N2002 install

Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim installer? I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems to work fine (in Open GL). -- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

I thought OpenGL wasn't supported yet in n2002? Vintook "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim installer? > I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems to work > fine (in Open GL). > -- > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

I believe it's not "officially" supported, but the option is there. I don't have the game yet, just what I have been reading elsewhere from folks that do have it. Don Burnette "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RHGa8.387543$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I thought OpenGL wasn't supported yet in n2002? > > Vintook > > "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim installer? > > I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems to work > > fine (in Open GL). > > -- > > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie > >

It's an unsupported feature, but believe me it works... Here's an excerpt from the readme file: "* NOTE: The OpenGL renderer is unsupported and may not work on all cards and/or system configurations. Leaving the game's "Show Intro/Exit Sequences" option enabled may help eliminate some initialization problems on subsequent game launches. If you continue to experience problems using the OpenGL renderer it is recommended that you instead use the game's default Direct3D renderer. " Vintook wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > I thought OpenGL wasn't supported yet in n2002? > > Vintook > > "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim installer? > > I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems to work > > fine (in Open GL). > > -- > > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

-- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

I opted for the 8.1 install for DirectX when I installed N2002.. And I use Open GL. Seems to work fine. Jim Tester "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim installer? > I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems to work > fine (in Open GL). > -- > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

Ok then, so if it works...... Which one is faster? OpenGL was better with N4. Is that still the case? Vintook "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> It's an unsupported feature, but believe me it works... > > Here's an excerpt from the readme file: > > > "* NOTE: The OpenGL renderer is unsupported and may not work on all > cards and/or system configurations. Leaving the game's "Show > Intro/Exit Sequences" option enabled may help eliminate some > initialization problems on subsequent game launches. If you continue > to experience problems using the OpenGL renderer it is recommended that > you instead use the game's default Direct3D renderer. " > > > > > Vintook wrote: > > > > I thought OpenGL wasn't supported yet in n2002? > > > > Vintook > > > > "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim

installer? > > > I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems towork > > > fine (in Open GL). > > > -- > > > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie > > -- > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

In my N2002, OpenGL is faster than D3D. But both OpenGL and D3D are about 10 fps's slower than N4 for some reason. But smoother... I dunno why...?? Jim "Vintook" wrote... > Ok then, so if it works...... > > Which one is faster? OpenGL was better with N4. Is that still the case? > > Vintook

Provided everything else is about the same, wouldn't you expect a slightly lower fps with a more detailed gfx game? I know the cars textures alone are at least doubled in memory size. And w/o trextue compression in OpenGL right now, I might even suspect OpenGL advantage on nVidia cards over d3d to be slightly reduced. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Jim Tester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a4gkui$4no$[email hidden]... > In my N2002, OpenGL is faster than D3D. But both OpenGL and D3D are about > 10 fps's slower than N4 for some reason. But smoother... > > I dunno why...?? > > Jim > > "Vintook" wrote... > > Ok then, so if it works...... > > > > Which one is faster? OpenGL was better with N4. Is that still the case? > > > > Vintook > > >

Yessir...now that you mention it. The car textures ARE bigger in N2002. That would account for the slightly slower frame rates. And you're correct about the OpenGL advantage on nVidia cards being slightly reduced. That's what I've found with my nVidia. Thanks... Jim "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FuRa8.4323$[email hidden]... > Provided everything else is about the same, wouldn't you expect a slightlylower fps with a more > detailed gfx game? I know the cars textures alone are at least doubled inmemory size. And w/o > trextue compression in OpenGL right now, I might even suspect OpenGLadvantage on nVidia cards over > d3d to be slightly reduced. > > -- > Biz

"Jim Tester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<a4ferg$sss$[email hidden]>... > I opted for the 8.1 install for DirectX when I installed N2002.. And I use > Open GL. Seems to work fine. > > Jim Tester > I installed 8.1 after the N2002 demo demanded I do it. Now I have regrets since on one occasion N2002 simply died in the middle of a race (application completely vanished, back to my desktop), and one of my son's games (Backyard Baseball) has done this at least three times. I have a P3 550 w/128M RAM, and a Viper 770 32MB video card. (I am in the process of upgrading to a 1.2G Celeron from powerleap.com, and another 128M of RAM.) I was wondering if N4 has DirectX 7.1 on it. Was that the previous DirectX release before 8? Has anyone ever gone back from DirectX 8.1 to DirectX 7.1? If so how did you do it? That release seemed very stable on my system. Thanks Doug Appleyard address above is for spam - please use: doug at theappleyards dot com

Get DXunistall, latest version I think is 1.3, not sure tho? Make sure you know how to uninstall & reinstall properly tho'...

Quoted text (11 lines)

| I was wondering if N4 has DirectX 7.1 on it. | Was that the previous DirectX release before 8? | Has anyone ever gone back from DirectX 8.1 | to DirectX 7.1? If so how did you do it? | That release seemed very stable on my system. | | Thanks | | Doug Appleyard | address above is for spam - please use: | doug at theappleyards dot com

Well, in N4, with the same pc and same graphics option, I get half the framerates at the same tracks. For example, at Martinsville, I could get 40 fps with a full field at the start of the race; now I get 24-26 fps (all in Open GL). In D3D, I get slightly worse fps. Vintook wrote:

Quoted text (42 lines)

> > Ok then, so if it works...... > > Which one is faster? OpenGL was better with N4. Is that still the case? > > Vintook > > "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > It's an unsupported feature, but believe me it works... > > > > Here's an excerpt from the readme file: > > > > > > "* NOTE: The OpenGL renderer is unsupported and may not work on all > > cards and/or system configurations. Leaving the game's "Show > > Intro/Exit Sequences" option enabled may help eliminate some > > initialization problems on subsequent game launches. If you continue > > to experience problems using the OpenGL renderer it is recommended that > > you instead use the game's default Direct3D renderer. " > > > > > > > > > > Vintook wrote: > > > > > > I thought OpenGL wasn't supported yet in n2002? > > > > > > Vintook > > > > > > "Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Any of you guys installed Direct X 8.1 as prompted by the sim > installer? > > > > I choose to remain with good old Direct X 8.0a and the sim seems to > work > > > > fine (in Open GL). > > > > -- > > > > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie > > > > -- > > Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

-- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

You answered one of my question... thank god I didn't install Direct X 8.1. I think N4 came with Direct X 8.0. Doug Appleyard wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > "Jim Tester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<a4ferg$sss$[email hidden]>... > > I opted for the 8.1 install for DirectX when I installed N2002.. And I use > > Open GL. Seems to work fine. > > > > Jim Tester > > > > I installed 8.1 after the N2002 demo demanded I do it. > Now I have regrets since on one occasion N2002 simply > died in the middle of a race (application completely > vanished, back to my desktop), and one of my son's > games (Backyard Baseball) has done this at least > three times. > > I have a P3 550 w/128M RAM, and a Viper 770 32MB video > card. (I am in the process of upgrading to a 1.2G Celeron > from powerleap.com, and another 128M of RAM.) > > I was wondering if N4 has DirectX 7.1 on it. > Was that the previous DirectX release before 8? > Has anyone ever gone back from DirectX 8.1 > to DirectX 7.1? If so how did you do it? > That release seemed very stable on my system. > > Thanks > > Doug Appleyard > address above is for spam - please use: > doug at theappleyards dot com

-- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FuRa8.4323$[email hidden]... > Provided everything else is about the same, wouldn't you expect a slightlylower fps with a more > detailed gfx game? Not necessarily. A more efficient graphics engine can make a big difference to frame rate, more detailed or not.

But its not a more efficient graphic engine, just larger more detailed textures. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash lane <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a4j0lb$jnsa$[email hidden]... > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FuRa8.4323$[email hidden]... > > Provided everything else is about the same, wouldn't you expect a slightly > lower fps with a more > > detailed gfx game? > > Not necessarily. A more efficient graphics engine can make a big difference > to frame rate, more detailed or not. > >

I'm going to assume that you've seen the source code for both Nascar 4 and Nascar 2002 since you seem to be intimately familiar with the graphics engine? Otherwise, what are you basing your information on? It seems odd to me that I'm getting the same framerate as N4 in OpenGL using uncompressed 512x512 textures with more physics, AI, and graphical effects detail. While I can't make claims to the efficiency of the engine, I would guess that they've tidied it up a bit if they were able to add more polygons to the car models (and more detailed vertex damage), 512x512 textures, and backfire effects without sacrificing framerate. I have a 1.4gHz Athlon Thunderbird and a geforce 3 ti200 and I can easily maintain 25-35fps depending on the track with a full field of AI and full graphical details sans antistropic filtering at 1280x960x32. Hardly a top-of-the-line system by gaming standards, I'm sure with even a Ge3 ti500 I could maintain 50fps (or 30 with antistropic filtering). I absolutely fear the performance I'll be getting when I pickup a Ge4 Ti in May... Jason "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<F8ab8.473$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> But its not a more efficient graphic engine, just larger more detailed textures. > > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > lane <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a4j0lb$jnsa$[email hidden]... > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:FuRa8.4323$[email hidden]... > > > Provided everything else is about the same, wouldn't you expect a slightly > lower fps with a more > > > detailed gfx game? > > > > Not necessarily. A more efficient graphics engine can make a big difference > > to frame rate, more detailed or not. > > > >

Just an FYI post, I installed the DX 8.1 when it asked, and I'm using the Open GL renderer.. Using the same benchmark settings that I used for N4 (Team Lightspeed's Benchmark Settings) I'm getting 15-17 frames *faster* than I did in N4.. Haven't tried it yet in a field of cars, but the basic bench is definitely better.. All settings are the same also: All graphics detail maxed, all effects checked, 1024x768x16, OpenGl, Viewing 13 ahead/3 behind, wheel on, pitcrew off, 3D sound, 24 max sounds.. (I think that's the basic settings) Sit in the car (cockpit view) on pit road at Dover, while in a "practice" session.. Nascar 4 = 63-65 FPS; Nascar 2002 = 78-80 FPS (System Specs: T-Bird 1GHz, Abit KT7-Raid, GF2 GTS Pro 64MB, 512 MB PC133, IBM Deskstar ATA-100 30G, SBLive! X-Gamer 5.1) Also I'm back to the 12.90 GF2 drivers, after my system was committing some random "Page Fault" and "Illegal Operations" errors with the newer 21.x and 23.x series of drivers..