How about new graphics card supports?

I just got a dell and you don't support intel graphics cards and I really don't want to take apart my computer... but it looks like it's an awesome game if i could play it for more than 20 seconds. All I'm trying to say is to try to make it so my game doesn't freeze.

Thanks,
scubacell Unsung

Yes. Please also consider supporting my old 1-meg Trident card. I want to try and run SL on my 486-33.

Heh. Yes, please make it run on Trident cards. I've got one in my 486-66, and for some reason SL won't let me use it. C'mon, it says "Graphics Card", so it should be able to display graphics, right?

EDIT: Sorry, scubacell, we're being unnecessarily rude here. Suffice it to say that "Intel Extreme Graphics" is worse than dog shit puked up by a rabid bear. You -may- be able to play some other games out there fine, but quite honestly, it's nothing like a real graphics card, like something from nVIDIA.

Wow, I was gonna suggest adding support for my Diamond Stealth 2mb card, but ya'll took it all the way back to Local Bus! I nearly forgot about those VESA Local Bus days.

There is no way around it. You are gonna have to open your machine if you want to run SL. If the whole idea makes you squeamish, find the local ubernerd to help you. Most civilized places in the 21st Century have at least one.

Like Molecular said, you will need a "real" graphics card. SL seems to run better on Nvidia cards. Make sure your machine has an AGP slot. There is a chance that with your Intel graphics, you might not have an AGP slot, so you may have to buy a PCI graphics card. I'm not going to suggest a specific card, because you haven't given us system specs on your machine. I will say that compatible vid cards can be as little as 50 bucks and as much as 400-500 bucks USD.

Well, that's enough advice for now.

Intel is not a new card, it is a OK video card, but not even close to being called a game/graphic card..

I agree, I would hate for SL to hold back technology to keep support for old card with little or no memory, I would rather they step forward and take advanage of the new cards (and they don't even do that! Software lighting, when my card can do it...baa! lol)

Yes it cost money to upgrade, but by updating your video card it would do so much, you will notice anything you run respond quicker, the screen draw faster...so updating to something new and disabling that Intel card will do a world of good for you...

even on a Nvidia FX 2 card SL runs just ok, I could not dream of seeing it on a Intel graphic card...so slow..

Aye. Me and my father bought my mother a dell computer for christmas, it has one of those god-awful Intel graphics cards. If my mother ever did anything more advanced than using internet explorer or occasionaly iTunes, I would never have gotten it. It's a terrible card for almost anything. Even fairly old 3D stuff runs so poorly on it it's not worth the effort. I'd not want to imagine running anything close to cutting edge, like SL.

Intel makes great CPUs, and nice motherboards (Not great, but decent)... But they shouldn't stick their nose into the graphics industry. They shoulda found that out years ago with the... what was it, i860 or something like that? Their attempt to go head-to-head with the Voodoo2/TNT series, which also failed miserably and had terrible support issues.

Believe it or not, Intel is the leading maker of graphics chips. There are far more Intel graphics chips in use today than Nvidia or ATI - even combined, I believe.

DoteDote -

In terms of volume, you are correct. But for the precise reason that Reitsuki noted: Because they come pre-packaged with manufactured systems.

Intel leverages their CPU & Motherboard market-share and influence on this, in the exact same way that Microsoft wielded its influence to get IE to be the "Leading" web-browser (by packaging it with Windows). Its not a question of morality - its business.

In terms of value, quality, or performance, Intel is nowhere near being a leader in the Graphics industry - and they never have. Intel knows that a large number of computers in this world are never being used for 3d applications or high-end games. Therefore, they concentrate on putting out a cheap/affordable product that they can get packaged in with their CPU's & Mobos, without significantly impacting the cost that the manufacturers have to pay. In this, they do wonderfully.

But no one wants to buy a system that's "guaranteed" not to run 3d apps or games at all.... So Intel puts in just enough capability to meet certain minimum OpenGL & DirectX standards that they can claim compatibility in their marketting material.

However, its a long leap from "compatability" to "good performance".

Take care,

--Noel "HB" Wade
(Tread Whiplash)

Yes, I know.

I would just like to add that if you have an Intel "card" you probably dont have a real card but rather an "onboard" chip, which means its hardwired to your motherboard.
As such, you probably dont even have an AGP slot, and so you have nowhere to put a new graphics card.
If this is the case, you will need a whole new motherboard.
Onboard chips should be farking outlawed if you ask me.

And if you have a prefab computer, odds are you'll need at least a new power supply, (or an adapter cable, if you can find one) if not a new case entirely.

I really don't understand how leaving out an AGP slot really saves anyone money -- particularly not when there's traces on the board and what appears to be a few jumpering resistors missing. I've checked. Those components aren't expensive, guys.

It seems to me as though the OEMs and component manufacturers could avoid much of the negative publicity they recieve via word-of-mouth and their less technically-inclined customers (IE, the 90% of the market that buys integrated graphics chips) upon discovering that if they want to play the game they got for Christmas, they'll need to do some needlessly complex upgrade. It'd be simple: just make it upgradable.

Have you ever tried designing a computer mainboard? It's not easy. There are all sorts of things you need to take into consideration, such as trace lengths (all traces for a given slot or component need to be the same length), capacitive and inductive crosstalk between traces, capacitive self-interference in a single trace, proper termination of unconnected wires, power and ground routing, and many other things. Being able to leave out several hundred traces that an AGP slot would otherwise require greatly reduces the design cost of a mainboard. It probably also reduces the construction cost by a dollar or two -- or much more, if fewer traces means they can reduce the number of PCB layers.

Carnildo most of what you say is true but the traces are already on the board. All that are missing are the surface mount componants. They have already designed the board for both. Considering that the parts are pretty cheap and assembled by machine...

It's like what they do for harddrives. The only difference between the modle released by a single manufacturer in any given year is how many platters and spacers they put in the case. Be it 3 platters and 3 spacers or 6 platters and 0 spacers. But either way it's the same controller card just with a different firmware.

I'm pretty proud of myself. I already knew half of this stuff you're talking about, and understood most of it!

coco

I say they should just make SL support every type of video card...have SL automaticly configure itself to run it's best on it...etc...my friend's pc has a 7200 Radeon video card and SL says it cant support it, yet it loads things in SL much faster then expected, the only thing it does is have a horrid frame rate.

His video card does support the lighting feature...even though it does still suck..(yes i am being honest and open with what i think here..) His card can handle Half-Life 2 with no sweat, yet SL cant support it?....I honestly dont see what kind of support problems there can be with video cards, the only thing i've seen is bad frame rate.

Roig -

As a games-industry veteran who's worked with Valve Software, I can tell you that implementing a game-engine that works "on all cards" is next to impossible. Even HL2 has problems on some hardware; and it took Valve 5 years to make the darned thing!

SecondLife is fundamentally different from Half-Life 2 and many other games. It has different requirements, because of the high-resolution user-created content, the streaming delivery format, and other issues.

Most prominently, however, is the fact that SL is a cross-platform product. DirectX (what HL2 and most popular games run on) is a Microsoft-Windows-only 3d API. It doesn't exist for MacOS or Linux. The only alternative, is a 3d API called OpenGL.

OpenGL is supposedly supported on all of the major platforms - but because you are dealing with different OS'es, there are some small discrepancies right at the start. The other major problem with OpenGL, is that since its an "open" standard, very little can be done to "keep manufacturers in line" (which Microsoft does quite a bit with DirectX). As a result, the various graphics chip/card makers do their own thing; and do not properly implement OpenGL on their video cards - even when they claim to support it fully! Both ATI and nVidia have had this problem in the past; and it continues to be a problem on some ATI cards.

Now, it has been said that the current SecondLife graphics engine is due for an overhaul. I don't know any details on that - but I do know that future versions of the system are supposed to be a bit more flexible, graphics-wise: it will take advantage of advanced capabilities if they exist - but not crash if they don't. However, it is all meaningless if your graphics-card-manufacturer screws around with their OpenGL driver-support.

Hope this info helps, take care,

--Noel "HB" Wade
(Tread Whiplash)

P.S. A graphics card has nothing to do with how fast things "load". Graphics cards are only responsible for drawing the 3d objects on the screen, and lighting/texturing them.