Re: Hascar Heat Resolutions?

I believe that I read that it has to do with the pixels per texture. 512x512 or something like that. Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ihwo5.16458$[email hidden]... > It has to do with his video card. The game is preset NOT to allowhigher > screen rez's if your card has 16megs or less. Not a PROBLEM with the V3's > but a design choice by MGI. In the readme is a section about forcingscreen

Quoted text (17 lines)

> the video card choice, you may be able to use that for higher screen > resolutions. > dave henrie > "G Patricks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > A buddy of mine just got the demo and says he doesn't have any > > resolution above 800x600 to choose from. As I have two choices above > > that (1024x768 and 1280x1024(?)..) I wonder why he doesn't at least > > have the 1024x768. He runs a PIII 700 @ 805mz and a V3 2000. He runs > > GPL in 1024 and has choices all the way up to 1600! Is there a way to > > force 1024, or is it a problem with the V3s? > > > > Thanks > > Icer = G Patricks > > G Patricks = Icer > >

A buddy of mine just got the demo and says he doesn't have any resolution above 800x600 to choose from. As I have two choices above that (1024x768 and 1280x1024(?)..) I wonder why he doesn't at least have the 1024x768. He runs a PIII 700 @ 805mz and a V3 2000. He runs GPL in 1024 and has choices all the way up to 1600! Is there a way to force 1024, or is it a problem with the V3s? Thanks Icer = G Patricks G Patricks = Icer

It has to do with his video card. The game is preset NOT to allow higher screen rez's if your card has 16megs or less. Not a PROBLEM with the V3's but a design choice by MGI. In the readme is a section about forcing screen the video card choice, you may be able to use that for higher screen resolutions. dave henrie "G Patricks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> A buddy of mine just got the demo and says he doesn't have any > resolution above 800x600 to choose from. As I have two choices above > that (1024x768 and 1280x1024(?)..) I wonder why he doesn't at least > have the 1024x768. He runs a PIII 700 @ 805mz and a V3 2000. He runs > GPL in 1024 and has choices all the way up to 1600! Is there a way to > force 1024, or is it a problem with the V3s? > > Thanks > Icer = G Patricks > G Patricks = Icer

G Patricks <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> A buddy of mine just got the demo and says he doesn't have any > resolution above 800x600 to choose from. As I have two choices above > that (1024x768 and 1280x1024(?)..) I wonder why he doesn't at least > have the 1024x768. He runs a PIII 700 @ 805mz and a V3 2000. He runs > GPL in 1024 and has choices all the way up to 1600! Is there a way to > force 1024, or is it a problem with the V3s? > > Thanks > Icer = G Patricks > G Patricks = Icer

This is my main beef with this sim. I liked it up until I saw this. You'll need a 32mb 3D card (or 16mb TNT) to get a high resolution with is unacceptable IMO. 16MB cards, and probably some 8 and 12MB cards are capable of running 1024x768 and higher and it's absolutely scandalous that when your present card is capable of doing this that you'd have to go out and buy an new one to play a game.

Yes, it is strange that they went that way, but its restricted to 800x600 due to large textures not being supported by the V3s.. I must say it looks great on my V5 5500 at 1280x1024! And I still get close to 50 FPS!

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:27:03 +0100, "9Wright7" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >16MB cards, and probably some 8 and 12MB cards are capable of running >1024x768 and higher and it's absolutely scandalous that when your present >card is capable of doing this that you'd have to go out and buy an new one >to play a game. >

Icer = G Patricks G Patricks = Icer

In article <1DEo5.17467$[email hidden]>, "Joe Marques" <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> writes: >Don't call something unacceptable unless you truly know it's lazy/inept >programming vs. a reasonable result due to large textures. Are programmers >required to use small textures at all resolutions to support V3's forever or >can they move on to support the new greatest cards? It's probably not as >simple as you think and you certainly seem silly saying it's unacceptable >unless you're sure it's unacceptable. Be reasonable. Well, if he thinks it's unacceptable, then it's a valid point - to him. Just because someone disagrees doesn't negate his opinion... 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.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:47:43 GMT, G Patricks <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Yes, it is strange that they went that way, but its restricted to >800x600 due to large textures not being supported by the V3s.. Then why did I see a post from someone saying that they got it running above 800x600 on a V3 in Win2000? -- Nos

Here's a problem with the "amateur programmer" in all of us, we apply our logic instead of expertise. As in your example: Since16 mb cards CAN support 1024x768 in MOST cases it MUST be supported in NH. Why? Do you really know? I think I know both answers. Don't call something unacceptable unless you truly know it's lazy/inept programming vs. a reasonable result due to large textures. Are programmers required to use small textures at all resolutions to support V3's forever or can they move on to support the new greatest cards? It's probably not as simple as you think and you certainly seem silly saying it's unacceptable unless you're sure it's unacceptable. Be reasonable. -- Joe Marques Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. "9Wright7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nud7b$2lq$[email hidden]... > > This is my main beef with this sim. I liked it up until I saw this. > You'll need a 32mb 3D card (or 16mb TNT) to get a high resolution with is > unacceptable IMO. > > 16MB cards, and probably some 8 and 12MB cards are capable of running > 1024x768 and higher and it's absolutely scandalous that when your present > card is capable of doing this that you'd have to go out and buy an new one > to play a game. > >

here is what is strange... I get 1024 32 bit graphics with a 16mb savage4 card in heat!!!.. cheap card and nice resolution in this game. hehehe Joe Marques wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > Here's a problem with the "amateur programmer" in all of us, we apply our > logic instead of expertise. As in your example: Since16 mb cards CAN > support 1024x768 in MOST cases it MUST be supported in NH. Why? Do you > really know? I think I know both answers. > > Don't call something unacceptable unless you truly know it's lazy/inept > programming vs. a reasonable result due to large textures. Are programmers > required to use small textures at all resolutions to support V3's forever or > can they move on to support the new greatest cards? It's probably not as > simple as you think and you certainly seem silly saying it's unacceptable > unless you're sure it's unacceptable. Be reasonable. > > -- > Joe Marques > > Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. > > "9Wright7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nud7b$2lq$[email hidden]... > > > > This is my main beef with this sim. I liked it up until I saw this. > > You'll need a 32mb 3D card (or 16mb TNT) to get a high resolution with is > > unacceptable IMO. > > > > 16MB cards, and probably some 8 and 12MB cards are capable of running > > 1024x768 and higher and it's absolutely scandalous that when your present > > card is capable of doing this that you'd have to go out and buy an new one > > to play a game. > > > >

Can't answer that Nos, if you see the post again please ask them how they did it, and maybe it will work in 98SE also!

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:08:48 GMT, [email hidden] wrote: >On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:47:43 GMT, G Patricks <[email hidden]> thus >spoke: > >>Yes, it is strange that they went that way, but its restricted to >>800x600 due to large textures not being supported by the V3s.. > >Then why did I see a post from someone saying that they got it running >above 800x600 on a V3 in Win2000?

Icer = G Patricks G Patricks = Icer

Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1DEo5.17467$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Here's a problem with the "amateur programmer" in all of us, we apply our > logic instead of expertise. As in your example: Since16 mb cards CAN > support 1024x768 in MOST cases it MUST be supported in NH. Why? Do you > really know? I think I know both answers. > > Don't call something unacceptable unless you truly know it's lazy/inept > programming vs. a reasonable result due to large textures. Are

programmers > required to use small textures at all resolutions to support V3's foreveror > can they move on to support the new greatest cards? It's probably not as > simple as you think and you certainly seem silly saying it's unacceptable > unless you're sure it's unacceptable. Be reasonable. > I'll give you the fact that I'm not a programmer but I know enough not to believe this rubbish about large textures. That's BS, IMO.

Eldred: I'm not saying his opinion isn't valid and that certainly wasn't my intention. I just find "unacceptable" a bit harsh and uninformed in this case. If he truly knew WHY 1024 wasn't an option for V3 cards then he might be more understanding and not find it unacceptable. Do you think the developer wants to piss off V3 owners or that the resolution is just not supported for good reason? The intent of my post was to tone down his language (and others) since I think sim fans as a group are a little too demanding. We can't simply demand features by pouting like children, stomping our feet and saying UNACCEPTABLE (I'm not saying 9Wright7 is immature and pouting, I'm generalizing based on the overly demanding atmosphere in this ng, especially recently: Where's my save game feature, WAH, WAH, WAH!). Sometimes it's disappointing that we don't get everything we want and we must be adults, live with the reality that faces us and move on. NH looks to be a GREAT game, possibly the best Nascar game ever. It's just not perfect. What in this world is? So for ONCE can we enjoy it for what it is, not for what it could have been? For the skeptics, I'm not saying we should accept crap from developers, we should certainly push them to deliver the best and not buy garbage that doesn't show innovation and excellence. Always remember a sim is about $, talent and time. The right talent with "unlimited" $ and time can achieve "perfection". In the real world, however, you do the best you can with the resources you have. Sometimes this results in GPL, other times Test Drive 5 ;-). I'm sure both developers intended to deliver the best game possible, unfortunately only one succeeded. WSC may be the greatest example of striving for perfection and perhaps never delivering anything. (No flames here, I'm dying to see this game like the rest of you, I just worry given it's ambitious design and ever increasing development cycle it may never be published). In the case of NH, the lack of a supported resolution for V3's seems REASONABLE based on the facts so I think we should be a bit more tolerant. NH can't be everything to everybody so let's deal with it. It's no wonder hardcore sims are dying. Here's a game that looks great at 800x600 yet it's "unacceptable" that it doesn't work on an OLD video card at 1024 (yes in computer years a V3 is old). Hell, I only get around 24-30 fps in-game with a PIII @ 672, V5 5500 at 1024 (2xFSAA) with only 16 cars in the race (demo). So what's the point of demanding 1024 on a V3, so you can get 12-15 fps with a PIII 700 using a full 43 car field? Let's relax and enjoy the friggin' game for what it delivers, instead of where it falls short. -- Joe Marques Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <1DEo5.17467$[email hidden]>, "Joe Marques" > <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> writes: > > >Don't call something unacceptable unless you truly know it's lazy/inept > >programming vs. a reasonable result due to large textures. Are programmers > >required to use small textures at all resolutions to support V3's forever or > >can they move on to support the new greatest cards? It's probably not as > >simple as you think and you certainly seem silly saying it's unacceptable > >unless you're sure it's unacceptable. Be reasonable. > > Well, if he thinks it's unacceptable, then it's a valid point - to him. Just > because someone disagrees doesn't negate his opinion... > > 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.