Ok, I just ordered a 166 with 16 megs of SDRAM and the video card with the 2
megs of edo. Am I gonna be able to run Nascar Racing 1 with SVGA and some
stuff turned on? Anyone have any idea if they're going to make Nascar 2 with
the same cruddy game engine as 1? I've played Indy on my current computer and
it runs much smoother than Nascar, I think. Well, anyone that has the Dell 166
with SD or knows a lot about it, your opinions or facts would make me quite
happy.
Chris
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Ok, I just ordered a 166 with 16 megs of SDRAM and the video card with the 2 >megs of edo. Am I gonna be able to run Nascar Racing 1 with SVGA and some >stuff turned on? Anyone have any idea if they're going to make Nascar 2 with >the same cruddy game engine as 1? I've played Indy on my current computer and >it runs much smoother than Nascar, I think. Well, anyone that has the Dell 166 >with SD or knows a lot about it, your opinions or facts would make me quite >happy. >ChrisI run it svga on a 150, with 32 and a 2 meg Trident video card. I think
it'll work on yours.
I take offense to this statement. I'm damned pleased with that 'cruddy' game
engine thank you. I think you'll find that 2 runs as good as or better than
ICR2... cruddy game engine and all.
Even with only an enhanced version of that same cruddy game engine?
Ed? Correct me if I'm wrong? Same engine? right?
--
=====================================================================
C H A R L O T T E M O T O R S P E E D W A Y
-------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// Mark (Difficult at Darlington) McCuen
// Caribou/IverSport #35 Hooters Monte Carlo
___/#D\__/ - __ Papyrus Closed Beta Team (8/95)
[_()_35_()] _ --- ID: markmc
// HCS/ProHCS
// http://www.katt.com/mm/mmcars.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
writes
Same or similar "game" engine, but the graphics engine was souped up - I
thought that's what he was referring to. The graphics engine in NASCAR
wasn't cruddy, but "choppy" is an adjective I would look closely at..!
:)
ICR2 was MUCH better graphics-speed wise
Cheers!
John
_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________
\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \
/______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews
Quoted text (11 lines)
>writes >>Even with only an enhanced version of that same cruddy game engine? >>Ed? Correct me if I'm wrong? Same engine? right? >Same or similar "game" engine, but the graphics engine was souped up - I >thought that's what he was referring to. The graphics engine in NASCAR >wasn't cruddy, but "choppy" is an adjective I would look closely at..! >:) >ICR2 was MUCH better graphics-speed wiseQuoted text (7 lines)
>I have a 166 with 16mb EDO, Matrox Mill with 2mb. I run NASCAR SVGA >with full detail (except grass and track texture) at 30fps. I run >ICR2 SVGA at full detail at 30 fps. Yes, the engine is better in ICR2 >but NASCAR is fine with a 166. BTW you must have a T2-wheel and >pedals to really enjoy the experience. Do not run under WIN95, exit >to DOS, run it from there. Also try Need for Speed -original ver- it >flies on a 166.I have a Packard Bell P-133 and I run everything except track texture and
grass. If I turn the track texture on, it get pretty choppy. I also
have noticed that IRC2 can run smoother with more graphics on.
Sean Higgins


































