ATI talks Rev graphics chip

By Ellie Gibson Published 16 January, 2006

It's not based on PC technology.

As those who are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Revolution may know, technology giant ATI is currently hard at work developing the graphics chip that will power the new machine - and now they've gone on record to tell us a little bit more about it.

In a recent interview with RevolutionReport.com, ATI's John Swiminer confirmed that the Revolution chip, currently titled Hollywood, will not be based on current or forthcoming PC architecture - but he didn't say whether it is instead based on Flipper, the chip used in the GameCube.

"Hollywood is a specific design and is in no way reflective of PC technology. Even when the Flipper chips came out, people were asking that question: "Is this a spin-off of something done on the PC?", and the answer is no," Swiminer stated.

"It is designed the same as the Flipper was - from the ground up for a specific console. [It's a] totally different sort of architecture from what you might find on the PC. Certainly, there are some underlying values - you know, how you get graphics on the screen - that's there. It's not, for example, like we took a PC design and said 'oh, you know what? If we tweak this and test this, it will work in a console'."

The question still remains as to just how powerful the Revolution will be - and Swiminer didn't shed any more light on the issue, reiterating only that the focus of the design and the manufacturing of the Revolution is centred around gameplay and innovation rather than technical prowess and flash graphical functionality.

"ATI is focused, as is Nintendo, in making Revolution a great, gaming entertainment platform. I know that a lot of journalists are very focused on specs. The key thing to keep in mind is that Nintendo, with ATI's help, is trying to create a game console where you don't have to look at specs," Swiminer said.

"From a broader perspective, we share in Nintendo's position that this console will be devoted to the general gamer. When you have a game developer developing for this, the goal is to ensure that they don't have to worry about the complexity that is required to develop the games by making them 'jump through hoops.'"

"That was one of the benefits of working on the GameCube; developers were saying that it is quite easy to develop for and there are not a lot of complexities so they could produce titles easily," Swiminer continued.

"That being said, we want consumers to look at the game, play the game and be involved in it. We are doing our very best to make this Nintendo gaming experience the very best it can be."

When questioned on the completion and availability of Revolution's Hollywood graphics chip, Swiminer simply stated: "I know that Nintendo has committed to 2006 availability. Certainly, game developers need some time to start developing games for it. I can't say anything more than that."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (65) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Eraser #1 6 years ago

    hoorah for old news

  • evilashchris #2 6 years ago

    i hope they change the code name from 'hollywood' to 'skippy'.. oh and bloody get a move on too!

  • Tonka #3 6 years ago

    hoorah for repetetive comments

  • job314 #4 6 years ago

    hurrah to you both then.

    but yeah, this is pretty old.

  • ElephantMonkey #5 6 years ago

    hurrah for all of you who knew about this

    but some of us don't go around every news site everyday. This is the first time I've read of this so as far as I'm concered better old news than no news.
    Edited by 1 at 16/01/06 @ 11:11

  • Teeth #6 6 years ago

    Old news? What news? All I read was that the chip is not based on architecture used in PCs.

    /is a little tired of lack of information

  • tiddles #7 6 years ago

    hurrah!

  • ChrisOTR #8 6 years ago

    hurrah!

  • #9 6 years ago

    Correct! This is not old news, it is no news, or close as damnit...

  • Talha #10 6 years ago

    'Some journalists are very focused on specs"
    "...where you don't have to look at the specs"

    I don't get it... if your eyesight is weak, how are you supposed to do without specs?

  • Nige #11 6 years ago

    Hoorah for bad jokes...

  • smelly #12 6 years ago

    Well they never released specs for the cube either, and the games on that look pretty fine to me.

  • MoFo #13 6 years ago

    Erase Eraser.

  • smelly #14 6 years ago

    ok. ignore me then, i was sure they didnt (at least not for a while). I stand corrected.

  • #15 6 years ago

    Actually Smelly, they did release figures pretty early on, but in fairness to Nintendo, the figures were indicative of what the machine would be actually capable of in a game scenario, with lighting and physics and particles, etc. Sony's polygon count figures for the PS2, by contrast, were complete bollocks!!!

  • Darren #16 6 years ago

    I'm sure I read this about a week ago on C&VG's website...

  • kangarootoo #17 6 years ago

    "hoorah for old news"

    /slap

    "I'm sure I read this about a week ago on C&VG's website"

    /another slap
    Edited by 1 at 16/01/06 @ 13:11

  • #18 6 years ago

    @Kangarootoo: What's with all the slaps you're dishing out?

  • smelly #19 6 years ago

    BristeCliste : As I said, i stand corrected.

    I've got no problems in admiting when I was wrong.

  • #20 6 years ago

    That's cool Smelly, I wasn't having a dig. Just trying to clarify...

  • davyuk #21 6 years ago

    Ol..*slap*

    /runs away crying

  • #22 6 years ago

    Well this is it, isn't it!!! They all bullshit you, it's business. But in my opinion, Sony and Microsoft really outdo Nintendo (although in the old days, Nintendo were certainly bad bastards, there can be no doubt)...

  • smelly #23 6 years ago

    Which is why i respect them by sticking to their guns this time and not releasing pointless meaningless bullsh*t specs.

    I *do* remember a time when everyone presumed the cube was going to be less powerful than the ps2, just because it was going to be smaller and cheaper, and because nintendo had said power wasnt a major issue to them.

    Kinda like how things are now. But then I look to the gamecube and compare against ps2...

  • #24 6 years ago

    Smelly, don't listen to them man. Just check out the games and let your balls decide.

    Let's not forget (if I'm actually right on this) that people prefer Pepsi Cola on a blind pepsi challenge, but when they can see the label, they prefer Coca Cola. Marketing is an extremely powerful force...

  • ElephantMonkey #25 6 years ago

    the wireless controllers of this generation consoles will make having multiple consoles even easier!

  • smelly #26 6 years ago

    Smelly, away and take your face for a shite! I own three current consoles (Xbox, PS2, NGC) and have to say the NGC is the least played of the lot!


    What the feck has that got to do with the price of turnips?

    All I said was everyone presumed the GC was going to be underpowered when it came out (due to price, size and nintendo playing down the specs), and (when comparing it against the other two) it most certainly wasnt.

  • smelly #27 6 years ago

    Nah, I wouldnt say "talking out yer arse", Im much more polite than that, and i dont really understand why people get aggressively upset by such things. But the way i see it (And point i was trying - badly - to make) was summed up in yer post:

    But in terms of actual muscle. Very much the wee man of last gen.


    Which is my point, on paper it LOOKS less powerful, in practice (especially in comparision to the ps2) it's more than capable.

    No doubt me saying this will upset some ps2 fans or something though.

    Regardless of which, my point being that the cube pretty much proved you dont need all those fancy pointless figures to actually have stunning looking games, and as such I *still* dont have any doubts that the revolution wont be as equally impressive in practice (regardless of how technically powerful, or not, on paper).

    If me saying this upsets anyone, then i appologise..

    Edited by 1 at 16/01/06 @ 15:54

  • ElephantMonkey #28 6 years ago

    Anyway... back to the article. I don't really see why the PC graphics chips are not good. They are made for games after all. What could a console graphics chip do different from a PC graphics chip?

  • smelly #29 6 years ago

    They are made for games after all.

    Yeah, but pc graphics cards have two major drawbacks:


    1. They have to be compatible with previous graphics cards (regardless of whether technology has moved on).

    Therefor they wont be as optimised as a graphics card would be if you didnt care about backwards compat, etc.

    2. They have to work in a pc (which isnt exactly designed to play games), for example the memory layout on the pc is horrid for games (which is one thing microsoft improved upon with the xbox afaik)

  • #30 6 years ago

    I think an important thing ye are all leaving out here is that regardless of the ultimate potential, each hardware cycle has only limited time (used to be nearly 8 years, now it's more like 4 or 5) so there is no point in discussing how much the console is theoretically capable of...

    Anyway, is PS2 supposed to be more powerful than Gamecube? That doesn't sound right to me. I'm no expert, but didn't Resident Evil 4 suffer ever so slightly on the PS-2? Correct me if I'm wrong...

  • smelly #31 6 years ago

    Anyway, is PS2 supposed to be more powerful than Gamecube?

    As i pointed out. On paper is VERY different to in reality.

  • #32 6 years ago

    Paper doesn't mean shit my friend. But the fact that all three companies are lying to varying degrees is what causes the trouble...

  • smelly #33 6 years ago

    Paper doesn't mean shit my friend.

    aye. Seems like we're going around in circles agreeing with each other here! :-)

    But the fact that all three companies are lying to varying degrees is what causes the trouble...

    Which is my point of why i have more respect for nintnendo this time around, as they're keeping mum about all that, and not spouting the crap.
    Edited by 1 at 16/01/06 @ 18:12

  • #34 6 years ago

    @Smelly: In fairness now, I'm very cynical about all of these things. Any of these companies telling or not telling you things is nothing to respect, in my opinion at any rate. They will do or say anything that makes long-term financial sense.

    The only thing I will say for Nintendo is that at least they seem to be using innovation to achieve their goal of maximising long-term profit. Sony and Microsoft are happy to duke it out technologically. Why? Because Nintendo didn't think they could beat Sony and/or Microsoft by going toe to toe, and have instead chosen a more imaginative path.

    I wouldn't confuse this with them being nice happy people though. They want your money, and they'll get it!!! Even if they have to innovate. And I'll tell you what, if that new controller isn't everything they promised, this financial battle-plan is going to leave them crawling off the battlefield mortally wounded...

  • Carrybagma #35 6 years ago

    Anyway... back to the article. I don't really see why the PC graphics chips are not good. They are made for games after all. What could a console graphics chip do different from a PC graphics chip?

    They are good! They're being used in PS3/360 of course. It's just that by sticking with the same chip architecture (Flipper), Rev-devs can re-use the same tools and designs, producing games a lot more cheaply and quickly than they would on a new architecture with new tools etc.

    Recent revisions of Porsche 911s have proved that an old design can prove better than new designs. I'm sure 'Flipper2' will do the same.

  • smelly #36 6 years ago

    They're being used in PS3/360 of course.

    I think you need to do your research a bit more.

  • #37 6 years ago

    I, for one, welcome Nintendo's stance on not wanting to release detailed specs.

    Yeah, they'll look bad compared to 360/PS3 - that's a given. But Nintendo are a gaming company first and foremost not a technology company.

    I don't care that that a machine can stream audio or video and output to High Def. I don't care about HD-DVD, I don't care about Blu-ray, I don't even care about red-ray.

    I don't care that a machine has a bus bandwidth of a million teraflops and throughput of 16 billion Ghz. I JUST DONT CARE!!.

    Look at the SNES's CPU and compare it with the Gen/Megadrive. The latter had a much more powerful CPU but did it make SNES games any less fun?

    What I do care about is a new way to play games, new experiences, new interactivity and new game genres that arise from it.

    FWIW, I've recently gone hands-on with a 40" high def LCD TV and I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

    As long as Rev can do Enhanced Definition (EDTV) ie 640x480p or 852x480p widescreen (which Nintendo has indicated that it will) I'll be more than happy.

  • #38 6 years ago

    Amen brother...

  • Nikanoru #39 6 years ago

    Eh, MrT, you mention the SNES versus the Genesis/Megadrive. Now, the SNES had a 2.60 something MHz processor, while the Genesis went above 7. Now, let's have a look at SNES and Genesis games. You'd be hard pressed to find anything on the Megadrive that looked as good as the Donkey Kong Country games, especially 2 and 3. And those games didn't use any sort of special chip. Point being, specs don't have to tell you anything about the actual graphical quality of a game.

    Yet you assume the Rev's games will look bad compared to the competition. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. 2 to 3 times as powerful as the Cube? We have yet to hear any info on how we should interpret that. For now, all Xbox360 games ALSO look to be about 2 to 3 times what the Cube can do. Especially if you compare it to stuff like Metroid Prime, Soul Calibur 2 or the Rogue Squadron games (while RS3 wasn't very good, you can't deny it looked unbelievable in places. Especially those forest levels...). And in fact, a few 360 games look WORSE than those Cube games mentioned, but I guess that's the developer's fault.

    Which brings up another point which I'm sure you've heard before. The upper limit for visual quality is fast becoming the developer rather than the hardware. Another reason why I'm convinced the Rev will look virtually identical to both its competitors.

  • Carrybagma #40 6 years ago

    I think you need to do your research a bit more.

    I think you need to look at what was being asked a bit more.
    And by who.

    :p

  • #41 6 years ago

    Nikanoru -

    Perhaps I didn't explain that very well. When I said "they'll look bad compared to 360/PS3" what I meant was that to someone who is not technically minded the Rev tech specs will look bad by virtue of raw figures alone. ie 360's 3x 3.2Ghz cores compared with Rev's 900 Mhz CPU will look 'bad' to an ordinary member of the public. Please bear in mind that I've made that 900Mhz figure up just for the sake of argument - it's not yet confirmed.

    There isn't really anything you raise in your point(s) that I could disagree with. I really don't think there'll be much diff between Rev and 360 games conveyed through a Component Video output.

  • Carrybagma #42 6 years ago

    You're both right. Rev-devs will be way up the sdk learning curve and should be producing impressive graphics early in the Rev's lifecycle. However, the Rev will lack MHz, pixels, cores, pipes, transistors, buttons, modes, flashing lights, screws etc. etc. which will mean it shall be named 'gay' and laughed at by PS360 owners.

    Just as the DS was when the PSP was announced.

  • kangarootoo #43 6 years ago

    @BristeCliste

    Only just got back on, busy afternoon, so I'm a bit late.

    The slaps are people making "this is old news" comments. They are fast becoming the next "so better than Halo" comment (which I know was a joke, but it was shit one and got overused badly).

    ElephantMonkey summed up my thoughts precisely, so I just stuck to childish insults :)

  • Nikanoru #44 6 years ago

    MrT: yes, I noticed that a while after making my post, sorry. Well, I still wanted to make those points anyway. ;)

    Just as the DS was when the PSP was announced.

    Except the graphical difference between PSP and DS is still noticable (in 3D games anyway, 2D not really), thus providing more fanboy food. I don't think it will be that way with the next gen of home consoles.

  • manic_mouse #45 6 years ago

    "Except the graphical difference between PSP and DS is still noticable (in 3D games anyway, 2D not really), thus providing more fanboy food. I don't think it will be that way with the next gen of home consoles."

    Between the PS3 and Xbox 360 perhaps. But without HD support, less than 1/5th of the main RAM of the others, a significantly slower CPU and GPU (according to devs) the difference between the Rev and the other two, especially when we get further into the generation, will be night and day on a HD TV. That is if the information we've been given is correct.

    But then graphics were never the point of the Revolution, now, were they?
    Edited by 2 at 16/01/06 @ 21:50

  • #46 6 years ago

    Wat a load of OLD shit.

  • SeesThroughAll #47 6 years ago

    Just a reminder about the old SNES/Genesis differences. In those days, Nintendo DID use comparisons between both machines to advertise their console, and DID publish both consoles specs as a selling point. I believe the SNES had a slightly different architecture (I don't remember the details exactly) that enabled it to display superior graphics, with more colors, more sprites, etc.

    I hope someone can post them old specs to clarify on this, I would appreciate.

    Anyway, the point is, the SNES beat the Genesis with graphics, which means that Nintendo had and used a hardware advantage back then, and would be doing the same now if it was possible. Thankfully, they are now forced to cativate consumers differently.

  • Nikanoru #48 6 years ago

    manic_mouse: how can you say that when some people are already having difficulty spotting the difference between some current gen titles and some nextgen titles?

    SeesThroughAll: the Genesis had literally three times the processing power that the SNES did. These days, it would not have looked good on them. But they still held their own with some special hardware functions and good game development overall.

  • #49 6 years ago

    @Nikanor: In fairness, you look at the likes of the next Zelda, or Shadow of the Collosus, and then compare them to the likes of Kameo on the 360 (on a regular non-HD television set), and it's clear that there is a difference, but that that difference really isn't as amazing as the 360 people promised. It certainly didn't blow ME away...

    I'll grant ya, when Gears of War comes out the difference will surely be clear, but right now a 4th or 5th year Old-Gen console game is looking respectable (if inferior) to the 1st year Next-Gen titles.

    And bottom line: If the games are all gonna be 70EURO, and the consoles are gonna be as expensive as they are, and many of us (am I right on that?) will be playing on non-HD televisions, you have to ask the question: "How much better should it be???"

  • #50 6 years ago

    @ManicMouse: Who cares how much ammunition the fanboys have. Buy the system that you think has the best GAMES, not the best specifications, or the largest number on the clock speed, or the fanciest looking box... Fuck the fanboys!

  • tengu #51 6 years ago

    They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than liiiightning!

  • manic_mouse #52 6 years ago

    "how can you say that when some people are already having difficulty spotting the difference between some current gen titles and some nextgen titles?"

    I don't know about other people, but even when I played PGR3 on a SD TV for the first time I was blown away. It destroyed any game I've seen on any other console many times over, in terms of graphics. It made GT4's "crowds" looks pathetic, it made Forza's cars look like tonka toys and PGR2's environments look just rubbish. When I finally played it on my HDTV it looked even more phenominal, I'll never look back.

    When you're looking at hasty ports of current gen games with current gen engines and playing on a SD TV I can understand why people would say there isn't much of a difference. However if you look at proper next gen games like PGR3 or GoW they blow away anything the current console could ever do technically, and at a much higher resolution. On a HD TV even the same game (like PGR3) looks a lot better than on a SD TV. The lack of HD alone would mean the Rev games will look a lot worse, never mind the much lower specs.

    As we get further into the lifespan of the consoles devs will get to grips with multi-threading and the other nuances that they currently are having trouble with and really start to push the 360/PS3. Compare MGS3 to Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2, if anything there will be more of a difference this generation with the mutli-core consoles like the Xbox 360 and PS3. The sheer amount of processing power and RAM are things the Rev will not be able to keep up with as time goes by. The Xbox didn't even have twice the RAM of the PS2 but look at the difference that made. The Xbox 360 has 5 times the RAM of the revolution.

    But I can't understand the people here that are trying to convince themselves that somehow, magically, the Rev will be able to compete with the 360 and PS3 graphically. If you want graphics buy a PS3 or 360, not a Revolution. If you want innovative, amazing Nintendo games buy a Revolution.

    "Who cares how much ammunition the fanboys have. Buy the system that you think has the best GAMES, not the best specifications, or the largest number on the clock speed, or the fanciest looking box... Fuck the fanboys!"

    Exactly. The Revolution will have great and innovative games, what more do people want?
    Edited by 3 at 17/01/06 @ 11:45

  • #53 6 years ago

    @mANICmOUSE: I said some games, not all. I think you have what I was saying mixed up. I said that there's not a huge gulf between current-Gen and next-Gen. And there isn't.

    Revolution games will not look as pretty as 360 or PS3, (although let's wait and see what the games look like), but I don't think that they'll look appreciably worse. The fact that it won't be in high-definition and it may have some help from displacement maps will help, but ultimately, the games will not be as pretty.

    So is that it? Will next-generation games just look pretty? That's the most fucking depressing thing about Sony and Microsoft's vision of the next generation. It's just a prettier version of this generation, that will play HD DVDs... Big swingin' micky!!!

  • smelly #54 6 years ago

    Revolution games will not look as pretty as 360 or PS3

    and you know that as a fact how?

  • Nikanoru #55 6 years ago

    Smelly: because internet.

  • smelly #56 6 years ago

    Smelly: because internet.

    LOL! The same internet which told us there was going to be a DS redesign on monday?

    We dont know ANYTHING for a FACT about the graphical capabilites until we SEE for ourselves.

  • #57 6 years ago

    @Smelly: We don't know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow morning either, but it's pretty damned likely. It's true, we don't know for sure that Revolution games'll look worse, but I think it's safe to say, from a technological point of view, that the other Next-Gen games will look better.

    Of course you give me REZ off the Dreamcast and PGR3, and I'll say that REZ looked better every time. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder and all of that...

  • smelly #58 6 years ago

    "but I think it's safe to say, from a technological point of view, that the other Next-Gen games will look better."


    GAH!

    1) We dont know technically what the revolution is capable of yet
    2) As I pointed out earlier. Even if on paper it appears less capable than the others, as the gamecube proved, it could still have better looking games.
    3) Again, as the cube proved. Just because it's cheaper/smaller (and doesnt support hd) DOESNT necessarily mean crapper.

    I'm not a fanboy here with wishful thinking. I'm just pissed off with people touting rumour they've heard on the internet as fact. The problem is, if you keep spouting this stuff over and over again, people start to believe it as fact. When the machine comes out, even if it's graphics piss all over the other two, people wont be able to see it, and will still believe it's less capable (how many non-hardcore people still believe the ps2 to be more powerful than the xbox?).

    Fact is, most people cant really tell the difference between graphical quality in games nowadays anyhow. I've lost track of how many of my "mainstream" gamer mates who think that the ps2 is more powerful than the xbox. Or who cant spot the graphical difference between the xb and 360.

  • #59 6 years ago

    @Smelly: You're starting to sound like a fanboy there Smelly. I will have an open mind about it all until three years into the next-Gen life-cycle. But Smelly, the fact is that Nintendo's rhetoric is fairly clear; They say that they will not be as graphically powerful as the other two consoles, although the graphics would be comparable! If this is misleading rumour, then Nintendo should not have spread it...

  • smelly #60 6 years ago

    "They say that they will not be as graphically powerful as the other two consoles"

    They went on record not long after being quoted on that as saying that was a misquote.

    "although the graphics would be comparable"

    How does that make the graphics worse then?


    And how me pointing out people are touting rumour as fact as being wrong is fanboyism is beyound me. I dont personally know how good it's going to look or not look. The graphics may amaze me, or they may be shit. I dont know. Nor does anyone else. Which is the point i keep bringing up every time people start spouting this crap about "oh, it MUST be less powerful". WE DONT KNOW!

    At this point people normally jump in and say "well it's cheaper and smaller so it's BOUND to be less powerful.. So to save them the trouble, look at the cube.

    Edited by 1 at 18/01/06 @ 11:30

  • #61 6 years ago

    @Smelly: It is true that we don't know. But I don't think you're seeing this straight... Still, I won't argue the poiint with you, you seem pretty entrenched in your opinion. For what it's worth, I don't give a shit about the graphics, as long as they are respectable... I hope you're right about the graphics being as good or better, but frankly, I think that's just not realistic.

  • reality_cheque #62 6 years ago

    @Briste: Bullshit IS business. It's all about cloaking nothing much is so many buzzwords nobody can cut through them all to realise you're just chatting breeze... and then getting some sales off the back of it.

    If in the future what you said actually did have a grain of truth in it, you can reward yourself with a six figure payrise... (think Sony, MS and tbh most other executives), and if you are proved to be a liar you can tell that "changes in the industry moved the strategic goalposts to a new quasi-aggressive era in the field of [insert what your business does here] resulting in an actioned market plan" and reward yourself with a six figure payrise because you were "able to capitalise on the new changes to ensure you remained a leading member of the [insert utter bollocks here] quango by swifting re-adjusting the fundamental [more buzzwords]"

  • #63 6 years ago

    Don't I know it...

  • smelly #64 6 years ago

    "even respected developers have noted this"

    which respected developers? Got any names? And got any links to them saying exactly that?


    "just like we've seen last generation in PS2/Xbox.

    So you're saying 3rd party support for the cube is weak because the graphics are poor in comparision to the ps2? Then I'll have some of what you are smoking!!


    "To be honest, i think the Revolution like the NGC will bomb"

    The NGC turned in a bigger profit than the other 2 this gen? If you could explain to me how that is "bombing" then i'll be impressed.

  • #65 6 years ago

    @Smelly: You need to chill man! I agree, that IMO ZeroCool's comments were pretty weak, and it is true that Nintendo turned over a huge profit almost every quarter, but it was the gameboy and not the Gamecube that did it...

    I admit that I am something of a Nintendo fan (but not fanboy I hope), because I like the way they focus on games, and for my money have produced more top-quality games than the competition combined. But I call 'em like I see 'em, and unfortunately for anyone who cares, the Revolution is unlikely to outdo the competition grapohically, I'd lay money on it.

    But do I care?
    Not in the least!!!
    Their games will be better.
    End of story...

  • dk_rare #66 6 years ago

    hurrah!