Another F1 2001 opinion (long)

I borrowed (thankfully didn't buy - almost did) the game yesterday and have been playing it all day. I can only wonder what is wrong with the people in this group who are praising this game. I'd say it's mediocre - at best. The most annoying thing for me is the behaviour of the grass off the track - you can run off onto the grass with very little penalty. In fact, you can accelerate quite hard when on the grass - a joke. The graphics are okay in some ways but at the end of the day, there's less detail than GP3 and yet the game runs slower (or at least choppier.) The other cars in game look very drab. If only they were as detailed as the spinning cars in the menu. I suspect that the tracks are more accurately modelled than GP3 but can't really confirm this. Even so, the lap times aren't anything like the real-life ones. Some of the tracks look very rushed - especially Europe which looks very sparse. Is Suzuka *really* that bumpy? The AI is well below par. A good example is the ridiculous way that the AI cars navigate the fast chicane at Albert Park - they completely cut across the ripple strip taking a very strange line at impossible speed. After all the talk about a 200Hz physics engine, I was really looking forward to realistic handling. I'm sorry to say that the physics aren't even in the same ball park as GPL or GP3. One thing I do like is the sense of speed which seems reasonable to me. This is an area where other games seem to suffer IMO. GPL, GP3, F355 Challenge etc all seem to lack a true feeling of speed. This is something which has often puzzled me and I guess only a physics expert could explain. The sound is quite good - I like the way the car screams similar to the sound of on-board camera views on TV. The wind sound is a nice touch too. The downshifting doesn't sound quite right but not too bad. The sound of other cars on the track isn't nearly as good as GPL or GP3 2000 - seems a bit random. The replay facility is terrible. 'nuff said. Oh well, at least I didn't have any problems getting the game working. Every graphics setting I tried seemed to work fine. On my GeForce2 I tried 12.90, 21.80 and 6.31 drivers - all worked fine (6.31 was slightly slower) My Logitech Wingman FF worked flawlessly with split axis pedals and there were no dead zone problems. I really can't comprehend the problems that other people are reporting. A wasted day? Well, not really - the game is quite fun, but I really can't take it serious enough to devote large amounts of time to it. Roll on GP4 (though there's a lot of work to be done from GP3).

Are you the Damien Smith of Autosport magazine? Rob

I completely disagree with your opinion almost point for point......

To be honest, I think you've got some kind of system problem. The grass point is frankly weird! One of the things I like about F1 2001 is the grass performance - at last we have something that feels realistic. One wheel too far off line, and you're off - into losing the back end and any sort of grip at all. As far as accelerating hard is concerned, then I presume you're joking! Anything but the slightest subtle touch on the accelerator just sends the car into a spin on the grass! If you think the graphics are less detailed than GP3 and more choopy, then you definitely have a video driver issue. Iain "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qc5as$n05gc$[email hidden]... > I borrowed (thankfully didn't buy - almost did) the game yesterday andhave > been playing it all day. I can only wonder what is wrong with the peoplein > this group who are praising this game. I'd say it's mediocre - at best. > > The most annoying thing for me is the behaviour of the grass off thetrack -

Quoted text (10 lines)

> you can run off onto the grass with very little penalty. In fact, you can > accelerate quite hard when on the grass - a joke. > > The graphics are okay in some ways but at the end of the day, there's less > detail than GP3 and yet the game runs slower (or at least choppier.) The > other cars in game look very drab. If only they were as detailed as the > spinning cars in the menu. I suspect that the tracks are more accurately > modelled than GP3 but can't really confirm this. Even so, the lap times > aren't anything like the real-life ones. Some of the tracks look very > rushed - especially Europe which looks very sparse. Is Suzuka *really*

that > bumpy? > > The AI is well below par. A good example is the ridiculous way that theAI > cars navigate the fast chicane at Albert Park - they completely cut across > the ripple strip taking a very strange line at impossible speed. > > After all the talk about a 200Hz physics engine, I was really looking > forward to realistic handling. I'm sorry to say that the physics aren't > even in the same ball park as GPL or GP3. One thing I do like is thesense > of speed which seems reasonable to me. This is an area where other games > seem to suffer IMO. GPL, GP3, F355 Challenge etc all seem to lack a true > feeling of speed. This is something which has often puzzled me and Iguess

Quoted text (12 lines)

> only a physics expert could explain. > > The sound is quite good - I like the way the car screams similar to the > sound of on-board camera views on TV. The wind sound is a nice touch too. > The downshifting doesn't sound quite right but not too bad. The sound of > other cars on the track isn't nearly as good as GPL or GP3 2000 - seems a > bit random. > > The replay facility is terrible. 'nuff said. > > Oh well, at least I didn't have any problems getting the game working. > Every graphics setting I tried seemed to work fine. On my GeForce2 I

tried > 12.90, 21.80 and 6.31 drivers - all worked fine (6.31 was slightly slower) > My Logitech Wingman FF worked flawlessly with split axis pedals and there > were no dead zone problems. I really can't comprehend the problems that > other people are reporting. > > A wasted day? Well, not really - the game is quite fun, but I reallycan't > take it serious enough to devote large amounts of time to it. Roll on GP4 > (though there's a lot of work to be done from GP3). > >

OK, the replay system does kinda suck, but you are WAY off on the other stuff. "JS (malicious top poster)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qccfm$9fs$[email hidden]... > I completely disagree with your opinion almost point for point...... > > >

So you find the grass realistic?

> >The graphics are okay in some ways but at the end of the day, there'sless > >detail than GP3 and yet the game runs slower (or at least choppier.) OK - I'm using an Athlon 800 with a 64MB GeForce 2 MX400 256 MB RAM. One of my main gripes with GP3 is that it is limited to 25fps. I think this may be the only reason that some people might think F12001 is smoother since it has no frame-rate limiting. On my system, I can show a full grid (with full detail) at 1024x768 without any slow down i.e. occupancy never goes over 100%. F12001 runs at about 50-60fps when I'm the only car on the track or if I select minimum detail (which looks appalling) but with a comparable level of detail enabled to GP3 full detail, the game is very choppy when other cars are around. TOCA 2 is a good example of a game that has a smooth graphic engine - 60fps - constant. > I can't imagine that you would find that F1-2001 is less smooth, and has > less detail than GP3. Did you select windowed mode in the config file > and run it at the same resolution as your desktop? I had the same > choppiness complaint until I made that simple change. Windowed mode makes no difference on my system - as I say I'm getting roughly 50-60fps when there are no other cars around. I would suggest that anyone who notices an improvement when running a game in windowed mode has a system or graphics configuration problem.

Better than every other sim. What am I supposed to believe that grass has some "magical power" to slow my car down? BS!! It doesnt slow you down! It is slick and it is in the game, have you ever driven on grass? "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qd0k6$moqgg$[email hidden]... > So you find the grass realistic? > >

> To be honest, I think you've got some kind of system problem. No, the game runs quite well, often with a very high frame rate, but also often with a pretty poor frame rate. The high cockpit view runs much slower than the default cockpit view for no apparent reason. Incidentally, the cockpit view makes it very difficult to see upcoming corners - it feels like driving 'blind' compared to the high cockpit view. > The grass point is frankly weird! One of the things I like about F1 2001is > the grass performance - at last we have something that feels realistic.One > wheel too far off line, and you're off - into losing the back end and any > sort of grip at all. As far as accelerating hard is concerned, then I > presume you're joking! Anything but the slightest subtle touch on the > accelerator just sends the car into a spin on the grass! Ever touched the grass in GPL or GP3? No comparison. > If you think the graphics are less detailed than GP3 and more choopy, then > you definitely have a video driver issue. Nope - the tracks *are* more detailed in F12001 than they are in GP3 but the other cars look nearly as bad as the cars in GP2. The smoke and dust effects aren't too bad.

> Better than every other sim. What am I supposed to believe that grass has > some "magical power" to slow my car down? BS!! It doesnt slow you down! It > is slick and it is in the game, have you ever driven on grass? Yes, grass has dramamtically less grip than tarmac - but not in F12001. I can run off onto the grass at 200 mph and come straight back onto the track without any real effort at all. Realistic? Yeah, right. I am *officially* taking all further opinions in this group with a huge grain of salt.

"Damien Smith" wrote > > Better than every other sim. What am I supposed to believe that grasshas > > some "magical power" to slow my car down? BS!! It doesnt slow you down!It > > is slick and it is in the game, have you ever driven on grass? > > Yes, grass has dramamtically less grip than tarmac - but not in F12001. I > can run off onto the grass at 200 mph and come straight back onto thetrack > without any real effort at all. Realistic? Yeah, right. This is adjustable by tweaking the terrain.ini file. There is a version available on HG forums that makes the grass much bumpier (as I expect it would be in a stiff race car!). This makes it a lot harder to put a wheel or two on the grass and carry on regardless.

I think your last statement sums up your mentality, I'm one person who answered a post of yours, now the whole newsgroup is suspect? Get a grip...... As for the grass, my point is, which sim is better? Which sim doesn't have magic "grip" grass? It's not perfect but I find it acceptable, If you put a rear tire off in a turn, your going to spin. Also. I have seen plenty of F1 cars go off into the grass (and gravel) and come back on the course. Haven't you? "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qd2si$nb8km$[email hidden]... > > Better than every other sim. What am I supposed to believe that grasshas > > some "magical power" to slow my car down? BS!! It doesnt slow you down!It > > is slick and it is in the game, have you ever driven on grass? > > Yes, grass has dramamtically less grip than tarmac - but not in F12001. I > can run off onto the grass at 200 mph and come straight back onto thetrack > without any real effort at all. Realistic? Yeah, right. > > I am *officially* taking all further opinions in this group with a huge > grain of salt. > >

> This is adjustable by tweaking the terrain.ini file. There is a version > available on HG forums that makes the grass much bumpier (as I expect it > would be in a stiff race car!). This makes it a lot harder to put a wheelor > two on the grass and carry on regardless. Thanks, I'll give it a try, but I'm not a big fan of tweaking games in this fashion - surely this must destroy the integrity of hotlaps etc?

> I guess you still refuse to tell us what dificulty settings you use in > the sim, what your detail/resolution are and what your system specs are. I wasn't aware that anyone had asked me but I've tried the game on maximum difficulty with all aids off. I've tried virtually every graphic setting in the game and am now using 800x600 with most settings on medium. My judgements about the graphics are based on trying all settings from lowest to highest and then forming an opinion. > Hey, maybe you haven't driven it at all. What makes you say that?

"Damien Smith" wrote... > > <snip> > > Yes, grass has dramamtically less grip than tarmac - but not in > F12001. I can run off onto the grass at 200 mph and come straight > back onto the track without any real effort at all. Realistic? > Yeah, right. At 200mph the car is producing tonnes of downforce, while the driving torque from the engine (in top gear) is not sensationally high... could happen if the differential/traction control prevent spin up and the verge is dry. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:39:12 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> This is adjustable by tweaking the terrain.ini file. There is a version >> available on HG forums that makes the grass much bumpier (as I expect it >> would be in a stiff race car!). This makes it a lot harder to put a wheel >or >> two on the grass and carry on regardless. > >Thanks, I'll give it a try, but I'm not a big fan of tweaking games in this >fashion - surely this must destroy the integrity of hotlaps etc?

It does, since you can also alter grip of the tarmac with an easy ini tweak :( Andre

> I think your last statement sums up your mentality, I'm one person who > answered a post of yours, now the whole newsgroup is suspect? Get a > grip...... No, I based that statement on the number of people who are hailing this game as the new king of F1 sims. I was really hoping that it was but sadly it isn't. Mind you, some aspects of the game are very promising and F12002 could be the one. > As for the grass, my point is, which sim is better? Which sim doesn't have > magic "grip" grass? It's not perfect but I find it acceptable, If you puta > rear tire off in a turn, your going to spin. Also. I have seen plenty ofF1 > cars go off into the grass (and gravel) and come back on the course.Haven't > you? I guess I'd say GPL has the best grass realism.

> Are you the Damien Smith of Autosport magazine? No, but you're not the first person to ask me that.

I've been watching F1 on TV for a long time....I've never seen a car come back onto the track after having all four wheels on the grass at high speed.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qd2hh$mvq25$[email hidden]... > Nope - the tracks *are* more detailed in F12001 than they are in GP3 butthe > other cars look nearly as bad as the cars in GP2... This is adjustable, you know - perhaps your settings were set too low by the config program... It's in the player (.plr) file in your Save directory: [GRAPHICOPTIONS] BroadcastOverlay=1 Textures=3 Rearview=1 StartingView=0 MovingSWheel=1 HUD=1 AutoMap=1 PlayerDetail=3 OpponentDetail=3 ...

I'm not saying it has, but I think's a theoretical possibility given ideal circumstances, as in a sim (driver keeping his foot in it, even surface, etc...). I'd be very upset if developers put in a canned spin effect because they assumed it should be impossible not to spin in a given situation. BTW: Berger, Hungaroring '91 (I think). But that was not at 200mph. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Damien Smith" wrote... > I've been watching F1 on TV for a long time....I've never seen a > car come back onto the track after having all four wheels on the > grass at high speed.

"Damien Smith" wrote... > > <snip> > I guess I'd say GPL has the best grass realism. It's pretty good at some tracks in GPL, plain silly at others. Personally, I like the grass in N4 better. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

> This is adjustable, you know - perhaps your settings were set too low bythe

Quoted text (12 lines)

> config program... It's in the player (.plr) file in your Save directory: > > [GRAPHICOPTIONS] > BroadcastOverlay=1 > Textures=3 > Rearview=1 > StartingView=0 > MovingSWheel=1 > HUD=1 > AutoMap=1 > PlayerDetail=3 > OpponentDetail=3

Those options are in the game - not that they really help. The game looks like something from 1997 no matter what settings are used.

In article <9qd5lg$nm8gd$[email hidden]>, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> writes: >I've been watching F1 on TV for a long time....I've never seen a car come >back onto the track after having all four wheels on the grass at high speed. I've seen Michal Schumacher do it several times...<shrug> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <9qd1pv$mvusr$[email hidden]>, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> writes: >Windowed mode makes no difference on my system - as I say I'm getting >roughly 50-60fps when there are no other cars around. I would suggest that >anyone who notices an improvement when running a game in windowed mode has a >system or graphics configuration problem. What's your reasoning behind that? Not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to know. Seems the system would be using the same graphics card in windowed mode that it would be in full-screen mode. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> >Windowed mode makes no difference on my system - as I say I'm getting > >roughly 50-60fps when there are no other cars around. I would suggestthat > >anyone who notices an improvement when running a game in windowed modehas a > >system or graphics configuration problem. > > What's your reasoning behind that? Not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to > know. Seems the system would be using the same graphics card in windowedmode > that it would be in full-screen mode. Erm...yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at - why should a game run better in a window if it's the same res on the same graphics card? Doesn't make any sense.

My system specs, graphics and difficulty settings are all located in this thread. If you can't find them then I can't help you.

> LOL > No further comment is needed. I think your silliness speaks for itself. Just in case it doesn't - I challenge you to put forth some intelligent reasoning.

> Then I guess you never saw Nigel Mansell? Yeah, but he didn't have any lateral acceleration and it was only momentarily. In F1 2001, it's possible to travel along the grass at Hockenheim at 150mph and then pop the car back onto the track with ease.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qdjnd$neock$[email hidden]... > > This is adjustable, you know - perhaps your settings were set too low by > the > > config program... It's in the player (.plr) file in your Savedirectory:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > [GRAPHICOPTIONS] > > BroadcastOverlay=1 > > Textures=3 > > Rearview=1 > > StartingView=0 > > MovingSWheel=1 > > HUD=1 > > AutoMap=1 > > PlayerDetail=3 > > OpponentDetail=3 > > Those options are in the game - not that they really help. The game looks > like something from 1997 no matter what settings are used. >

Well, there must be something weird going on with your setup, because I am absolutely floored by the graphics I see on my system. I am in the 3D computer-graphics business, and my co-workers know that I am extremely picky if something's not just right. The only thing I can suggest is, when you run 3Dconfig, make sure the FSAA switch is off (no matter if you're running it or not) and uncheck vsynch. That upped my frame rate a ton when I first started with the game...

First, it seems you're being purposely difficult and childish by stating your specs are located in the thread. Just post them here for simplicity. Second, I looked at your posts and did not find your system specs other than your graphics card (GeForce2). Perhaps there are posts I cannot see on my news server. Either way, why are you playing these silly games? -- Joe Marques "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qdn7r$nk0lq$[email hidden]... > My system specs, graphics and difficulty settings are all located in this > thread. If you can't find them then I can't help you. > >

> Ever touched the grass in GPL or GP3? No comparison. No, never heard of them. I've only ever played F1 2001. > Nope - the tracks *are* more detailed in F12001 than they are in GP3 butthe > other cars look nearly as bad as the cars in GP2. Seriously, you really must have some problems or you're just having a laugh! I assume the latter. Iain

That is nonsense! It depends on the circuit, the degree of bumpiness, and most importantly if the car has to turn. In F1 2001, if you have to make any kind of turn on the grass or are turning the wheel when going off then you'll spin and lose control . Very subtle control is then needed to keep yourself together. This grass discussion is plain silly - I think Damien is going way over the top on this one. Iain "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qd5lg$nm8gd$[email hidden]... > I've been watching F1 on TV for a long time....I've never seen a car come > back onto the track after having all four wheels on the grass at highspeed. > >

why not ?? you could drive through grass at 200 mph !! that is realistic , so long as you dont try to steer while you are on grass. THE MOMENTUM BEFORE going in to grass should carry you through..... what is this ??? did you ever drive a car or a rally car before ?? no? well , then why are you talking as if you have some experience ???? Damien Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9qd2si$nb8km$[email hidden]... > > Better than every other sim. What am I supposed tobelieve that grass has > > some "magical power" to slow my car down? BS!! Itdoesnt slow you down! It > > is slick and it is in the game, have you everdriven on grass? > > Yes, grass has dramamtically less grip than tarmac -but not in F12001. I > can run off onto the grass at 200 mph and comestraight back onto the track > without any real effort at all. Realistic? Yeah,right. > > I am *officially* taking all further opinions in thisgroup with a huge > grain of salt. > >

>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:17:49 -0500, "briGuy" <simagery@hot...mail.com> wrote: > >>> Those options are in the game - not that they really help. The game looks >>> like something from 1997 no matter what settings are used. Check these pictures.. are you -sure- you have setup everything ok? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~hg/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24394 Don't tell me you think this looks like a 1997 game.. Andre

> First, it seems you're being purposely difficult and childish by stating > your specs are located in the thread. Just post them here for simplicity. > > Second, I looked at your posts and did not find your system specs otherthan > your graphics card (GeForce2). Perhaps there are posts I cannot see on my > news server. Either way, why are you playing these silly games? FINE!!!! HERE - READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED FROM MY OTHER POST IN THIS THREAD!!!! (Sorry to shout, but it seems people replying to my posts are in a daze) "OK - I'm using an Athlon 800 with a 64MB GeForce 2 MX400 256 MB RAM. One of my main gripes with GP3 is that it is limited to 25fps. I think this may be the only reason that some people might think F12001 is smoother since it has no frame-rate limiting. On my system, I can show a full grid (with full detail) at 1024x768 without any slow down i.e. occupancy never goes over 100%. F12001 runs at about 50-60fps when I'm the only car on the track or if I select minimum detail (which looks appalling) but with a comparable level of detail enabled to GP3 full detail, the game is very choppy when other cars are around. TOCA 2 is a good example of a game that has a smooth graphic engine - 60fps - constant."

> That is nonsense! > It depends on the circuit, the degree of bumpiness, and most importantlyif > the car has to turn. > In F1 2001, if you have to make any kind of turn on the grass or areturning > the wheel when going off then you'll spin and lose control . Very subtle > control is then needed to keep yourself together. > This grass discussion is plain silly - I think Damien is going way overthe > top on this one. I used the grass merely as a blatant example of how 'arcadey' and "un'sim-like" this game is. But alas, it seems in this newsgroup that if you make a comment about someone's beloved game, they defend it with their life thowing all common sense and objectivity out of the window. I still haven't heard a sensible argument why this game is a better overall game than GP3. "..because it craps all over it" seems to be intellectual level of most posters.

> Seriously, you really must have some problems or you're just having alaugh! > I assume the latter. No, I'm as desperate for a quality F1 sim as everyone else seems to be. One thing I have noticed is that whenever there are 2D graphics shown (as well as AI cars) in the game there is immediate choppiness e.g. when a TV-style split time is flashed up. Anyone else have this problem and a possible solution?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:02:01 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >FINE!!!! HERE - READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED FROM MY OTHER POST IN THIS >THREAD!!!! (Sorry to shout, but it seems people replying to my posts are >in a daze) I neither got your original post on my server.. chill, this happens sometimes. Anyway, about your post: I posted a link to some f1 2001 pics in this thread, but for easy reference here it is again: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~hg/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24394 Now you do agree with me that this looks better than the GP3 graphics right? But what is even more important, the graphics of F1 2001 give the feeling of 'being there', they give a good sense of speed, something lacking in most other sims. When you see pics of F1RC they look stunning, but while driving it all looks a bit too cartoony imho. GP3 on the other hands looks CRAP when you see screenshots, but it's not that bad at all when you actually race. It took me quite some messing around to get the quality of the graphics in F1 2001 high while maintaining a high fps, but thanks to the numerous posts on RAS about this I managed it. I have a p3 866 GF2 GTS, and with most settings on high and max, f1 2001 is supersmooth with a full grid. I run in 800x600 res, in 1024 res the fps drops too much. You say you need to set the graphics on minimum detail to get a good fps. With your system you should be able to set the details much higher while keeping a good fps. This just shows that -something- is not setup correctly on your system. Try other drivers, the fraps solution, the window mode solution, or any of the other solutions posted here on RAS. Andre

Quoted text (11 lines)

>"OK - I'm using an Athlon 800 with a 64MB GeForce 2 MX400 256 MB RAM. One >of >my main gripes with GP3 is that it is limited to 25fps. I think this may be >the only reason that some people might think F12001 is smoother since it has >no frame-rate limiting. On my system, I can show a full grid (with full >detail) at 1024x768 without any slow down i.e. occupancy never goes over >100%. F12001 runs at about 50-60fps when I'm the only car on the track or >if I select minimum detail (which looks appalling) but with a comparable >level of detail enabled to GP3 full detail, the game is very choppy when >other cars are around. TOCA 2 is a good example of a game that has a smooth >graphic engine - 60fps - constant."

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:02:01 +1000, "Damien Smith" >FINE!!!! HERE - READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED FROM MY OTHER POST IN THIS >THREAD!!!! (Sorry to shout, but it seems people replying to my posts are >in a daze) I neither got your original post on my server.. chill, this happens sometimes. Anyway, about your post: I posted a link to some f1 2001 pics in this thread, but for easy reference here it is again: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~hg/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24394 Now you do agree with me that this looks better than the GP3 graphics right? But what is even more important, the graphics of F1 2001 give the feeling of 'being there', they give a good sense of speed, something lacking in most other sims. When you see pics of F1RC they look stunning, but while driving it all looks a bit too cartoony imho. GP3 on the other hands looks ***when you see screenshots, but it's not that bad at all when you actually race. It took me quite some messing around to get the quality of the graphics in F1 2001 high while maintaining a high fps, but thanks to the numerous posts on RAS about this I managed it. I have a p3 866 GF2 GTS, and with most settings on high and max, f1 2001 is supersmooth with a full grid. I run in 800x600 res, in 1024 res the fps drops too much. You say you need to set the graphics on minimum detail to get a good fps. With your system you should be able to set the details much higher while keeping a good fps. This just shows that -something- is not setup correctly on your system. Try other drivers, the fraps solution, the window mode solution, or any of the other solutions posted here on RAS. Andre

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:54:39 -0400, "JS \(malicious top poster\)" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I completely disagree with your opinion almost point for point...... > > Well, I almost completely disagree. I have noticed the AI cheating by cutting some of the corners at Albert Park (only track I've played so far) and the grass is pretty easy to drive on. But, which is more realistic? The grass in F1RC, for example, feels like you are trying to drive through three feet deep in mud. Overall, the AI is pretty good in F12001 and is far more playable than the crap AI in F1RC *and* GP3. What's really great about F12001 though is the driving model, it just feels good. I re-installed F1RC yesterday after playing F12001 for a quite some time for comparison and F1RC is a kiddy arcade game compared to F12001. F12001 may have a few rough edges, but overall it's an outstanding sim and will only get better as the series progresses.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:52:51 +0200, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >It does, since you can also alter grip of the tarmac with an easy ini >tweak :( > >Andre Wish I could do that in GPL. I really like GPL, but you just touch the edge of the grass in GPL and you are put into a spin. I doubt that aspect of GPL is realistic at all.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:59:56 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I guess I'd say GPL has the best grass realism. > Haha...read my previous post. Grass is not ice.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:25:09 -0400, Dave Ryerson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:52:51 +0200, Andre Warringa ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>It does, since you can also alter grip of the tarmac with an easy ini >>tweak :( >> >>Andre > >Wish I could do that in GPL. I really like GPL, but you just touch the >edge of the grass in GPL and you are put into a spin. I doubt that >aspect of GPL is realistic at all.

Ofcourse I can't say if it's realistic in GPL or not (and neither can Stewart :) but don't forget that modern tires have a tad more grip than back in '67.. But realistic or not, thank god we can't alter the settings in GPL.. honest online racing and hotlapping would be impossible, and the online community would never have become what it is now. Andre

Dave Ryerson <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:52:51 +0200, Andre Warringa > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >It does, since you can also alter grip of the tarmac with an easy ini > >tweak :( > > > >Andre > > Wish I could do that in GPL. I really like GPL, but you just touch the > edge of the grass in GPL and you are put into a spin. I doubt that > aspect of GPL is realistic at all.

Did you see CART from Laguna Seca yesterday. Some drives put one wheel on the sand and spun. Looked pretty realistic to me. And tweaking the game because you can't drive is like cheating in solitaire. :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

Interesting and insightful point Andre. The integrity of GPL allows us to play on a level field so we can fairly compete and compare. Without this integrity, frustration and hostility would cause the "GPL Community" to deteriorate. Wait a minute, it already has ;-). -- Joe Marques "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:25:09 -0400, Dave Ryerson <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > Ofcourse I can't say if it's realistic in GPL or not (and neither can > Stewart :) but don't forget that modern tires have a tad more grip > than back in '67.. > > But realistic or not, thank god we can't alter the settings in GPL.. > honest online racing and hotlapping would be impossible, and the > online community would never have become what it is now. > > Andre >

On 15 Oct 2001 17:33:37 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) wrote: >Did you see CART from Laguna Seca yesterday. Some drives put one wheel >on the sand and spun. Looked pretty realistic to me. Grass and sand are not the same at all. >And tweaking the game because you can't drive is like cheating in >solitaire. :) That should be at the users discretion.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:33:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote: >But realistic or not, thank god we can't alter the settings in GPL.. >honest online racing and hotlapping would be impossible, and the >online community would never have become what it is now. > >Andre I guess, but I've never tried GPL online so it's a moor point to me. You could always make the settings lockable for online play though.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:17:49 -0500, "briGuy" <simagery@hot...mail.com> >wrote: >> >>>> Those options are in the game - not that they really help. The game >looks >>>> like something from 1997 no matter what settings are used. > >Check these pictures.. are you -sure- you have setup everything ok? >http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~hg/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24394 >Don't tell me you think this looks like a 1997 game.. > >Andre

Wow - those are pretty nice. Although from one of the track level right-hand turns, it might be difficult to visually seperate the walls. I can't really tell where the turn starts... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In <9qd2hh$mvq25$[email hidden]>, Damien Smith wrote: >> To be honest, I think you've got some kind of system problem. > > No, the game runs quite well, often with a very high frame rate, but > also often with a pretty poor frame rate. You definitely have a system problem if you often get a pretty poor frame rate but get a quick frame rate at other times. I spent around 5-6 hours driving Japan before the race this weekend and it was always fast, in race, in practice or anywhere. The only time I get glitches is on the first lap - presumably because textures are being loaded - even then they were not serious and didn't reoccur. I also saw this behaviour with f1cs2k. Also I don't run in a window, don't use fraps or anything like that. My box is A7V - Duron 700 oced to 950, Geforce GTS 2 64MB, 512MB ram, 1280x1024x16 2x2 antialiased. I did however have absolutely crap perforamnce in 32bit and really really bad performance with the 21.xx drivers I was useing. The 12.41's work fine for me. > The high cockpit view runs > much slower than the default cockpit view for no apparent reason. I run the high res cockpit. In fact I have full detail everywhere. > Incidentally, the cockpit view makes it very difficult to see upcoming > corners - it feels like driving 'blind' compared to the high cockpit > view. This is configurable if you want that. In fact from the .ini files it looks like you can fiddle with your field of view if you want to be able to see corners better.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> The grass point is frankly weird! One of the things I like about F1 >> 2001 > is >> the grass performance - at last we have something that feels realistic. > One >> wheel too far off line, and you're off - into losing the back end and >> any sort of grip at all. As far as accelerating hard is concerned, >> then I presume you're joking! Anything but the slightest subtle touch >> on the accelerator just sends the car into a spin on the grass!

I have seen this vary - I have driven at very high speed on the grass - steering gently - but I would have had a LOT of downforce. I thought this was strange - on the other hand lower speed excursions into the grass were more dramatic. This is probably a bug but is an imperfection that doesn't bother me much since the rest of the game is so good.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Ever touched the grass in GPL or GP3? No comparison. > >> If you think the graphics are less detailed than GP3 and more choopy, >> then you definitely have a video driver issue. > > Nope - the tracks *are* more detailed in F12001 than they are in GP3 but > the other cars look nearly as bad as the cars in GP2. The smoke and > dust effects aren't too bad.

Hmm - I don't know what game you are playing really. From this comment it sounds like you have the other car's detail turned down. If you think it is slower than GP3 you have a serious problem that I don't have. I get a better framerate with F1-2001 than with GP3 - and I am running F1-2001 at a higher resolution. If you had a fast system I would recommend you turn up the LOD to about 3.00 as was mentioned elsewhere in this group - that will stop the level of detail 'popping' happening when the cars are still close to you. However if you are seeing choppyness this will only make it worse. If you think the game is arcadey you have a serious problem with your system. The physics engine feels just marvelous. Finally I have an F1 game where I can drive like Montoya (well - be loose without losing it - I have had so much fun just holding on to the car when I go a little bit wide on a corner. The slides you can get into are awesome.) I wonder if I can replicate that horrible crash Servia (Serbia?) had at Laguna Seca this week? --- Bill

In <9qego3$ng3e7$[email hidden]>, Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Seriously, you really must have some problems or you're just having a > laugh! >> I assume the latter. > > No, I'm as desperate for a quality F1 sim as everyone else seems to be. > One thing I have noticed is that whenever there are 2D graphics shown > (as well as AI cars) in the game there is immediate choppiness e.g. when > a TV-style split time is flashed up. Anyone else have this problem and > a possible solution?

Interesting - as I mentioned I don't see your symptoms but I DO have the HUD and broadcast style graphics turned off (I don't like them - but I don't remember seeing a framerate cost). Try playing it without them. Also do you have a 64MB graphics card or a 32MB one. Perhaps if you have a 32MB graphics card you are doing texture paging over AGP which is evil.

On 15 Oct 2001 19:33:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Wow - those are pretty nice. Although from one of the track level right-hand >turns, it might be difficult to visually seperate the walls. I can't really >tell where the turn starts... :( > >Eldred It's Monaco Eldred, it's supposed to be difficult :) But yes, some corners are hard to judge, but you get used to it after some practice. There is a way to raise the cockpit view so you can see the corners better, but I haven't tried that yet. Andre

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 >Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett >F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54... > >Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you >with experience... >Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You definitely have a system problem if you often get a pretty poor frame > rate but get a quick frame rate at other times. I spent around 5-6 hours > driving Japan before the race this weekend and it was always fast, in > race, in practice or anywhere. The only time I get glitches is on the > first lap - presumably because textures are being loaded - even then they > were not serious and didn't reoccur. I also saw this behaviour with > f1cs2k.

Yes, good observation. The first lap is a little jerky on my 64Mb MX400 but the second lap is better.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Ryder" <[email hidden]> writes: >I wonder if I can replicate that horrible crash Servia (Serbia?) had at >Laguna Seca this week? My neck started hurting just *thinking* about that crash... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >Windowed mode makes no difference on my system - as I say I'm getting > > >roughly 50-60fps when there are no other cars around. I would suggest > that > > >anyone who notices an improvement when running a game in windowed mode > has a > > >system or graphics configuration problem. > > > > What's your reasoning behind that? Not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to > > know. Seems the system would be using the same graphics card in windowed > mode > > that it would be in full-screen mode. > > Erm...yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at - why should a game run > better in a window if it's the same res on the same graphics card? Doesn't > make any sense.

uh, guys, full-screen is a borderless window covering the whole screen. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST

> > Erm...yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at - why should a game run > > better in a window if it's the same res on the same graphics card?Doesn't > > make any sense. > > uh, guys, full-screen is a borderless window covering the whole > screen. Of course - what's your point?

> you could drive through grass at 200 mph !! > that is realistic , so long as you dont try to steer while you are on grass. Exactly. And this is where the game engine fails. I have done some amateur racing on tarmac and have had the unfortunate experience of running wide onto the grass. Needless to say, it didn't feel anything like how it feels in 2K1. Maybe this is the reason I have a personal interest in the issue.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Erm...yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at - why should a game run > > > better in a window if it's the same res on the same graphics card? > Doesn't > > > make any sense. > > > > uh, guys, full-screen is a borderless window covering the whole > > screen. > > Of course - what's your point?

that running a game in a window the size of the desktop, and in fullscreen doesn't make a difference? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

Actually, in Direct3D "full screen mode" is different from a borderless window covering the whole screen, even when your desktop is set to the same resolution/bit depth as the game... although it's up to the video driver how to handle either case, it's pretty normal that in windowed mode, the 3D card renders to a single offscreen buffer that is copied to the screen with a sprite or bitblt, while fullscreen mode will use 2 or 3 buffers and switch between them with a nearly instantaneous page flip (although some FSAA methods involve using a downsampling sprite copy instead of a page flip). And of course in full screen the game can run in a different resolution, bit depth, and refresh rate from the desktop. It is true that games typicaly put up a big window when running in fullscreen mode, but that's just to make sure you capture mouse events and such. I'm curious as to why people would get a speed _increase_ when running in windowed mode with this game--I would normally expect the opposite. My only hypotheses are: a) perhaps the fullscreen mode runs in double-buffer mode syncing to the vblank, which tends to mean that if you can't hit 60 fps, you drop to 30, and if you can't hit 30, you drop to 20, instead of running at 57 fps or 27 fps respectively, b) perhaps the game turns on more graphics features by default when in full screen, such as anisotropic or fsaa which slow it down, or c) perhaps it sets a lower refresh rate in fullscreen mode, which can move the "sweet spot" frame rates around when using double buffering, or d) either a driver bug or a bug in the game, or the game using vertex buffers or hardware t&l improperly or something like that--there are ways of using Direct3D that are actually _slower_ with hardware t&l enabled, but one would hope this game wouldn't be doing those things. Another thought, perhaps they're "retro" and locking the primary buffer and drawing their overlays on it with 2D primitives, which I could see as being faster in windowed mode. Maybe we could bet on the different theories and raffle off a stuffed zebra or something. -Dave "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > > Erm...yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at - why should a gamerun

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > > better in a window if it's the same res on the same graphics card? > > Doesn't > > > > make any sense. > > > > > > uh, guys, full-screen is a borderless window covering the whole > > > screen. > > > > Of course - what's your point? > > that running a game in a window the size of the desktop, and in > fullscreen doesn't make a difference? > > > -- > Gunnar > #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 > to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

Ahhh, Dave. Nothing like actual knowledge to stifle the fun we're having with ignorant speculation. But what the hey; put me down for double-buffer mode; that zebra is MINE! And by the way; shouldn't you be busying yourself with Runge-Kutta coding for MGI's new 600mhz physics engine? ;-) SB "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote... <snip> Maybe we could bet on the different theories and raffle off a stuffed zebra or something.

(extremely late reply, probably going straight to the trash) Have you hacked into my computer or something? ;) Actually, I do have a high-frequency/multibody second-generation physics engine up and mostly running (still have to bring over a real drivetrain, and fix the "brake shudder" problem, but at least I finally have true wheel hop and a better integrator) on my home machine, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to integrate it into our real products... need to find some spare CPU cycles on the Playstation2 somewhere, and also find a few spare brain cycles otherwise occupied with optimizing DMA chains and that sort of nonsense. "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8zWA7.106119$[email hidden]... > Ahhh, Dave. Nothing like actual knowledge to stifle the fun we're havingwith ignorant speculation. But what the hey; put me down > for double-buffer mode; that zebra is MINE! > > And by the way; shouldn't you be busying yourself with Runge-Kutta codingfor MGI's new 600mhz physics engine? ;-)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > SB > > "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote... > > <snip> > > Maybe we could bet on the different theories and raffle off a stuffed

zebra or something. > > >

Aha! Knew you'd be up to something PHYSIC-al... No hacking here, I'm just psychic (need any lotto numbers?). But really, Dave; high-frequency/multibody second-generation physics, true wheel hop...and....PS2 !?! Aacckk! Save all the goodies for us veins-in-the-teeth sorts and our 2GHZ CPU's. Those console types just aren't worthy! Great news on the better integrator; that darned hornball's behavior was just unacceptable, especially bouncing off deformed body panels. Back to work! ;-) SB "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3be5b743$0$443$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> (extremely late reply, probably going straight to the trash) > Have you hacked into my computer or something? ;) Actually, I do have a > high-frequency/multibody second-generation physics engine up and mostly > running (still have to bring over a real drivetrain, and fix the "brake > shudder" problem, but at least I finally have true wheel hop and a better > integrator) on my home machine, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to > integrate it into our real products... need to find some spare CPU cycles on > the Playstation2 somewhere, and also find a few spare brain cycles otherwise > occupied with optimizing DMA chains and that sort of nonsense. > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8zWA7.106119$[email hidden]... > > Ahhh, Dave. Nothing like actual knowledge to stifle the fun we're having > with ignorant speculation. But what the hey; put me down > > for double-buffer mode; that zebra is MINE! > > > > And by the way; shouldn't you be busying yourself with Runge-Kutta coding > for MGI's new 600mhz physics engine? ;-) > > > > SB > > > > "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote... > > > > <snip> > > > > Maybe we could bet on the different theories and raffle off a stuffed > zebra or something. > > > > > > > >