than "quite diplomatic" in my statements ::)

------------------------------------------
I had been told that the Voodoolizer was something very new, better than other Drivers, and was repeatedly asked to include it in the 3dfx Archive.

After these findings, I rejected those requests every single time. Although it uses valid and good core files (that likely make for a stable Driver), this is something I cannot accept.
And again, I do not believe in any of those Features (e.g. the advertised DirectX9 compatibility), as the original Files certainly do not possess any such compatibility....
(the DirectX core is dated Nov 2000, of course a relabeled old 3dfx File again, and DirectX9 did not quite exist at that time yet ;) )

now. thats all very interesting but not a real answer:
only the dates or in any cases the size is the same but you now: possible x3dfxgamers hasnt change the date? but the files are fixed? its possible or? the files can be changed ( other features and other) and they leave the dates old. its possible or??

The amount of actual changes seen, basically is just the relabeling.

The Files themself (in terms of function) have not seen any significant changes.

(If anything was really changed, why on earth would anyone even think about moving the Date backwards ? And with any real changes made, the File size would practically never be identical. That's a one-in-a-Million chance, and certainly won't appear in several Drivers, over several Versions)

The evidence leaves no doubt about what was done...

no i mean only when they based on the core from 3dfx from 2000. why they must change the date?? thats what i mean. but forget it.  every one has a own meaning about that. and i want believe.

If you either compile your own .dll that you have written to have new Features (or contain whatever changes/fixes you made), it will have the current date listed in this Field.

If it doesn't, it means it was not really updated, and still is the old File basically.

Modifying/Editing Code in a compiled Executable or Dynamic Linked Library (.dll) is virtually impossible.
It is like randomly and blind picking around in the dark, with unknown consequences and results.

The only exception being plain ASCII text, that can (of course) be identified and edited (such as the File Property Pages).

heres a good tool for checking 3dfx drivers , Voodoo doctor for  checking each Dll version look for setupvoodoodr.exe
http://smokeping.planetmirror.com/pub/3dfiles/tweakfiles/video/

also theres practically ever other voodoo and other tweaker in the directory

Yeah but when that ends, excpect DenisFX v1.10b4  ;D

Just on the topic, I while ago I opened up the XPENTOR OPTIMIZERS 2001 drivers for the Banshee which offered "support for DirectX 8" in a hex editor and it became clear that all they had done was ditch the directx 7 TV out commands from the 3dfx16vb.drv driver. Apart from another small delete job from the agp driver there was nothing.

Supprisingly 3D Mark 99 MAX and 3D MAR 2001 recorded no increase in performance even when running using DirectX 8. Strange that, isn' t it? :P

Yep, Xpentor's Creations were always a source of speculation and doubts.

As inf mods they basically were (just like the -lizer thingy) , the Drivers worked okay for some, but indeed nothing special...

The Hex-Editing to pretend something new unfortunately has a long tradition :P

Odd that in 2003, some people are still unable to identify fakes. Anyway, not my business, if it makes them feel better ;)

So is there any real possibility of future device drivers with *real* support for current and future directX versions, or even a performance increase?

Unfortunately my guess would be no.

I don't know about Voodoolizer, I myself have noticed the same things falconfly and patience pointed out. :-/

Plus they came outta nowhere with the same domain name the x3dfx group had, they are completely in German and they apparently make English "drivers"? That just sounds funny to me.

Plus on their they plan to modify the BIOS for voodoo 5? And then call it the "Voodoolizer" brand and remove the 3Dfx name, like it was theirs to begin with  :-X . Saying it will provide better stability and performance? Yeah right it already is stable and the BIOS is working great performance wise.

Just like the drivers, they call the drivers theirs, even though they aren't, the just took C+ and modified the version # and date, which is very easy to do.

Forge the technical aspects of all of this, there are red flags all over the place without even getting into the driver issue.

Plus, this won't happen because I think NVIDIA has better things to do with their time + cares less what goes on w/3dfx products, but if they wanted to the could sue the "Voodoolizer" driver team due to the fact the are plagiarizing  the driver by saying the own the rights to copyright the source code. :P

Unless they are rich, don't have a job and are able to completely write the source from ground up...WOW! They rival the performance of the last source code 3Dfx wrote and same features.... quite a feat! :o

Some how this all sounds fishy

---

Your fontrune cookie reads
"It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others"

Question is: could a BIOS update clearly solve some of the biggest problems: probably not.

Most of the big company-es today rely on driver updates to improve games support (As Nvidia does with TNT2). Certainly there is an extent to which these things can go as the support for DirectX 9. Who will be the first to achieve these things (even in a sort of heavy emulation), would require a big prize, since this work is extremely heavy... This might solve a big compatibility problem.

Next: what we want to do with glide? We want to make games 100% compatible with the standard, real features of the cards, and who will be the organization or group that should manage the releases in glide (as with the ones for PS2...)?

What we want, and what we can release in glide in 2003 is extremely important. If the things go right, Voodoo3 and others might build along with the rest of the system, a gaming console. This would be the greatest dream of all the 3dfx users!!!

So what are you saying you want? You are a little to vauge, but I'll try to help sort out where I can.

I guess for new features like what you mention, it'd be better off creating a new BIOS revision the makes the current technology in the voodoo 4/5 to make some of the T-buffer effects emulate what Pixel Shading, DOT3, etc. does, or add in the funtion to the bios and support it through the drivers -- and from there you might have a wokring fearture close to what is currently out there

The memory bandwidth is shared between both TMU units and that actually makes it eat up more space when it stores framebuffer data, effectively cutting it in half - so 64MB is approximately 32MB and it is slower, becuase rather than making it shared between the two TMUs all together, it is assigned to each chip and then shared - but if a BIOS reprogram would take care of that (w/driver support) which would get rid of the memory problem. So that causes some kinks in the card too.

If that could be pulled off I don't know anyone who'd spend the time on it, also I doubt you'd get pixel shading (especially 2.0) as we know it, it'd be good, but not quite as good as the new technology out there which not only requires more Mhz but bandwith as well. Most of the Voodoo 4/5 cards support up to AGP 4x BUT most of the AGP sprecifications are not used - 3Dfx wasn't very complaint when it came to AGP.

So in that scenario you'd have to, once again, re-program the BIOS to make the card do that - but re-programming the BIOS depends on how the card is designed, sometimes you can't do things like that becuase of the physical design of the card - if certain things aren't inter-connected, you can only force the funtions so far.

As for the gaming console, give it up dude -- we all miss 3Dfx to no end, but they're not coming back. Nvidia owns all the rights to anything 3Dfx, so if someone did try to create a gaming console with the chips Nvidia would most certainly sue them for infringement. Plus it would cost to much for any individual to take on as well as finanacially. You'd need FAB to do all this as well!

Plus I don't know anyone with that many 3Dfx chips --  and the chipset would need to be re-deigned to work correctly with the game console.

It is nearly impossible to do a lot of this for obvious reasons. And the technology is just too old to keep up with today's games.

3Dfx kicks ass, but all we can look for is compatibility w/DirectX (whatever version), better performance and quality, and quite possibly new features, time will tell.

At is it will remain this way with a lot neat thing that could be done w/3Dfx cards at least untill someone is willing to get a team together to sit down and take on some of these challenges.

A game console, a great thought but - not gonna happen, sorry dude.  :-/

---

Your fontrune cookie reads
"It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others"

hey all you crappity smackers. check out www.voodoofiles.com and then you have a feedback of the voodoolizer driver. its the best driver ever.

lol, there's only one review http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

It must be more of that Voodoolizer propoganda http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif


http://www.voodoofiles.com/10580

hey lecram
take the shit from your eyes and look at the 1.05.00er on voodoofiles. the driver have the best quote ever. and this drivers faked?? no way stupid gas here.

Alright Voodoolizer high propogandist, wanna link me to these fantastic drivers? All the ones I've clicked either had one review/praise or no reviews.

Yep, those that want to use fakes, created by kids, are free to do so....

But the fact remains :
Cheap Plagiats, relabeled Files, and completely nonsense Features that they were advertised to have.

Since this is not a Kindergarden, this is not the right place for them; discuss them where they came from please :P
(those that use them should know where to go)
---------
Sidenote :

I wonder if our Guest is aware that he wrote the Posting right into the Thread, that proves everything "x3dfxgamers" have ever delivered, were and are nothing but Fakes...

I suspect someone is attempting to keep their Name up on Top Spot in the Forum.

Fine... Everyone shall read why x3dfxgamers are the absolute bottom of everything 3dfx, the laughter of the entire community. (at least those that can actually use a File Manager, seems this ability is not with everyone).

Final Note :
Voodoofiles links everything, and I shall add the Members of x3dfxgamers wrote their intention to artificially increase/manipulate review scores by themselfes into their very own Forum ::)

Go Figure...

They are a bad joke, not more.

Unfortunately, you will not succeed in making the others change their attitude, since proving to someone that is too high on one thing that they are wrong, will have an effect by far too close to prove to someone blind how important is the way he looks.

Tim and others would probably never believe anything, no matter how much you prove to them, no matter how much you try. They are blind, but the worse part is that tons of people believe in a brand, and deny any bad aspects related to it...

Yes it unfortunately only takes a simple hex editor to change the version info in a dll file (or executable).  This has been done alot.

With many of these 3rd party releases this is the case, yet the developers 'market' them with new tools programs and installers.  When all that is really required is the inf release notes and any recompiled dll's etc.  The average user is baffled and believes they are getting a 'new driver' most of the time you won't see much difference between these and the last official 3dfx drivers, especially with Win9x.

The emphasis seems to be on fooling people that this is a 'new driver', to increase the overall 'creed' of the petty 'sub-community' invloved in the developement.

Competition of which is quite hilarious to some of the ex employees of 3dfx and STB.

"Relabel = 1
Repackage =1
Redesign = 0

Until this is remedied and the focus is shifted from Direct3D to Glide/OpenGL, 3dfx cards will really die a death.  I have seen so many users struggle to get games working in D3D9 with 3DA on a Voodoo and actually succeed then buy a new card anyway because it looked terrible and ran slowly.  Surely improving OpenGL support should have been the priority all along?  Not getting new 'kids games' to work on the appalling Windows XP.  The people that want games running in Direct3D 9.0 on XP are not the die hard users, they are for the most part the people who will be buying a new card in a month or so.

It is quite obvious to all that these drivers are just reused material.  You shouldn't need the evidence falconfly produced much earlier in this topic just look at these files.  Use a hex editor to compare them.  Easy.  Case closed.

Mostly important it would be to find and sustain a team of developers to design games using Glide support. This would be the huge step to making the Voodoo still alive and well appreciated. It would also be the end of the problems with Voodoo chips and newer games.

We, the 3dfx users and fans, as an unitar comunity, should act permanent and firmly to establish a relthionship with the developers for PC games ported from game consoles. These are the people that now the best how they are doing their job, how they use the features of D3d, and how to translate as needed. If they are given the manual and the driver set (to emulate if not use a Voodoo on tests), given the interest of the 3dfx users who would buy the game, the developers shouldn't forgive us, and further develop games using Glide.

But we must find out a way to contact these people, and to insure them that we are interested on a port of their title for Glide ( as many of the today 3dfx users still buy new games, so they would buy games if they want). But what is strongly needed is to take action, make a list of the mostly wished games to have GLide support, contact the developers, and give them an approximate number of the interest of the 3dfx users to buy the games, and then, live your dream: have your new game in glide...

The big question is how will we do such a thing, and even more complicated, how many of the 3dfx users will act so firmly and permanent to make this possible, even if they wouldn't have tons of money for making that possible.

Well, nice thoughts, but the Gameing Industry is really driven only by Money.

So unless you can toss (quite) a few Million hard Dollars at each company, they will not take the time to port entire Engines to a long abandoned API, trying to run on limited, by now really rare spread Hardware (which would cost Millions itself, and occupy valuable personell for month) ::)

...Hate to disillusion you, but it just won't happen.

I know that those are dreams. But most of the time the truth is that people don't do a nothing, not because it is a too big price involved. People don't do it because they are lazy.

Making a port to a game, as a game developer won't cost really more (with all the tests, quality, little to no bugs as possible) than 2000$, been done by one person, in 2 weeks. And this investment would be recovered with a serious profit if they sell the game with Glide.

So, it is more a matter of will (lack of it), rather than a problem of money...

I'm afraid you're not quite aware of the Personell and Money needed, when it comes to porting or creating a 3D Engine.

This is usally a process of > years < , and performed by an entire Team of highly qualified (and paid!) Programmers.

In 2 weeks, it's not even remotely possble to Patch all Bugs in an existing Engine, let alone even port one.

For 2000$, you'll find any company on the market now wouldn't even bother talking to you.

Time is Money in this Industry, and Porting eats up a whole lot of time (sometimes more than creating something from scratch).
-----------------
There are numerous Problems arising :

- Glide was never intended to provide upto 1Mio Polygon/sec Sceneries (the goal of current developments). It is waay to inefficient for that.

- Supported Hardware (3dfx) is mostly not, or only very limited capable of the current mainstream key requirements : Hardware T&L, large Texture support, big Texture Memory, alot of 3D Effects

You have a 3dengine, if you build the d3d or opengl game. All that is needed is to translate functions between the engine and the Glide interface (similar to the trash usage in pre 2001 games). If you are only translating commands and not designing a new 3dengine, the 2000$ and 2 weeks term is possible.

2000$ would be a very strict budget, more exoenses upto 10000$ are somehow justified. However, when they will sell more than 1000 games packages, the investment will prove more than worth, and they will receive past 20000$ revenues to go only for that glide port. So it would be in their own advantage. But yes, there is a risk also envolved. And as today people are afraid of the risks of going from d3d to OpenGL and backwards, they have the same justify for not doing Glide.

However, they are quick to suplement with tons of money some favorable reviews, even if those might have a relative effect. Ironic...

Trust me, it just isn't that simple.

If it was, every Game would have inherent Direct3D, OpenGL, Glide, S3 Metal, Mesa support etc.

Translating "on the fly" is also no fully possible, since OpenGL does not have equivalent functions for all Direct3D Calls, same is valid for any other API.

It would lead to a myriad of Workarounds and dirty fixes, that would leave the Engine run slow as crap, visually degraded and in the end, buggy...

Just look at the few attempts to wrap Direct3D to OpenGL calls. They code on this for >1 year now, and new DirectX releases actually are done faster than they can even finish the existing one (I think they're still early Beta for DirectX8 > OpenGL 1.2)  ::)

Now, there's DirectX9.0b and OpenGL 1.3/1.4 and upcoming 2.0 ::)

Believe me, for 2000$ you could take a leading 3D Engine Team "out for dinner", but they sure won't port something for you.
--------------
PS.
This is way Off-Topic now, so you could open a separate Thread for it all on its own ;)

wrote on 22.09.03 at 11:04:36:

You have a 3dengine, if you build the d3d or opengl game. All that is needed is to translate functions between the engine and the Glide interface (similar to the trash usage in pre 2001 games). If you are only translating commands and not designing a new 3dengine, the 2000$ and 2 weeks term is possible.

*g* 2 weeks for WHAT!?! Yet another MineSweeper clone?

Even if you have the engine ready, the artwork would kill you. Also the AI (if any ;D). Man, you're halluc! Have you ever tried to write a game?

Ai don't come to place when you think at how to translate instructions from your 3d engine to d3d or opengl...

Anyway, discussion has deviated from the topic start: X3dfxgamers...