GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

>There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 >when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in >VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other >than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very >smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in >full detail in vga ona a p166? First I think the mathematical model used in Quake is not the same that in GP2... :) More seriously, I tried the game on a computer in my office (P133) and it's very smooth in VGA with full details. I did not tried SVGA (I am afraid it requires 16M (not sure) while this comp. has 8) but it should be smooth with some textures turned off. Olivier

There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in full detail in vga ona a p166? Adrian -- \_,-*_/ Australia PGP Key: finger me or see my home page v GUS Page: http://www.student.adelaide.edu.au/~godfathr/gus/

Quoted text (29 lines)

> >spoke the following words of wisdom... > >>During this weekend I tried to overclock my machine to 166 MHZ (cbench > >>went from 181 to 200) but I had to give up because some apps exited > >>with GPF faults (Windoze) but GP2 worked flawlessly (sp?). I noticed > >Same here - P133 o/c to 180MHz, GP2 runs fine (nice and quick), Windows > >curls up its toes and dies, spluttering GPFs as it coughs it's last > >breath. The choice now is - go back to 133MHz and put up with poorer GP2 > >frame rates, or stay at 180MHz and never work again. Gee, let me > >think... > >regards, > >Paul >*********************************************************************** > >* Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian * > >* "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..." * >*********************************************************************** > You may be able to wire up the turbo switch to switch between 133MHz and > 180MHz if the change only requires a jumper on/off, or maybe a > combination of turbo switch and keylock? > -- > Mark Dyball

I've have the same trouble over clocking my cyrix 120 to 133 it works perfect in dos but win95 crashes because it is shit?. Anyway I'm getting a mere. 13 fps with every detail and texture on in SVGA. textures in the mirrors to!. But 25f+ in svga with most of the textures off. The pro is on doing 60-70% but I need to have it like that so my hotlaps go full speed. Jason.

Hi Adrian ! Well, I played GP2 during this weekend on my machine (P150+16MB RAM + ET4000 PCI 2MB) and I have to say I had to lower some details to get a good frame rate. In SVGA mode, I had to exclude sky textures, track textures (I never liked 'em even in VGA), grass & sand trap textures and I had to reduce the track details (buildings, objects, stands and so on) down to 1 or 2 (there are 4 levels available) to get a good (at least for me) frame rate. This however depends on the track you're racing on; as an example, Monaco is AWESOME (again) but it's a CPU killer. If you want to race on it you have to reduce external details to minimum or race it in VGA mode which, after all, is not that bad. You can however use the 'O' key to get the processor occupancy depicted on the screen (and I think this feature will be referred very often in this newsgroup). During this weekend I tried to overclock my machine to 166 MHZ (cbench went from 181 to 200) but I had to give up because some apps exited with GPF faults (Windoze) but GP2 worked flawlessly (sp?). I noticed an improvement in frame rate (I was able to rise the detail level) but replays (as an example) raised P.O (proc. occupancy) even to 200/300% especially when there were a lot of machines on the track. I think that (currently) even a P200 is unable to get this game running at >20fps in SVGA with all the details turned on. I think that MPS did a great mistake by not making use of VESA 2.0 extensions (like the ones provided by UNIVBE o SDD52) because this feature could be very useful since GP2 is a 32 bit MS-DOS app which makes use of the so called 32bit MS-DOS extenders widely used by programs like Quake, DN3D and ICR2. I noticed a sensible improvement when I run Quake (shareware) with SDD52 and a friend of mine reported that he's got good results with ICR2 and DN3D. Perhaps we'll have to wait for a DirectX Win95 version or for a specific version engineered for 3D gfx cards support. Best, Roberto -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Strhold Sistemi EDP Reggio Emilia ITALY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Acca', nisciuno e' fess ! (TOM - the red cat, Silvester's friend) ---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:17:18 +0200, Lars Birkemose

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 >> when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in >> VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other >> than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very >> smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in >> full detail in vga ona a p166? >First of all, because GP2 has to calculate an enormous amount of data compared to Quake. >You have 26 cars running, all physics must be calculated, the bouncing around act. >Furthermore the graphics contain much more details and calculating than ex. Quake. >Quake has some 3D calculations, and a lot of texture, GP2 has A LOT of 3D calculations and >A LOT of texture. >It is much more simple to calculate a lot of plain surfaces, than a lot of small details, >some hidden behind others. >My first impression was "to slow", but I must admit, the amount of data being >calculated and moved is impressive.. >LB

No way!!! Someone compared GP2 to Quake? Apples and oranges, my friends! That's amazing. Hey, wait, a Quake engine for GP2? Hmm..... Kyle

> There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 > when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in > VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other > than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very > smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in > full detail in vga ona a p166? First of all, because GP2 has to calculate an enormous amount of data compared to Quake. You have 26 cars running, all physics must be calculated, the bouncing around act. Furthermore the graphics contain much more details and calculating than ex. Quake. Quake has some 3D calculations, and a lot of texture, GP2 has A LOT of 3D calculations and A LOT of texture. It is much more simple to calculate a lot of plain surfaces, than a lot of small details, some hidden behind others. My first impression was "to slow", but I must admit, the amount of data being calculated and moved is impressive.. LB

writes I find GP2 even slows down on a P-Pro 200 (Natoma/Fastvid/etc). It is still incapable of maintaining 25fps starting from 26th at Monaco, and until we have a PC that can do that without slowdown we can't say there is a PC to "properly" run GP2. One thing they really missed out was the implementation of VESA2 support, and allowing us to run oddball graphics modes like 360x400 and things like that. It may be due to the way objects are scaled in Duke and Quake which allows that, but Quake is prerendered and allows this, so it would be good to have the option if it was possible. 360x400 is noticably quicker than 640x480, and with little discernable loss in image quality. It would also allow us to play in 1024x768 in a few years.... :) 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 (25 lines)

> I think that (currently) even a P200 is unable to get this game > running at >20fps in SVGA with all the details turned on. > I think that MPS did a great mistake by not making use of VESA 2.0 > extensions (like the ones provided by UNIVBE o SDD52) because this > feature could be very useful since GP2 is a 32 bit MS-DOS app which makes > use of the so called 32bit MS-DOS extenders widely used by programs > like Quake, DN3D and ICR2. I noticed a sensible improvement when I > run Quake (shareware) with SDD52 and a friend of mine reported that > he's got good results with ICR2 and DN3D. > Perhaps we'll have to wait for a DirectX Win95 version or for a > specific version engineered for 3D gfx cards support. > Best, > Roberto > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Strhold Sistemi EDP > Reggio Emilia ITALY > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Acca', nisciuno e' fess ! > (TOM - the red cat, Silvester's friend) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the balance of your note. It would appear that the graphics load is very heavy on most machines. For the record, GP2 runs at the highest frame rate with full detail on, on a P6 200, with a 4 meg video card. So there is a machine that can do it as published. I do agree, as stated, that there should be some improvement on the matter, as if only the top end machines can run it full detail, why have the full detail then. JEB

spoke the following words of wisdom... Same here - P133 o/c to 180MHz, GP2 runs fine (nice and quick), Windows curls up its toes and dies, spluttering GPFs as it coughs it's last breath. The choice now is - go back to 133MHz and put up with poorer GP2 frame rates, or stay at 180MHz and never work again. Gee, let me think... regards, Paul *********************************************************************** * Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian * * "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..." * ***********************************************************************

No No... A motorized, Mercedes powered scateboard in Quake, featuring texture mapped blondes in the hallways, THATS what we would like to see :-|| LB

> I find GP2 even slows down on a P-Pro 200 (Natoma/Fastvid/etc). It is > still incapable of maintaining 25fps starting from 26th at Monaco, and > until we have a PC that can do that without slowdown we can't say there > is a PC to "properly" run GP2. John and others! Yesterday I was committed to squeeze the best possible frame rate out of GP2 and I have experimented a lot with it. I used to have the slowdown during accidents and at times when smoke appeared on my P133, but now it's GONE! Here's the little "trick" I found to work all the time: in the graphics option menu set the target frame rate to something 2.0 (or more) lower than the projected (calculated) frame rate. For example, on my machine with most SVGA textures on, no mirror textures and all objects drawn the projected (calculated) frame rate that GP2 gives me is 17.0. If I set my target frame rate to 17.0, I will see the usual slowdown/ crawling machine effects. However, if I set the target frame rate to 15.0 (without changing anything else), there are no slowdowns and the game handles much better (smoother graphics, more responsive) !!! I have no idea why this is so, but it does work for me. Try it out and let me my P133/32MB EDO RAM/Matrox w/ 4MB WRAM machine has a processor occupancy of 100-110% on Hockenheim, and it looks darn good!) _____________________________________________________________________________ LaLa (Imre Olajos, Jr.) _/ean /\/\ichel _/arre and -=\/=- angelis fan WWW : http://homepage.interaccess.com/~lala | | ~~~ []/\() ~~~~~~~~~~ "Music should be free." /Vangelis/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***y good question that - also why does ICR II run so well in svga? Rob

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:49:03 -0500, "Imre Olajos, Jr."

Quoted text (19 lines)

>Yesterday I was committed to squeeze the best possible frame rate out of GP2 >and I have experimented a lot with it. I used to have the slowdown during >accidents and at times when smoke appeared on my P133, but now it's GONE! >Here's the little "trick" I found to work all the time: in the graphics >option menu set the target frame rate to something 2.0 (or more) lower than >the projected (calculated) frame rate. >For example, on my machine with most SVGA textures on, no mirror textures and >all objects drawn the projected (calculated) frame rate that GP2 gives me is >17.0. If I set my target frame rate to 17.0, I will see the usual slowdown/ >crawling machine effects. However, if I set the target frame rate to 15.0 >(without changing anything else), there are no slowdowns and the game handles >much better (smoother graphics, more responsive) !!! >I have no idea why this is so, but it does work for me. Try it out and let me >my P133/32MB EDO RAM/Matrox w/ 4MB WRAM machine has a processor occupancy of >100-110% on Hockenheim, and it looks darn good!)

I think the explanation goes like this: 25fps means each frame is displayed 1/25sec. = 0.04sec. on the screen. 15fps means each frame is displayed 1/15sec = 0.07sec. on the screen. An arbitrary frame takes for example 0.06 seconds to calculate on your computer. Therefore with 25fps the computer has to slow down because you only reserved 0.04sec. to calculate and display that frame. But with 15fps your computer has 0.07sec. to do the job, and therefore it can relax for a whole 0.01sec. So with a lower framerate you are simply reserving more time to calculate and display each frame, and therefore you will not experiences so many SLOWDOWNS in the game. (In the sense of playability/gameplay I suppose this is a sort of "smoothness") But you are not getting more SMOOTHNESS (in terms of the following definition) with a lower framerate - an example: You are travelling with 83 meters/second (about 300 km/h). Observe a sign on the trackside: 1) with 25fps (which was equal to 0.04sec/frame): then between 2 frames, the sign has moved 0.04 x 83 = 3.3 meters. 2) with 15fps (which was equal to 0.07sec/frame): then between 2 frames, the sign has moved 0.07 x 83 = 5.8 meters. In other words, the sign is not drawn in so many frames with a low framerate as with a high framerate, and therefore is the movement not as smooth. However, 15fps can look smooth - for instance many cartoons are drawn with only 12fps and still looks smooth, but not as smooth as Disney's 25fps though. That's it, in my view anyway - do correct me if i'm wrong or unclear on something. -- Lennart Gr?nlund http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

I have a P5-150 that can run Quake in 640x480 at an average of 17fps. Since generally speeking 20fps is considered the threshold where animation appears smooth I think a well tuned 166 should be quite smooth at the same.

Quoted text (20 lines)

>spoke the following words of wisdom... >>During this weekend I tried to overclock my machine to 166 MHZ (cbench >>went from 181 to 200) but I had to give up because some apps exited >>with GPF faults (Windoze) but GP2 worked flawlessly (sp?). I noticed >Same here - P133 o/c to 180MHz, GP2 runs fine (nice and quick), Windows >curls up its toes and dies, spluttering GPFs as it coughs it's last >breath. The choice now is - go back to 133MHz and put up with poorer GP2 >frame rates, or stay at 180MHz and never work again. Gee, let me >think... >regards, >Paul >*********************************************************************** >* Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian * >* "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..." * >***********************************************************************

You may be able to wire up the turbo switch to switch between 133MHz and 180MHz if the change only requires a jumper on/off, or maybe a combination of turbo switch and keylock? -- Mark Dyball

Simple - Geoff Crammond & co. are not John Romero & Co. when it comes to programming. IMHO m

Quoted text (16 lines)

> There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 > when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in > VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other > than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very > smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in > full detail in vga ona a p166? > Adrian > -- > \_,-*_/ Australia PGP Key: finger me or see my home page > v > GUS Page: [link lost in import: /~godfathr/gus/]

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 >>when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in >>VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other >>than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very >>smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in >>full detail in vga ona a p166? >>Adrian >P166 can't run 640x480 Quake smooth, period. >--KCI

I guess that depends on the P166 and your definition of smooth, On my P166 512k pipeline-cache Triton II, 32MB EDO Matrox Millineum 2MB I play Quake at 640x480 all the time and to me it is smooth. GP2 is smooth for me at SVGA with no sky and a few mirror textures off. Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

Bottom line though is I can see the tunnel at Monoco using the method of lowering the desired framerate and still have the sim seem like its going at racing speeds. Fairly cool at least until I get a P-400 <G> Its all an illusion anyways. Pierre

Quoted text (12 lines)

>In other words, the sign is not drawn in so many frames with a low >framerate as with a high framerate, and therefore is the movement not >as smooth. >However, 15fps can look smooth - for instance many cartoons are drawn >with only 12fps and still looks smooth, but not as smooth as Disney's >25fps though. >That's it, in my view anyway - do correct me if i'm wrong or unclear >on something. >-- >Lennart Gr?nlund >http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

Quoted text (26 lines)

> writes > >I agree with the balance of your note. It would appear that the graphics > >load is very heavy on most machines. For the record, GP2 runs at the > >highest frame rate with full detail on, on a P6 200, with a 4 meg video > >card. So there is a machine that can do it as published. > >I do agree, as stated, that there should be some improvement on the > >matter, as if only the top end machines can run it full detail, why > >have the full detail then. > I find GP2 even slows down on a P-Pro 200 (Natoma/Fastvid/etc). It is > still incapable of maintaining 25fps starting from 26th at Monaco, and > until we have a PC that can do that without slowdown we can't say there > is a PC to "properly" run GP2. > One thing they really missed out was the implementation of VESA2 > support, and allowing us to run oddball graphics modes like 360x400 and > things like that. It may be due to the way objects are scaled in Duke > and Quake which allows that, but Quake is prerendered and allows this, > so it would be good to have the option if it was possible. 360x400 is > noticably quicker than 640x480, and with little discernable loss in > image quality. > It would also allow us to play in 1024x768 in a few years.... :) > Cheers! > John

I've got a P166 with 4Mb Matrox + 32Mb RAm and I have to turn most of the options off to get 23.5fps for a race (SVGA). I turned off sky textures, hill textures and some other textures I can't remember. I only kept 3 mirror textures and ALL DETAILS. To play the game at its fullest potential would be, frankly impossible at this moment .(even Pentium 200 just released couple weeks ago is not good enough or Pentium Pro for that matter) I think GP2 is a case of not-so-good programming(hasty) and lack of planning. True, the graphics are fantastic and blows ICR2 away (personally, I think GP2 is much better than ICR2) in its contents , graphics, effects etc. (GP2 even have (fake) reflections of sun and cloud on the cars.) but There is no way you can play this with full detail in SVGA. What's the point of including superb effects that can't be turned on even if you have the best machine. It is just like filling up F1 cars with BP petrol. And nobody is going to buy GP2 a year or two later (when faster processors come out) by then it would be superseeded by other "better" F1 sims. I think that's why on the back of the Box (Euro version) it only mention "VGA graphics, full texture mapping abd light-sourcing" and nothing about SVGA except on the specs sticker. That's why release date of GP2 is contantly put back - they could get SVGA to work fast enough. ( remember the rumour in the beginiing of the year that Microprose is going to s***the whole project and GC is going to get fired?) GP2 - a typical monkey and a jar of candies story. * P.S. even with all the things I've said above, it is still the best , I like it alot. It is worth selling your sister's kidney machine, (hell, sell your sister) to buy GP2 * --Ray

Quoted text (60 lines)

>On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:49:03 -0500, "Imre Olajos, Jr." >>Yesterday I was committed to squeeze the best possible frame rate out of GP2 >>and I have experimented a lot with it. I used to have the slowdown during >>accidents and at times when smoke appeared on my P133, but now it's GONE! >>Here's the little "trick" I found to work all the time: in the graphics >>option menu set the target frame rate to something 2.0 (or more) lower than >>the projected (calculated) frame rate. >>For example, on my machine with most SVGA textures on, no mirror textures and >>all objects drawn the projected (calculated) frame rate that GP2 gives me is >>17.0. If I set my target frame rate to 17.0, I will see the usual slowdown/ >>crawling machine effects. However, if I set the target frame rate to 15.0 >>(without changing anything else), there are no slowdowns and the game handles >>much better (smoother graphics, more responsive) !!! >>I have no idea why this is so, but it does work for me. Try it out and let me >>my P133/32MB EDO RAM/Matrox w/ 4MB WRAM machine has a processor occupancy of >>100-110% on Hockenheim, and it looks darn good!) >I think the explanation goes like this: >25fps means each frame is displayed 1/25sec. = 0.04sec. on the screen. >15fps means each frame is displayed 1/15sec = 0.07sec. on the screen. >An arbitrary frame takes for example 0.06 seconds to calculate on your >computer. Therefore with 25fps the computer has to slow down because >you only reserved 0.04sec. to calculate and display that frame. But >with 15fps your computer has 0.07sec. to do the job, and therefore it >can relax for a whole 0.01sec. >So with a lower framerate you are simply reserving more time to >calculate and display each frame, and therefore you will not >experiences so many SLOWDOWNS in the game. (In the sense of >playability/gameplay I suppose this is a sort of "smoothness") >But you are not getting more SMOOTHNESS (in terms of the following >definition) with a lower framerate - an example: >You are travelling with 83 meters/second (about 300 km/h). Observe a >sign on the trackside: >1) with 25fps (which was equal to 0.04sec/frame): >then between 2 frames, the sign has moved 0.04 x 83 = 3.3 meters. >2) with 15fps (which was equal to 0.07sec/frame): >then between 2 frames, the sign has moved 0.07 x 83 = 5.8 meters. >In other words, the sign is not drawn in so many frames with a low >framerate as with a high framerate, and therefore is the movement not >as smooth. >However, 15fps can look smooth - for instance many cartoons are drawn >with only 12fps and still looks smooth, but not as smooth as Disney's >25fps though. >That's it, in my view anyway - do correct me if i'm wrong or unclear >on something.

What you say does sound correct although I am not sure if your 2) is right, I think it might be the case that game still only moves the sign 3.3 metres at 15fps. If I am right and my logic is correct, then a lap at 25fps with a constant 100% occupancy would take less real time than a lap at 15fps with a constant occupancy of 100% The reason I suspect this is because at 15fps the game seems to take longer to travel the same distance than at 25fps (from my eyes anyway) and consequently for GP1 and GP2 to give a better perception of speed one needs higher framerates. The upside is that you aren't really missing anything (visually) and can control your car better at lower framerates with respect to traffic. It was generally accepted that with GP1 the game would have finer control at 25fps over 15fps because it would process your input more. With Papyrus Sims you appear to travel the same distance independant of framerate, with the bonus of higher framerates being smoother graphics. So I think your 1) and 2) would be correct for their sims. Now with respect to GP2 and 15fps appearing smoother, I agree with you fully. I think we could say its more a case of travelling a distance at a constant speed than a fast/slow/fast as is seen at 25fps and > 100% rather than a "blink less" Papyrus type smoothness. Assuming I am correct about GP2 and it using 3.3 for both 25 and 15; If the occupancy is often above 100% GP2 might draw 25 frames in 1 sec, then it might take 2 secs to draw 25 frames. The result is that you have travelled 83 metres in 1 sec, then 83 metres in 2 secs e.g 55 metres per second then 28 metres the next. At 15fps you have only travelled 49.5 metres in 1 sec, but you will travel at this speed every second. Then of course we could also talk about scale, I don't think Geoff Crammond has the scale correct. If a sign is 3 car lengths long, then the sign should travel past in the same proportion to your car. Take a look at the ESSO signs at SAN MARINO to see what I mean. Now for the standard disclaimer, I really love GP1 and now GP2 and think they are great and recommend people buy GP2. I overlook their failings and have loads of fun playing them. So there you have my views too, I am open minded and if you or anyone has a different view lets hear them, after all this is a group for discussion. Regards, David Greene >Lennart Gr?nlund >http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 >>when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in >>VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other >>than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very >>smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in >>full detail in vga ona a p166? >>Adrian >***y good question that - also why does ICR II run so well in svga? >Rob

Simply because GP2 has to do more calculations to each frame. In my opinion the graphics detail level in GP2 is superior to that of ICR2. I think GP2 has the most advanced light-sourcing effect seen in any PC-game. But dont think that graphics calculations is the only time consuming factor. The graphics detail in games like DOOM actually indicates how much graphics you can do, when artificial intelligence and real world physics is left on a minimum. The code which handles artificial intelligense and real world physics in GP2 has to be very comprehensive. -- Lennart Gr?nlund http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

I thought the same thing until I set the target framerate around 2 frames a sec lower than the estimated framerate. Poof instant full graphics and race like speed. Very nice and I would like to thank the poster who pointed this out. Thank you. GP2 is all hoped it would be now. I have a 166mhz 16mbEDO60ns, 256k Pipelined, with a Hercules 64/Video. Pierre PS I turn off the smoke,(looks hokey to me) the sky (oh well) and mirror textures.

?I've got a P166 with 4Mb Matrox + 32Mb RAm and I have to turn ?most of the options off to get 23.5fps for a race (SVGA). I turned off ?sky textures, hill textures and some other textures I can't remember. I ?only kept 3 mirror textures and ALL DETAILS. To play the game at its ?fullest potential would be, frankly impossible at this moment .(even ?Pentium 200 just released couple weeks ago is not good enough or ?Pentium Pro for that matter) ? ?I think GP2 is a case of not-so-good programming(hasty) and lack of ?planning. <snip> You may be getting bad performance for a variety of reasons. On my Gateway P133, 2MB Matrox, and 16MB Ram, I have most of the textures *on*, full detail, and it's fast and smooth, with the processor occupancy hardly ever hitting 100% on the vast majority of tracks. FPS are often a matter of taste, and different computers can vary widely in their power (see Packard Bell), but I'd have to say that from where I stand, the programming was very well done. And with about 3 years in the making, it *certainly* wasn't "hasty." Just a different perspective... --Evan -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- - = Internet Top 100 Video Games Charts ? = - New U.S. mirror! http://www.tiac.net/users/top100/vidgames.html ***Just e-mail me for the latest Top 100 Chart!***

>There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2 >when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in >VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other >than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very >smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in >full detail in vga ona a p166? Because Quake is a simple smash and hit game and F1GP2 is a real simulator with more things doing in the background than Quake ever will!

[some snipped] Hmm, well the above paragraph has proven to be wrong. Replaying a hotlap at 15fps and 25fps showed no difference in real time in VGA anyway. Sorry I should have tested this prior to my last message and saved us all some time and bandwidth. Live and Learn, I'll get there eventually. Now I have to admit that your 1) and 2) is probably correct with GP2 as well. Since my hypothesis was wrong, I'm not sure what is going on between 25fps and 15fps all I know is that at 15fps ICR2 looks like you are travelling faster, but GP2 appears smoother but slower. If they both used the same method wouldn't they both look the same?? The difference between 15 and 25 is a bit of a problem for me cause in SVGA my hardware can't handle 25fps - 18fps with good textures and really can only do 15fps which looks a bit too slow for me to really think I am travelling at F1 type speeds. As I said before, I still love GP2 anyway. Regards, David Greene

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Here's the little "trick" I found to work all the time: in the graphics >option menu set the target frame rate to something 2.0 (or more) lower than >the projected (calculated) frame rate. >For example, on my machine with most SVGA textures on, no mirror textures and >all objects drawn the projected (calculated) frame rate that GP2 gives me is >17.0. If I set my target frame rate to 17.0, I will see the usual slowdown/ >crawling machine effects. However, if I set the target frame rate to 15.0 >(without changing anything else), there are no slowdowns and the game handles >much better (smoother graphics, more responsive) !!! >I have no idea why this is so, but it does work for me. Try it out and let me >my P133/32MB EDO RAM/Matrox w/ 4MB WRAM machine has a processor occupancy of >100-110% on Hockenheim, and it looks darn good!)

Imre, Just to consolidate your post, I've found the same method gets fairly good results for me as well. Similar PC ie: iP133/32Mb FP DRAM although without the (I wish:^) Matrox, instead S3 764 with 2Mb 60ns DRAM. Getting suggested 16FPS and 287 (clean) in GP2 LOG:ON. I have sky texture off and have also subsequently turned off smoke, and 70% of the mirror textures. I achieve similar average CPU occupancy results, although my initial impressions of 'eyeball smooth' at an 15fps setting have changed in full race due to the heavy close traffic. It's still 'smooth', but not quite as fast a refresh as I'd prefer & I'd like just a bit more grunt for the 'up close' multi-vehicle encounters. Regards, --- Cogito Ergo Sum --- * * Fidonet: (temporarily unavailable) * Keiron Rado, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia *

Quoted text (7 lines)

> So with a lower framerate you are simply reserving more time to > calculate and display each frame, and therefore you will not > experiences so many SLOWDOWNS in the game. (In the sense of > playability/gameplay I suppose this is a sort of "smoothness") > But you are not getting more SMOOTHNESS (in terms of the following > definition) with a lower framerate

Yeah, the framerate is not so smooth this way, but the game is 10 times more playable. It actually feels like your getting more fps, simply because the game is moving at the correct speed, and not crawling along. Making it try to draw 22 fps makes it feel like your driving a Lada, but at 15 fps you really get the rush of rounding the corners at Monza at 120 mph. Julian _____________________________________________________________________ University of Oxford

>Bottom line though is I can see the tunnel at Monoco using the method >of lowering the desired framerate and still have the sim seem like its >going at racing speeds. I fully agree, the issue of my post was just an attempt to explain why it works. ..... but then SH(/MPS?) is *just-about* to release GP3 with 24bit colours and Sorround sound..... :-) -- Lennart Gr?nlund http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

In my view (imagination?), both games seems reasonably equal in terms of motion at about 15fps and no CPU overload. I'm convinced that they do not use the same method; on overload GP2 slows time and ICR2 drops graphics/frames. I can only recommend that you balance your setup toward less texture and more frame rates, OR plays in VGA which is much better than SVGA! Well, as a P-100 owner I NEED to believe that...... :-) -- Lennart Gr?nlund http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

And I thank you for the time. Me Im just a Southern Boy just give me the keys and some gas and Im happy.<VBG> Oh sure spoil my dream. hehe I hope Schmacher bumps you off in the last corner of a brilliant Qualifying attempt.<VBG> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >-- >Lennart Gr?nlund >http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

I've decided on VGA at 21.3 fps with most graphics on. This is much better as monaco is quite fun now. It took about 5 mins for VGA to start looking good. To see the smoke and flames pouring out of Alesi's Ferrari without the game coming to a standstill was enough compensation. Regards, David Greene >-- >Lennart Gr?nlund >http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

But then the better F1 sims won't run with full features on the hardware which will be available at that time, just like GP2 today. Note that the same was true when GP1, ICR1 were released when most people use either 386 or 486-25(SX). -- Woody Jin

I just wish there was more control to what is displayed and not. It also seems strange that turning of "track-side" does not show an increase in estimated frame-rate. This is alot of detail, but there doesn't seem to be a performance increase when it's turned off. I know that there isn't much "track detail", but looking at the performance hit in ICRx & NASCAR with track detail on, it would be nice to turn it off in GP2. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What I would really like would be to reduce the amount of detail on those blasted trees! Yes, they look superb, but whilst I can get a really good frame rate at Silverstone, etc by turning off trackside textures, I have to turn trackside objects all the way down to low at Monza & Hockenheim just to get rid of all that foliage. And don't talk to me about squirrels <g> Richard