I Need Help With This Intel Motherboard...
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 11. 2022
- I have been working on this project off the camera for 5 days without any progress. This Intel 810E motherboard seems to just refuse to support OpenGL in Windows XP. I have tried all versions of the driver I can find on the Internet. The official Intel page says that hardware 3D works only in 16-bit color and I did select that in graphics settings. If you have any previous experience with this chipset, please leave your suggestions below.
- Věda a technologie
The NT/XP drivers for that chipset never had working OpenGL support - only D3D. if you want OpenGL on that IGP you'll need to use Windows 98 or ME with the appropriate drivers - or use a D3D OpenGL wrapper
I was gonna write the same comment.
But yeah you're 100% Correct.
I was gonna write the same comment.
But yeah you're 100% Correct.
I had an Intel 810 motherboard as a teenager, you need intels driver the windows one really does just do the installer. I think the 810 has some layer comaptaibility, so it works enough for this to be installed. You get the driver in my time from the intel website, and keep it on a burned cd for future reinstalls. There was a LAN party for gaming where I forgot it but did the reinstall at the start when everyone was setting up, and I had no graphics.
impressive for a 1999 igp
the OpenGL issue is weird, i have seen videos of the 810 playing quake 3, the 810 supports opengl 1.1 or something like that
Have you tried extracting the driver files from the install files and installing them manually?
My only guess is there is a driver mismatch with the included ones in your version of XP.
You got that working in the past for certain by, among other details, making sure you had glide installed. You likely also installed the DirectX versions all the way back from 3 up to the latest manually (starting with the oldest possible first). This DX setup part MUST BE DONE BEFORE SERVICE PACK 2. Otherwise it will not be possible at all and that will be important as otherwise there are things that will not be present on the final install as the SP2 upgrade will prevent you from installing a lot of stuff that is part of itself. Thing is, there are things that will be missing.
For an OS with no drivers, but a prior OS which had them, you can install the last OS with support, and then upgrade to the new OS which will carry the drivers forward. Not ideal, but hey, you could do a registry export and file change delta and come up with a working driver for future use the precludes the upgrade steps.
For what it is worth, I have also written a few basic Minecraft clones... My most recent one was written originally for running on my custom CPU ISA, and uses ray-casting to determine block visibility (ray-cast works well at short draw distances; but is worse for larger draw distances and when "actually having a GPU"). I have also implemented OpenGL in software (fun times), and is mostly what I am using for 3D rendering on my custom ISA (mostly running at 50 MHz due to FPGA related reasons).
As for the texture warping, this is something known as affine texture warping. It is basically difficult to avoid, but there are workarounds. One can reduce warping at the cost of making 3D rendering slower by dynamically subdividing geometry that is close to the camera. More subdivision means less warping, but it also makes it is slower.
Perspective correct texturing is another strategy; it also avoids the warping but is computationally more expensive, partly because it requires doing a floating-point divide and recalculating the texture coordinates every few pixels or so.
In cases like this, typically the affine texture warping is less of an issue than the performance impact of trying to do perspective correct texturing (need to try to keep it fast enough to be usable).
Back in the day, texture mapping was seen as a big thing - but in retrospect, low resolution textures, warping or not, look terrible (outside of a retro minecraft asthetic) I'd advise you focus on shaded polygons and bring detail out with colours and lighting instead - a resultant game will be less restricted in the complexity of its world and logic
@@JohnnyWednesday In my case, I can't significantly increase the polygon budget, as while untextured polygons and similar are faster to draw, my OpenGL implementation is more limited by the frontend and transform/projection/... stages than by the backend (span drawing) stages.
The 3D engine needs to be itself optimized to try to limit CPU time, for example, my GLQuake port tends to spend more of its time in RecursiveWorldNode and DrawSurface and similar, than ends up spent in the GL backend (only ~ 20% goes to GL). Partly this is because GL maps reasonably well to my ISA design (64-bit 3-wide VLIW; with 64 general-purpose registers, and 128-bit FP-SIMD built on top of GPR pairs, ...).
My Minecraft clone currently spends closer to 40% in GL; partly because it caches the currently visible part of the scene in a vertex array and reuses this for multiple frames. Its visibility determination consists of casting out rays from the camera with some amount of added jitter, and building a list of which blocks/surfaces were hit (these surfaces then being drawn into the vertex array). The visibility determination part was inspired in part by Wolfenstein 3D and ROTT.
This engine also uses a 16x16x16 chunk size with 8x8x8 chunks per region (in the region images, chunks are stored using a byte-oriented LZ77 compressor; with each block stored as a 4 or 8 bit index into an array of unique blocks for each chunk).
A partial reason for doing it this way was also to minimize memory use. Block list and global vertex arrays need less RAM than per-chunk vertex arrays.
Also my FPGA board doesn't have a huge amount of RAM (128MB), in addition to the 50MHz limitation.
Other than this, it can run Doom and similar reasonably OK. Quake still mostly unplayable though (sadly, would still need around 100 or 150 MHz for a good Quake experience).
My GLQuake port is slightly faster than Software Quake, implying a more efficient renderer could be possible.
Traditional coding styles (like those in Doom or Quake) don't make particularly effective use of VLIW though (small/tight loops are not particularly efficient in this ISA; works better with an aggressively unrolled style and large numbers of variables).
Also Quake's approach to vectors (in-memory float pointers) is not ideal (would have been better here with 4-float structs).
For GL implementation, also a lot better to use glDrawArrays or similar rather than glBegin/glEnd. But for now, still mostly limited to GL 1.x functionality (no GLSL compiler or similar as of yet, ...).
...
Scitech had an OpenGL driver, similar to Scitech Display Doctor. It was separate to the program, could support unsupported cards, and some demos proved, that OpenGL is active.
Just installed their GLDirect, it has some bugs. A lot of wrappers have interesting bugs. I will explore them in a future video.
It's not uncommon for the Windows (Update) provided driver to be newer than the Intel provided one. You might have to use DDU (Display Driver Uninstaller) to wipe the drivers clean, then try installing the Intel provided driver again.
The Windows provided drivers have a tendency to support just enough features to get Windows displaying properly, but more often than not lack any advanced features of DirectX and OpenGL, so sticking to the Intel driver, despite being slightly outdated, is in fact ideal in this case.
Did you try rebooting? If that doesn't work, just knock it a few times.
I did, none of those solve the problem...
You are talking about a generation of Graphics with multiple standards being developed. If you are looking for OpenGL or Glide you would be looking at 3DFX. Intel(740) at about that time bought out S3 (S3 Metal). ATI hat their 3D Rage series. NVidia didn't really have anything that did 3D until they bought out 3DFX and the tech would be found in their later cards. Sorry for being long winded here but hopefully this helps.
In fact I am familiar with that time (around 2000). But I would describe it as a generation of graphics with standards consolidating into OpenGL and Diect3D. 3Dfx is shrinking, other even smaller standards (like one be Creative Labs) has essentially disappeared. NVidia actually had quite a few products before 3Dfx aquisition. TNT and TNT2 were great 3D cards of the windows 95/98 era, going back further they developed the NV1 for SEGA Saturn. They even introduced the term GPU with Geforce 256, world's first graphics card with hardware T&L. 3Dfx failed to catch up with this feature, and was soon bought by NVidia.
@@andyhu9542 It was an interesting time, which I am old enough to have lived through (for example, I was running a GeForce 2 when I was in high-school; with my brother having previously gotten a Voodoo3).
PCs had changed considerably during my childhood, but by high-school the WinXP transition had begun, and things have slowed down a lot since then...
I'm probably too late for anyone to care, but the problem is SP3. If you install XP SP2 or older OpenGL will work fine.
You are not too late! I currently don't have this motherboard at hand, but I will try installing XP SP2 once I get to it.
Oh, and installing DirectX might be important since in many ways that is an implementation of OpenGL by Microsoft.
why not using a legacy pci voodoo 5 card ?
Voodoo 5 cards are expensive and hard to find these days. I have several much better PCI solutions (including the card I installed on the IBM) but this project is more about releasing the power of the 810 chipset rather than getting good framerates.
did you google the hardware id to see if you find somethin useful?
Absolutely, I searched using different keywords, and clicked almost every relavent link, No solution found...
@@andyhu9542 can you copy paste here?
@@ugogatto eh, what do you mean by that?
@@andyhu9542 i think he means all the hardware id. probably to pursue his own search.
Artis Mission
i upgraded my similar system to a cheap geforce 4 mx pci, cause even if the intel chip works its pretty bad.
I have a geforece 2 MX and it was also great. I will release a video about the performance difference.
thats an i810 .... hated that chip... look for a piece of software called 'GLDirect' it rides on top of directx and provides opengl that way...
Open GL was a broken promise! The correct board was necessary, 3D3 & the Intel drivers. But MS management abandon all investment after they sold it. (Just like they abandon those who purchased Windows ME.) They were trying hard to get into the client/server market against Novell & Banyan Vines. Microsoft management pulled many graphics engineers to Windows NT & Windows NT Server where graphics support was not first order interest for most corporate buyers. More gamers move to Linux, Windows is threatened again so there has been some renewed investment into video performance & resurrecting old video technology & rebranding it to hide their embarrassment. Microsoft stock continues to fall & they will once again ax the graphics engineering. It is not going to be "good times" in Redmond, Washington very soon.
try update bios
Updateing BIOS is like a 'last resort' measure. It can potentially brick the board especially when you consider this is a unbranded one -meaning I cannot guarantee which BIOS work on it. Plus after 2000 Windows pretty much 'takes over' after booting and completely replaces the BIOS as interface to hardware. The chance that this will help is little. I may try updating it when I use up all other measures though.
Weeks later...semicolon.