Re: F1CS2000 info

Looks great, picked up F12000 for 19 bills at EB yesterday, have to say lots of fun can't wait to add Laguna Seca and Road Atlanta to it! J. Janasov <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o933s$3v2$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Haven't seen any posts about this -- Gamespot UK has posted info and > screen shots from EA's upcoming F1 Championship Season 2000, which > looks like an evolutionary, interim step between ISI's F1 2000 and F1 > 2001. F1CS2 will feature a new "driving school" function that looks > VERY interesting, as well as wet weather effects (judging by the screen > shots, anyway), plus several other improvements/tweaks based on the > variuos patches and updates that have been released for F12K. Looks > pretty interesting, especially if you were somewhat disappointed with > Crammond's GP3 but not completely enamored with the somewhat-unfinished > feeling of F12K. Check out the story here: > > http://www.gamespot.co.uk/news/2000/08/7990.html > > -- JB > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Haven't seen any posts about this -- Gamespot UK has posted info and screen shots from EA's upcoming F1 Championship Season 2000, which looks like an evolutionary, interim step between ISI's F1 2000 and F1 2001. F1CS2 will feature a new "driving school" function that looks VERY interesting, as well as wet weather effects (judging by the screen shots, anyway), plus several other improvements/tweaks based on the variuos patches and updates that have been released for F12K. Looks pretty interesting, especially if you were somewhat disappointed with Crammond's GP3 but not completely enamored with the somewhat-unfinished feeling of F12K. Check out the story here: http://www.gamespot.co.uk/news/2000/08/7990.html -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

EXCELLENT price on F12K! Make sure you stop by the Blackhole Motorsports (http://www.bhmotorsports.com/) site to pick up the various patches and add-ons -- the 1.09 patch REALLY makes a difference, IMO. - JB In article <8o9adj$5j1$[email hidden]>, <[email hidden]> wrote: > Looks great, picked up F12000 for 19 bills at EB yesterday, have tosay lots > of fun can't wait to add Laguna Seca and Road Atlanta to it! > > J. Janasov > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o933s$3v2$[email hidden]... > > Haven't seen any posts about this -- Gamespot UK has posted info and > > screen shots from EA's upcoming F1 Championship Season 2000, which > > looks like an evolutionary, interim step between ISI's F1 2000 andF1 > > 2001. F1CS2 will feature a new "driving school" function that looks > > VERY interesting, as well as wet weather effects (judging by thescreen > > shots, anyway), plus several other improvements/tweaks based on the > > variuos patches and updates that have been released for F12K. Looks > > pretty interesting, especially if you were somewhat disappointedwith > > Crammond's GP3 but not completely enamored with the somewhat-unfinished

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > feeling of F12K. Check out the story here: > > > > http://www.gamespot.co.uk/news/2000/08/7990.html > > > > -- JB > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Hmm, looks real interesting, now I think I will definitely hold off on GP3, Nov. ain't that far away. -- Don Burnette Dburn in N3 and Legends ICQ# 74084566 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o933s$3v2$[email hidden]... > Haven't seen any posts about this -- Gamespot UK has posted info and > screen shots from EA's upcoming F1 Championship Season 2000, which > looks like an evolutionary, interim step between ISI's F1 2000 and F1 > 2001. F1CS2 will feature a new "driving school" function that looks > VERY interesting, as well as wet weather effects (judging by the screen > shots, anyway), plus several other improvements/tweaks based on the > variuos patches and updates that have been released for F12K. Looks > pretty interesting, especially if you were somewhat disappointed with > Crammond's GP3 but not completely enamored with the somewhat-unfinished > feeling of F12K. Check out the story here: > > http://www.gamespot.co.uk/news/2000/08/7990.html > > -- JB > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Thanks for the pointer! Hmmm, that's odd - when I saw screen shot 6, the side view of the Benetton, it seemed strange that you can see the background trees reflected in the watery track, but not the car itself. But then screen shot 8, looking at a back of a Sauber from your own cockpit, the other car does have a reflection. Oh well, I just got GP3 yesterday, ran a wet race at Monza, and was amazed to see such strong shadows from the trees on the track, even though it was a heavily overcast day. I guess I need new video drivers. <g> ...Klinn <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o933s$3v2$[email hidden]... > Haven't seen any posts about this -- Gamespot UK has posted info and > screen shots from EA's upcoming F1 Championship Season 2000, which > looks like an evolutionary, interim step between ISI's F1 2000 and F1 > 2001. F1CS2 will feature a new "driving school" function that looks > VERY interesting, as well as wet weather effects (judging by the screen<snip>

Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a Pentium 4, 1.5 ghz machine to run it...... <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o933s$3v2$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Haven't seen any posts about this -- Gamespot UK has posted info and > screen shots from EA's upcoming F1 Championship Season 2000, which > looks like an evolutionary, interim step between ISI's F1 2000 and F1 > 2001. F1CS2 will feature a new "driving school" function that looks > VERY interesting, as well as wet weather effects (judging by the screen > shots, anyway), plus several other improvements/tweaks based on the > variuos patches and updates that have been released for F12K. Looks > pretty interesting, especially if you were somewhat disappointed with > Crammond's GP3 but not completely enamored with the somewhat-unfinished > feeling of F12K. Check out the story here: > > http://www.gamespot.co.uk/news/2000/08/7990.html > > -- JB > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

In article <8obbkb$flm$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>When I run the benchmark in NASCAR Heat with full draw distance, mid- >range detail level, cars only in the mirrors, and 800 x 600 resolution, >the results indicate the following: > >Machine Information > > Computer Speed > 400 MHz (GOOD) > > Fill Rate > 92 MPix/sec (FAIR) > > Polygon Rate > 1080 KTris/sec (BOTTLENECK) > >I believe the polygon rate is determined by the video card, unless >you're running in software mode -- faster cards have better fill rates >and polygon rates, and I'm not overclocking my Banshee. I do still >manage to get 23.8 fps with these settings, but a bottleneck is a >bottleneck, I would say.

I didn't realize that it would actually SAY 'bottleneck'...<shrug> My numbers are 400mhz(good)/161(ok)/2020(good). That gives me 20.7fps in 800X600, and 21.1fps in 640X480. If I set all the detail off, I get 48.5fps in 800x600, and 48.6fps in 640x480 Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +51.31 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, NOMAIL wrote: > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:43:20 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > >What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember > >when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 andGP2 > >just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If wehadn't > >been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced > >the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPLor > >a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who > >remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a > >Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to getIT > >to run well? > > > >Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to > >sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superiorsimulation > >like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- > >jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because ithas > >the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. > > > >A "step backwards" indeed . . . > > > >>:-[ > > I think you're the one taking a step back. We don't live in the age of > software only rendering. The major concept of the 3D accelerator video > card is to accelerate the graphics. People where fed up with playing > their games at piss poor frame rates and having to upgrade their cpu > all the time to gain a few FPS. Notice the console market doesn't have > the same problem. Anyway, F12K plays plenty smooth at full detail so > long as there are no other cars on the track. Put the AI on the track > and everything goes to hell so it may be a cpu bottleneck and not a > graphics bottleneck. But, I do turn quite a bit of the graphics off to > achieve what I consider barely acceptable frame rate and that's on a > P3 800 with a V5. Is it too much to expect better for our money? Or > are you happy with mediocre products? > -- > Nos

For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with full AI fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I was able to achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max viewing distance and max detail level, with effects and such turned down as previously described. When I reduced the detail level to "medium," I got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to me like it is a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've only got a wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your system should do at least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" and "playable." At any rate, based on YOUR logic above, am I to assume that you considered ICR2 and GP2 to be "mediocre" products in their time? Or is it perhaps that as a whole we are becoming unwilling to settle for anything less than total instant gratification? As for the console market not having the same problems as the PC market, would you also like to engage in a comparison between Gran Turismo (the king of console "sims") and GPL (the king of PC SIMS)? I understand being fed up with continual upgrades in order to get decent frame rates on the latest sims, but all I can say is I'm sure NFS3, Test Drive 5, and Ultim@te Race Pro will all run just fine on just about any of our current systems. Again, a "step backwards" indeed . . . -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <ZO2q5.1624$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > LoL...No eye candy? In that case, why don't we all go back to thedays of > monochrome programs....let's say black and green....And let's alldrive wire > framed cars so we can have superior physics!!!! <grin> Yep Isure do > remember the old days <grin again> Better yet, how about all the eye-candy you want and physics and AI straight out of Test Drive 6? <ironic smirk> There IS a balance, of course, but sometimes you have to make concessions in the name of progress. -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

True to a point, but the benchmark in NASCAR Heat shows my Voodoo Banshee card as a "bottleneck," so just because we have 'em doesn't mean that all is well. I'm sure a Voodoo 5 would fare better, but will it be enough for N4, I wonder? F12K just simply seems to be getting a very bad -- and undeserved -- rap in the graphics department. GP2 didn't even play well on my first Pentium-class machine with all the graphics enabled, but it was still amazing and wonderful -- and now we are unwilling or unable to make any sort of concession for a sim like F12K? That just baffles me. -- JB In article <g%2q5.27962$[email hidden]>, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > One word explains it all John. > 3d cards :) Back then in the good ol days of Wing Commander, andUltima V > and such, the computer was bogged down from head to toe. Now that > the graphics and computer speeds have greatly exceeded what wasavailable > back in the "good" ol days...we expect our new systems to fly throughthe > current offerings. > This also reminds me of the problem we Amiga users had trying torun PC > ports. Games coded in Assembly for the Amiga just flat out smoked!Fast > for it's day....But C coded pc programs ran like dogs, very tireddogs. We > couldn't understand why companies like Psygnosis could code blazinglyfast > programs while Origin couldn't get past the slide-show speed levels. > dave henrie > <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:8oa9pl$d4s$[email hidden]... > > What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember > > when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 andGP2 > > just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If wehadn't > > been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced > > the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPLor > > a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who > > remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a > > Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to getIT > > to run well? > > > > Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to > > sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superiorsimulation > > like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- > > jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because ithas > > the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. > > > > A "step backwards" indeed . . . > > > > >:-[ > > > > -- JB > > > > > > In article <L41q5.1071$[email hidden]>, > > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > I agree with you 100% Nos. I play N Heat, GP3, GPL with smooth

frame > > rate > > > and full graphics. To me, turning down the graphics detail is astep

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > backwards. > > > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0700, "Regular Racer" > > > > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > > > > > > >Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a > > Pentium 4, > > > 1.5 > > > > >ghz machine to run it...... > > > > > > > > Let's hope they have improved the graphics performance too. > > Otherwise > > > > I will pass. After playinng NH in full detail with a smooth

frame

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > rate > > > > I feel spoiled and want a good F1 sim with the same > > look/performance. > > > > -- > > > > Nos > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8oagdd$kmu$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes: >True to a point, but the benchmark in NASCAR Heat shows my Voodoo >Banshee card as a "bottleneck," so just because we have 'em doesn't >mean that all is well. I'm sure a Voodoo 5 would fare better, but will >it be enough for N4, I wonder? So how can you tell that the Banshee is the bottleneck? What numbers are you looking for? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +51.31 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

When I run the benchmark in NASCAR Heat with full draw distance, mid- range detail level, cars only in the mirrors, and 800 x 600 resolution, the results indicate the following: Machine Information Computer Speed 400 MHz (GOOD) Fill Rate 92 MPix/sec (FAIR) Polygon Rate 1080 KTris/sec (BOTTLENECK) I believe the polygon rate is determined by the video card, unless you're running in software mode -- faster cards have better fill rates and polygon rates, and I'm not overclocking my Banshee. I do still manage to get 23.8 fps with these settings, but a bottleneck is a bottleneck, I would say. Factor in that F12K has much longer tracks than NASCAR Heat and MANY more 3D trackside objects (bridges, buildings, cranes, walls, etc.), and I am not surprised in the least that F12K doesn't run as well on my system as NASCAR Heat does, given that NASCAR Heat is telling me that I've got a bottleneck as far as its concerned. -- JB In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > In article <8oagdd$kmu$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes: > > >True to a point, but the benchmark in NASCAR Heat shows my Voodoo > >Banshee card as a "bottleneck," so just because we have 'em doesn't > >mean that all is well. I'm sure a Voodoo 5 would fare better, butwill > >it be enough for N4, I wonder? > > So how can you tell that the Banshee is the bottleneck? What numbersare you

Quoted text (9 lines)

> looking for? > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +51.31 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then

beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <[email hidden]>, NOMAIL wrote: > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:36:13 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > >F12K just simply seems to be getting a very bad -- and undeserved -- > >rap in the graphics department. GP2 didn't even play well on myfirst > >Pentium-class machine with all the graphics enabled, but it was still > >amazing and wonderful -- and now we are unwilling or unable to makeany

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >sort of concession for a sim like F12K? > > > >That just baffles me. > > GP2 didn't support 3D cards though. I do make concessions to games all > the time. But, if developer A can make a similar game run well on > current equipment then why can't B? > -- > Nos

Ah, I see -- and now I've got a whopping Voodoo Banshee card with 16 MB of RAM running at a 100 MHz clock speed, so it's not unreasonable for me to expect EVERY game to run well, right? Consider this: When I run the benchmark in NASCAR Heat with full draw distance, mid- range detail level, cars only in the mirrors, and 800 x 600 resolution, the results indicate the following: Machine Information Computer Speed 400 MHz (GOOD) Fill Rate 92 MPix/sec (FAIR) Polygon Rate 1080 KTris/sec (BOTTLENECK) I believe the polygon rate is determined by the video card, unless you're running in software mode -- faster cards have better fill rates and polygon rates, and I'm not overclocking my Banshee. I do still manage to get 23.8 fps with these settings, but a bottleneck is a bottleneck, I would say. Factor in that F12K has much longer tracks than NASCAR Heat and MANY more 3D trackside objects (bridges, buildings, cranes, trees, walls, etc.), and I am not the least bit surprised that F12K doesn't run as well on my system as NASCAR Heat does, given that NASCAR Heat is telling me that I've got a bottleneck as far as its concerned. GP3 should ALSO run much more smoothly than F12K because it, too, uses fewer 3D trackside objects than F12K, and the AI cars themselves in GP3 become 2D sprites at a distance, while the cars in F12K are always rendered as 3D objects, regardless of their distance. Major portions of the GP3 environments are every bit as 2D as the environments were in GP2, in fact, so I would certainly expect that game to run MUCH better than F12K on our MUCH faster CPUs, REGARDLESS of whether or not we have 3D cards, which also explains why GP3 runs so well in software mode -- because it's really NOT relying on your 3D video card all that much in the first place. To his credit, Crammond ingeniously "cheated" with the cars -- it's not all that noticeable that they become sprites, and it does result in increased frame rates, but you're really comparing apples to oranges, and confusing eye candy with capabilities. Crammond took some major liberties with his sprite-based vehicles because you're not REALLY seeing a 3D representation of the opponent cars at all times. Given that, it seems to me that you should feel cheated that GP3 isn't taking full advantage of your state-of-the-art video card. <G> The moral of the story: Never confuse technology with magic. -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0700, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a Pentium 4, 1.5 >ghz machine to run it...... Let's hope they have improved the graphics performance too. Otherwise I will pass. After playinng NH in full detail with a smooth frame rate I feel spoiled and want a good F1 sim with the same look/performance. -- Nos

I agree with you 100% Nos. I play N Heat, GP3, GPL with smooth frame rate and full graphics. To me, turning down the graphics detail is a step backwards. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0700, "Regular Racer" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a Pentium 4,1.5

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >ghz machine to run it...... > > Let's hope they have improved the graphics performance too. Otherwise > I will pass. After playinng NH in full detail with a smooth frame rate > I feel spoiled and want a good F1 sim with the same look/performance. > -- > Nos

What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 and GP2 just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If we hadn't been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPL or a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to get IT to run well? Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superior simulation like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because it has the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. A "step backwards" indeed . . . >:-[ -- JB In article <L41q5.1071$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I agree with you 100% Nos. I play N Heat, GP3, GPL with smooth framerate

Quoted text (9 lines)

> and full graphics. To me, turning down the graphics detail is a step > backwards. > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0700, "Regular Racer" > > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > > >Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a

Pentium 4, > 1.5 > > >ghz machine to run it...... > > > > Let's hope they have improved the graphics performance too.Otherwise > > I will pass. After playinng NH in full detail with a smooth framerate > > I feel spoiled and want a good F1 sim with the samelook/performance. > > -- > > Nos > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:43:20 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember >when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 and GP2 >just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If we hadn't >been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced >the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPL or >a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who >remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a >Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to get IT >to run well? > >Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to >sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superior simulation >like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- >jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because it has >the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy >enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. > >A "step backwards" indeed . . . > >>:-[

I think you're the one taking a step back. We don't live in the age of software only rendering. The major concept of the 3D accelerator video card is to accelerate the graphics. People where fed up with playing their games at piss poor frame rates and having to upgrade their cpu all the time to gain a few FPS. Notice the console market doesn't have the same problem. Anyway, F12K plays plenty smooth at full detail so long as there are no other cars on the track. Put the AI on the track and everything goes to hell so it may be a cpu bottleneck and not a graphics bottleneck. But, I do turn quite a bit of the graphics off to achieve what I consider barely acceptable frame rate and that's on a P3 800 with a V5. Is it too much to expect better for our money? Or are you happy with mediocre products? -- Nos

LoL...No eye candy? In that case, why don't we all go back to the days of monochrome programs....let's say black and green....And let's all drive wire framed cars so we can have superior physics!!!! <grin> Yep I sure do remember the old days <grin again> -Cheers! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oa9pl$d4s$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember > when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 and GP2 > just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If we hadn't > been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced > the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPL or > a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who > remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a > Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to get IT > to run well? > > Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to > sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superior simulation > like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- > jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because it has > the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy > enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. > > A "step backwards" indeed . . . > > >:-[ > > -- JB > > > In article <L41q5.1071$[email hidden]>, > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > I agree with you 100% Nos. I play N Heat, GP3, GPL with smooth frame > rate > > and full graphics. To me, turning down the graphics detail is a step > > backwards. > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0700, "Regular Racer" > > > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > > > > >Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a > Pentium 4, > > 1.5 > > > >ghz machine to run it...... > > > > > > Let's hope they have improved the graphics performance too. > Otherwise > > > I will pass. After playinng NH in full detail with a smooth frame > rate > > > I feel spoiled and want a good F1 sim with the same > look/performance. > > > -- > > > Nos > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Thanks Nos! <g> -Cheers <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:43:20 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > >What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember > >when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 and GP2 > >just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If we hadn't > >been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced > >the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPL or > >a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who > >remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a > >Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to get IT > >to run well? > > > >Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to > >sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superior simulation > >like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- > >jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because it has > >the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy > >enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. > > > >A "step backwards" indeed . . . > > > >>:-[ > > I think you're the one taking a step back. We don't live in the age of > software only rendering. The major concept of the 3D accelerator video > card is to accelerate the graphics. People where fed up with playing > their games at piss poor frame rates and having to upgrade their cpu > all the time to gain a few FPS. Notice the console market doesn't have > the same problem. Anyway, F12K plays plenty smooth at full detail so > long as there are no other cars on the track. Put the AI on the track > and everything goes to hell so it may be a cpu bottleneck and not a > graphics bottleneck. But, I do turn quite a bit of the graphics off to > achieve what I consider barely acceptable frame rate and that's on a > P3 800 with a V5. Is it too much to expect better for our money? Or > are you happy with mediocre products? > -- > Nos

One word explains it all John. 3d cards :) Back then in the good ol days of Wing Commander, and Ultima V and such, the computer was bogged down from head to toe. Now that the graphics and computer speeds have greatly exceeded what was available back in the "good" ol days...we expect our new systems to fly through the current offerings. This also reminds me of the problem we Amiga users had trying to run PC ports. Games coded in Assembly for the Amiga just flat out smoked! Fast for it's day....But C coded pc programs ran like dogs, very tired dogs. We couldn't understand why companies like Psygnosis could code blazingly fast programs while Origin couldn't get past the slide-show speed levels. dave henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oa9pl$d4s$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> What is up with this current infatuation with eye-candy?! Remember > when we had to REALLY crank back on the graphic details in ICR2 and GP2 > just to get them to run on our old 386 and 486 machines? If we hadn't > been willing to make those concessions, we wouldn't have experienced > the joys of those great SIMS, and there might never have been a GPL or > a GP3 follow-on down the road. Furthermore, am I the only one who > remembers when we had to crank back the graphic details on GPL on a > Pentium 200 machine with a first-generation Voodoo card just to get IT > to run well? > > Now, though, we seem to be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY unwilling to > sacrifice one ounce of eye candy in order to play a superior simulation > like F12K. At this rate, in a few years' time, we'll all be slack- > jawed mouth-breathers playing nothing but "Test Drive 9" because it has > the best rain and fog effects and it plays smoothly with all eye-candy > enabled on our by-then antiquated PIII-900 machines. > > A "step backwards" indeed . . . > > >:-[ > > -- JB > > > In article <L41q5.1071$[email hidden]>, > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > I agree with you 100% Nos. I play N Heat, GP3, GPL with smooth frame > rate > > and full graphics. To me, turning down the graphics detail is a step > > backwards. > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0700, "Regular Racer" > > > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > > > > >Lovely...Wet weather....Now I'll have to start saving for a > Pentium 4, > > 1.5 > > > >ghz machine to run it...... > > > > > > Let's hope they have improved the graphics performance too. > Otherwise > > > I will pass. After playinng NH in full detail with a smooth frame > rate > > > I feel spoiled and want a good F1 sim with the same > look/performance. > > > -- > > > Nos > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:36:13 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>F12K just simply seems to be getting a very bad -- and undeserved -- >rap in the graphics department. GP2 didn't even play well on my first >Pentium-class machine with all the graphics enabled, but it was still >amazing and wonderful -- and now we are unwilling or unable to make any >sort of concession for a sim like F12K? > >That just baffles me.

GP2 didn't support 3D cards though. I do make concessions to games all the time. But, if developer A can make a similar game run well on current equipment then why can't B? -- Nos

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:25:36 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with full AI >fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I was able to >achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max viewing >distance and max detail level, with effects and such turned down as >previously described. When I reduced the detail level to "medium," I >got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to me like it is >a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've only got a >wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your system should do at >least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" >and "playable."

15 FPS does not cut it in my book. Sure I see the frame rate as high as 40 fps or so at times, but it needs to be a consistent frame rate.Not 5fps at the start etc. My cpu and video card didn't even exist at the time when F12K came out. There is no reason a sim like F12K can't run well on todays systems if it was done right. Is NH an arcade game? It runs very well on my computer and most other peoples. You need a smooth consistent frame rate for a sim to be truly playable and the developers of NH know that, the developers of F12K know that. But, for whatever reason they couldn't make it happen. We are not living in the past so using older sims on yesterdays machines as examples are not valid comparisons. The technology is there to make a fairly accurate and graphically pleasing sim without bogging down the machine. It just depends on how one uses that technology. -- Nos

LoL.....You know JB I just realized this moring after watching the HIGH TECH F1 cars at Spa....That I'll never win this debate with you and here's the reason why. You're a BIG IRL FAN....And we all know that Mr Tony George to a LEAP BACKWARDS in TECHNOLOGY with his supposedly "new car" formula. So I guess you do like things kinda "nostalgic" <grin> don't ya? So I guess you do have to take 2 steps forward and one step backwards then. -Cheers! anyway! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oag13$kje$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> In article <ZO2q5.1624$[email hidden]>, > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > LoL...No eye candy? In that case, why don't we all go back to the > days of > > monochrome programs....let's say black and green....And let's all > drive wire > > framed cars so we can have superior physics!!!! <grin> Yep I > sure do > > remember the old days <grin again> > > Better yet, how about all the eye-candy you want and physics and AI > straight out of Test Drive 6? > > <ironic smirk> > > There IS a balance, of course, but sometimes you have to make > concessions in the name of progress. > > -- JB > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Exactly. The technology is there. Oh and JB, NASCAR Heat proves it. NH has all the great PHYSICS that YOU LOVE JB,.........AND...Fantastic Graphics at EXCELLENT FRAME RATES! Yep, I agree with NOS, somewhere in the development process EA SPORTS botched it up with F12K in the graphics/framerate department. -Cheers Again! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:25:36 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > > > >For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with full AI > >fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I was able to > >achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max viewing > >distance and max detail level, with effects and such turned down as > >previously described. When I reduced the detail level to "medium," I > >got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to me like it is > >a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've only got a > >wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your system should do at > >least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" > >and "playable." > > 15 FPS does not cut it in my book. Sure I see the frame rate as high > as 40 fps or so at times, but it needs to be a consistent frame > rate.Not 5fps at the start etc. My cpu and video card didn't even > exist at the time when F12K came out. There is no reason a sim like > F12K can't run well on todays systems if it was done right. Is NH an > arcade game? It runs very well on my computer and most other peoples. > You need a smooth consistent frame rate for a sim to be truly playable > and the developers of NH know that, the developers of F12K know that. > But, for whatever reason they couldn't make it happen. We are not > living in the past so using older sims on yesterdays machines as > examples are not valid comparisons. The technology is there to make a > fairly accurate and graphically pleasing sim without bogging down the > machine. It just depends on how one uses that technology. > > > -- > Nos

In article <n5uq5.148$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> writes: > How about Falcon 4.0 then? That is THE SUPREME F-16 flight simulator. >Graphics are actually digitial interpretations of the Korean Peninsula! And >NO OTHER flt sim models the F-16 the way that one does. That game ran >flawlessly on my Pent 2/350mhz. > Is that still a good(worthwhile) game to get? I saw it at CompUSA pr Best Buy, but I don't remember the price. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <8ocnjn$v9b$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> I didn't realize that it would actually SAY 'bottleneck'...<shrug> >My numbers >> are 400mhz(good)/161(ok)/2020(good). That gives me 20.7fps in >800X600, and >> 21.1fps in 640X480. If I set all the detail off, I get 48.5fps in >800x600, and >> 48.6fps in 640x480 > >Further proof that my Banshee is getting old and tired! <G> FWIW, what >CPU and video card are you using? I've been thinking of upgrading to a >32 MB TNT2 (the prices are way down on those, and I'm a tightwad -- my >bank account prefers trailing-edge technology over bleeding-edge >technology <G>).

K63-400, V3. I want to upgrade too, but my finances won't let me at the moment... :( I was considering an Athlon 700 oc'd, but I don't know if it would even be worth it... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Two words: DETAIL LEVEL. There were very few polygon-based objects on the ground in Falcon 3.0, which meant that the overall "world" wasn't all that complex, and I would guess that the same thing applies to 4.0 as well. Even a very advanced graphics engine doesn't have to work so hard when you're simulating sky, which has, oh, just about zero polygons, and a few planes, which consist of a modest number of polygons each at best, even when dealing with high-detail models. Compare this to your typical driving sim, which includes many, MANY 3D- rendered objects, including trees, bridges, cranes, grandstands, curbs, pit lane objects, as well as other cars (which include 3D tires, wheels, suspension members, drivers' helmets, moving steering wheels, etc.). I see what you're driving at (that some game run great but others seem to be pieces of $#!+ in comparison), but the reasons why some games run better than others are far more complex than you think, and I am simply trying to help you understand what is going on. Yes, GP3 runs great on even low-end machines, but there's not a lot of 3D rendering going on -- it is a 3D world, but many of the details are simple 2D renderings. F12K, on the other hand, pushes the 3D envelope all around, which makes it a system hog in comparison. Like you, I would like to see things more balanced towards low-end systems, but just because my system struggles with F12K does NOT mean that F12K is anything but an excellent sim. I'm sure there's a comfortable middle ground between what's been done in GP3 and F12K, and hopefully we'll see some of those compromises implemented in F1CS2000 or F12001, to help make the game more playable on mid-range systems. (Falcon 3.0 was awesome, BTW, but I've never gotten into 4.0 because I migrated away from flight sims to racing sims; I do believe you when you say that 4.0 is the mother of all flight sims, though). -- JB In article <n5uq5.148$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > How about Falcon 4.0 then? That is THE SUPREME F-16 flightsimulator. > Graphics are actually digitial interpretations of the KoreanPeninsula! And > NO OTHER flt sim models the F-16 the way that one does. That gameran > flawlessly on my Pent 2/350mhz. > > -Cheers! > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ocnfu$v09$[email hidden]... > > Yes, I have NASCAR Heat, and I love it -- but I still like the feelof > > the cars better in GPL or F12K. That doesn't mean that NASCAR Heatis > > inferior, just that it's modeling a type of vehicle I find to be abit > > slow and cumbersome. <G> > > > > As for the graphics comparison between NASCAR Heat and F12K, look at > > how much more sparse the detail is at Sears Point and Watkins Glenin > > NASCAR Heat than at ANY track in F12K. That makes a HUGEdifference. > > As for the other tracks in NH, they're all MUCH shorter thananything > > in F12K, with MUCH fewer 3-D rendered objects and details, so it'snot

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > really fair to compare the two. > > > > -- JB > > > > In article <cj9q5.127$[email hidden]>, > > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Exactly. The technology is there. Oh and JB, NASCAR Heat proves > > it. NH > > > has all the great PHYSICS that YOU LOVE

JB,.........AND...Fantastic > > Graphics > > > at EXCELLENT FRAME RATES! > > > Yep, I agree with NOS, somewhere in the development processEA

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > SPORTS > > > botched it up with F12K in the graphics/framerate department. > > > > > > -Cheers Again! > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:25:36 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with

full AI > > > > >fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I wasable to > > > > >achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max > > viewing > > > > >distance and max detail level, with effects and such turneddown as > > > > >previously described. When I reduced the detail level > > to "medium," I > > > > >got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to melike > > it is > > > > >a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've onlygot a > > > > >wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your systemshould > > do at > > > > >least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" > > > > >and "playable." > > > > > > > > 15 FPS does not cut it in my book. Sure I see the frame rate ashigh > > > > as 40 fps or so at times, but it needs to be a consistent frame > > > > rate.Not 5fps at the start etc. My cpu and video card didn'teven > > > > exist at the time when F12K came out. There is no reason a simlike > > > > F12K can't run well on todays systems if it was done right. IsNH an

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > arcade game? It runs very well on my computer and most other > > peoples. > > > > You need a smooth consistent frame rate for a sim to be truly > > playable > > > > and the developers of NH know that, the developers of F12K know > > that. > > > > But, for whatever reason they couldn't make it happen. We are

not > > > > living in the past so using older sims on yesterdays machinesas > > > > examples are not valid comparisons. The technology is there tomake > > a > > > > fairly accurate and graphically pleasing sim without boggingdown

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > the > > > > machine. It just depends on how one uses that technology. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Nos > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

I was getting a SOLID 15+ fps FROM THE START, and throughout all portions of the race thereafter, WITH THE GRAPHICS SET TO MAX VIEWING DISTANCE AND MAX DETAIL LEVEL. When I cranked those two back to "high" or "medium," I was getting 20+ fps -- FROM THE START, and throughout all portions of the race thereafter. GP3 gives you 24 fps MAX, period, with a LOT of 2-D rendering througout (you can probably get similar frame rates in software mode, I would guess) so it seems to me that frame rates in the low 20s with F12K should be perfectly acceptable, even to you. -- JB In article <[email hidden]>, NOMAIL wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:25:36 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > >For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with full AI > >fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I was able to > >achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max viewing > >distance and max detail level, with effects and such turned down as > >previously described. When I reduced the detail level to "medium," I > >got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to me like it

is > >a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've only got a > >wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your system should doat

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" > >and "playable." > > 15 FPS does not cut it in my book. Sure I see the frame rate as high > as 40 fps or so at times, but it needs to be a consistent frame > rate.Not 5fps at the start etc. My cpu and video card didn't even > exist at the time when F12K came out. There is no reason a sim like > F12K can't run well on todays systems if it was done right. Is NH an > arcade game? It runs very well on my computer and most other peoples. > You need a smooth consistent frame rate for a sim to be truly playable > and the developers of NH know that, the developers of F12K know that. > But, for whatever reason they couldn't make it happen. We are not > living in the past so using older sims on yesterdays machines as > examples are not valid comparisons. The technology is there to make a > fairly accurate and graphically pleasing sim without bogging down the > machine. It just depends on how one uses that technology. > > -- > Nos >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Yes, I have NASCAR Heat, and I love it -- but I still like the feel of the cars better in GPL or F12K. That doesn't mean that NASCAR Heat is inferior, just that it's modeling a type of vehicle I find to be a bit slow and cumbersome. <G> As for the graphics comparison between NASCAR Heat and F12K, look at how much more sparse the detail is at Sears Point and Watkins Glen in NASCAR Heat than at ANY track in F12K. That makes a HUGE difference. As for the other tracks in NH, they're all MUCH shorter than anything in F12K, with MUCH fewer 3-D rendered objects and details, so it's not really fair to compare the two. -- JB In article <cj9q5.127$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Exactly. The technology is there. Oh and JB, NASCAR Heat provesit. NH > has all the great PHYSICS that YOU LOVE JB,.........AND...FantasticGraphics > at EXCELLENT FRAME RATES! > Yep, I agree with NOS, somewhere in the development process EASPORTS

Quoted text (12 lines)

> botched it up with F12K in the graphics/framerate department. > > -Cheers Again! > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:25:36 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > > > > > > > >For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with full AI > > >fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I was able to > > >achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max

viewing > > >distance and max detail level, with effects and such turned down as > > >previously described. When I reduced the detail levelto "medium," I > > >got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to me likeit is > > >a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've only got a > > >wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your system shoulddo at

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" > > >and "playable." > > > > 15 FPS does not cut it in my book. Sure I see the frame rate as high > > as 40 fps or so at times, but it needs to be a consistent frame > > rate.Not 5fps at the start etc. My cpu and video card didn't even > > exist at the time when F12K came out. There is no reason a sim like > > F12K can't run well on todays systems if it was done right. Is NH an > > arcade game? It runs very well on my computer and most other

peoples. > > You need a smooth consistent frame rate for a sim to be trulyplayable > > and the developers of NH know that, the developers of F12K knowthat. > > But, for whatever reason they couldn't make it happen. We are not > > living in the past so using older sims on yesterdays machines as > > examples are not valid comparisons. The technology is there to makea > > fairly accurate and graphically pleasing sim without bogging downthe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > machine. It just depends on how one uses that technology. > > > > > > -- > > Nos > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > In article <8obbkb$flm$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes: > > >When I run the benchmark in NASCAR Heat with full draw distance, mid- > >range detail level, cars only in the mirrors, and 800 x 600resolution,

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >the results indicate the following: > > > >Machine Information > > > > Computer Speed > > 400 MHz (GOOD) > > > > Fill Rate > > 92 MPix/sec (FAIR) > > > > Polygon Rate > > 1080 KTris/sec (BOTTLENECK) > > > >I believe the polygon rate is determined by the video card, unless > >you're running in software mode -- faster cards have better fill

rates > >and polygon rates, and I'm not overclocking my Banshee. I do still > >manage to get 23.8 fps with these settings, but a bottleneck is a > >bottleneck, I would say. > > I didn't realize that it would actually SAY 'bottleneck'...<shrug>My numbers > are 400mhz(good)/161(ok)/2020(good). That gives me 20.7fps in800X600, and > 21.1fps in 640X480. If I set all the detail off, I get 48.5fps in800x600, and > 48.6fps in 640x480 Further proof that my Banshee is getting old and tired! <G> FWIW, what CPU and video card are you using? I've been thinking of upgrading to a 32 MB TNT2 (the prices are way down on those, and I'm a tightwad -- my bank account prefers trailing-edge technology over bleeding-edge technology <G>). -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

How about Falcon 4.0 then? That is THE SUPREME F-16 flight simulator. Graphics are actually digitial interpretations of the Korean Peninsula! And NO OTHER flt sim models the F-16 the way that one does. That game ran flawlessly on my Pent 2/350mhz. -Cheers! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ocnfu$v09$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (75 lines)

> Yes, I have NASCAR Heat, and I love it -- but I still like the feel of > the cars better in GPL or F12K. That doesn't mean that NASCAR Heat is > inferior, just that it's modeling a type of vehicle I find to be a bit > slow and cumbersome. <G> > > As for the graphics comparison between NASCAR Heat and F12K, look at > how much more sparse the detail is at Sears Point and Watkins Glen in > NASCAR Heat than at ANY track in F12K. That makes a HUGE difference. > As for the other tracks in NH, they're all MUCH shorter than anything > in F12K, with MUCH fewer 3-D rendered objects and details, so it's not > really fair to compare the two. > > -- JB > > In article <cj9q5.127$[email hidden]>, > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Exactly. The technology is there. Oh and JB, NASCAR Heat proves > it. NH > > has all the great PHYSICS that YOU LOVE JB,.........AND...Fantastic > Graphics > > at EXCELLENT FRAME RATES! > > Yep, I agree with NOS, somewhere in the development process EA > SPORTS > > botched it up with F12K in the graphics/framerate department. > > > > -Cheers Again! > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:25:36 GMT, [email hidden] thus spoke: > > > > > > > > > > > > >For the record, I just ran 2 back-to-back quick races with full AI > > > >fields on my AMD K6-2 400 machine at Spa in F12K, and I was able to > > > >achieve a fairly constant 15 fps with the graphics set to max > viewing > > > >distance and max detail level, with effects and such turned down as > > > >previously described. When I reduced the detail level > to "medium," I > > > >got frame rates in the high teens and low 20s. Sounds to me like > it is > > > >a graphics bottleneck and not a CPU bottleneck, and I've only got a > > > >wimpy AMD CPU and an old Voodoo Banshee card. Your system should > do at > > > >least this good, which certainly translates into both "smooth" > > > >and "playable." > > > > > > 15 FPS does not cut it in my book. Sure I see the frame rate as high > > > as 40 fps or so at times, but it needs to be a consistent frame > > > rate.Not 5fps at the start etc. My cpu and video card didn't even > > > exist at the time when F12K came out. There is no reason a sim like > > > F12K can't run well on todays systems if it was done right. Is NH an > > > arcade game? It runs very well on my computer and most other > peoples. > > > You need a smooth consistent frame rate for a sim to be truly > playable > > > and the developers of NH know that, the developers of F12K know > that. > > > But, for whatever reason they couldn't make it happen. We are not > > > living in the past so using older sims on yesterdays machines as > > > examples are not valid comparisons. The technology is there to make > a > > > fairly accurate and graphically pleasing sim without bogging down > the > > > machine. It just depends on how one uses that technology. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Nos > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

It's now priced from $19 to $21 US dollars. Best buy for the money if ya ask me!. (Don't forget to download the 18mb patch from the official website). -Cheers! "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <n5uq5.148$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > How about Falcon 4.0 then? That is THE SUPREME F-16 flightsimulator. > >Graphics are actually digitial interpretations of the Korean Peninsula!And > >NO OTHER flt sim models the F-16 the way that one does. That game ran > >flawlessly on my Pent 2/350mhz. > > > > Is that still a good(worthwhile) game to get? I saw it at CompUSA pr BestBuy,

Quoted text (9 lines)

> but I don't remember the price. > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +50.77 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <RMDq5.1116$[email hidden]>, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> writes: >It's now priced from $19 to $21 US dollars. Best buy for the money if ya >ask me!. (Don't forget to download the 18mb patch from the official >website). > >-Cheers! 18MB? Well, I'll be doing THAT download from work...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.