GP4 - Pretty good after all

I was one of the people moaning about GP4 compared to F12002 on Friday. Now I have been tinkering with it since Friday, I now generally like it even though it still has some problems. The main point to me is that you need a monster machine to play the game as Mr Crammond intended it to be seen. At lower resolutions, you get the jaggies etc and not too much detail can be seen on slower computers.(you have to turn detail off and reduce sound quality etc for a decent framerate). F12002 is better in this respect and it looks more convincing at higher resolutions whilst maintaining acceptable framerates on lesser systems. GP4 needs a patch to iron out some bugs and a Geforce 4/Pentium 2.5 ghz to really stamp its authority over F12002 and I am sure that in a few months with the right system it will be fine. My apologies to Geoff Crammond for the kneejerk review of the game. It plays well and looks great at high resolutions on the right system b :-)

"Ken" <No spam> wrote in message news:3d163fec$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> I was one of the people moaning about GP4 compared to F12002 on Friday. > > Now I have been tinkering with it since Friday, I now generally like it even > though it still has some problems. > > The main point to me is that you need a monster machine to play the game as > Mr Crammond intended it to be seen. At lower resolutions, you get the > jaggies etc and not too much detail can be seen on slower computers.(you > have to turn detail off and reduce sound quality etc for a decent > framerate). > > F12002 is better in this respect and it looks more convincing at higher > resolutions whilst maintaining acceptable framerates on lesser systems. > > GP4 needs a patch to iron out some bugs and a Geforce 4/Pentium 2.5 ghz to > really stamp its authority over F12002 and I am sure that in a few months > with the right system it will be fine. > > My apologies to Geoff Crammond for the kneejerk review of the game. > > It plays well and looks great at high resolutions on the right system b :-) >

"tinkering with it since Friday!" LOL. So, let's get this right. If you are prepared to tinker with various files, drivers and other settings for a couple of days, and have a "monster" PC to play it on, then GP4 is pretty good . Is that about it ? Sounds like a real bargain ! I'm using one of those slow 1800+ Athlons with an antique GF3 and 512 MB of shitty DDR Ram + a crappy MOMO wheel and pedals. It hasn't even left the pit's yet. It looks crap. And the wheel configuration stuff is a complete nightmare. Thanks for your re review though.

"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af5jq4$blt5e$[email hidden]... > I'm using one of those slow 1800+ Athlons with an antique GF3 and 512 MBof shitty DDR > Ram + a crappy MOMO wheel and pedals. It hasn't even left the pit's yet.It looks crap. > And the wheel configuration stuff is a complete nightmare. Thanks foryour re review > though. ???? I have a 1.2Ghz Athlon (ain't even an XP...), 512MB DDR memory, and a GF4 (with anti-aliasing turned on, so it performs more like a GF3, albeit with more memory at it's disposal)... I'm running quite fine, with *all* details turned on, at 1280x1024...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I have a 1.2Ghz Athlon (ain't even an XP...), 512MB DDR memory, and a GF4 > (with anti-aliasing turned on, so it performs more like a GF3, albeit with > more memory at it's disposal)... > > I'm running quite fine, with *all* details turned on, at 1280x1024... >

Hmmm. must have 800% cpu occupancy. Ive tried it on 2 PCs here, both XP2000+ (running winxp pro), one has GF2 GTS and the other GF4 MX card. On 1024 x 768, medium settings (autocalibrate for about 24 fps) i get 80-90% occupancy in practice (thats fine) but in a race it spikes to 130-140. This is with anti aliasing off.