Is it just me or is F12K a bit of a let down ???
I am running it on a PIII 800 with a GeForce DDR card and am finding the
frame rates dissapointing to say the least.
I have tried it at 640 *480 , 800*600, 1024 * 768, none of which really set
the race sim world alight.
Turning the rear view mirrors off helps to an alarming degree !!
Also I find the sound pretty poor, other than that its OK :-))
Come on EA Sports, this could be better !!!
Cheers
Mike
<vbg>
Some folks in this group really like the game, but I think most will agree
that it is indeed a bit of a let down after all the hype. Anyway, be sure to
wear your flame proof underwear if you want to criticise F12K here... those
people seem to take it very personal (dunno why).
cheers,
Alex
>Is it just me or is F12K a bit of a let down ???
>Turning the rear view mirrors off helps to an alarming degree !!
>Also I find the sound pretty poor, other than that its OK :-))
>Come on EA Sports, this could be better !!!
Go to Blackhole Motorsports http://www.bhmotorsports.com/ and get
the new cars, AI patches, antispin patch, wet weather patch, ferrari
sound patch 2, track signage patches, turn off the mirrors and you get
a good preview of what the real races are. Imola was pretty darn good
and so was Brasil. Now it's on to Silverstone.
GPL spoiled me for the racing AI.
Jeff
The performance of this game seems very strange to say the least. All the
complaints seem to be coming from people with high end systems!
Granted, my first reaction was similar after loading the game up, banging
everything on full & stuttering down the pit lane in Melbourne like a
demented kangaroo.
With a bit of tweaking (Cockpit high, specular & environment mapping on, own
car high, other cars low, visible cars 6, no detail in mirrors, only
grandstands, bridges and, erm, something else (fences?) on, view distance
with TNT(1). Mirrors off gives me 3-4fps more (lots more on the grid). FFB
makes little or no difference.
All I can suggest is play with the settings until you get the balance
between looks & speed that suits you - the game below all this really is
good fun when you get into it.
My only (major) complaint would be how difficult it is to get a clean start
:-/
Maybe all this talk of poor framerates is subjective? When you're used to
60+fps anything less is a letdown.
When you're used to 25-30 the drop seems very minor.
As I'm picking up my GeForce (DDR - Yeah Baby!) this week could somebody
using one *who has tweaked the graphics to suit* please tell me what kind of
performance I should expect.
bod
(Trying hard not to take anything personally ; )
In some ways I suppose. But frankly, I didn't even know the game
was due out so it was a complete surprise. Most surprising is
that I didn;'t think it sucks like I thought it would.
Perhaps you are dissapointed because you have a P3-800 and
excected "better" framerates with everything maxed?
Numbers would be a big help actually. Go to www.fraps.com and
download fraps. Then run F1 2000 and then ALT-TAB and startup
fraps. Your current framerate will be in the upper left. As I have
said before I run 800x600 with most stuff on 22 opponants
and am getting 20-25fps in testing and 15-20 fps in races.
It would be great if you could try fraps to quantify what your
800mhz rig is giving you. I only have a P2-450 so I would
expect far better numbers.
After hours of using the game, I like the sound...
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
Please reply to: cisko[AT] ix [dot] netcom [dot] com
What hype? I just was an add in the latest issue of F1 Racing magazine
(great mag BTW). But that was about it.
Only when people make outright false statements. If you want to say
something ridiculous like imola is not accurate, then I would have
an issue with it.
If you (or anyone else) tried the game and didn't like it and return it
or whatever, I could really care less. Good for you.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
Please reply to: cisko[AT] ix [dot] netcom [dot] com
><vbg>
>I think most will agree
>that it is indeed a bit of a let down after all the hype
--
* rrev at mindspring dot com *
>>I am a bit mistified by the different results from this game. I have a PIII
>>450 Ge-Force DDR card and I am getting a range of 32 - 50 FPS at Suzuka.
>Try it with 22 opponents at the start of the race.
Oh while I think about it, I agree all those EA Sports
advertising boards round the track really add a touch of realism
to the game!
Chris
While it is not perfect it is better than any other modern F1 Sim to date,
that is of course my opinion only, but if fills the gap until GP3 arrives
Peter Cook
Seems a c400 with TNT1 go's quicker!
> > Hi there
> > Is it just me or is F12K a bit of a let down ???
> > I am running it on a PIII 800 with a GeForce DDR card and am finding the
> > frame rates dissapointing to say the least.
> > I have tried it at 640 *480 , 800*600, 1024 * 768, none of which really
> set
> > the race sim world alight.
> > Turning the rear view mirrors off helps to an alarming degree !!
> > Also I find the sound pretty poor, other than that its OK :-))
> > Come on EA Sports, this could be better !!!
> The performance of this game seems very strange to say the least. All the
> complaints seem to be coming from people with high end systems!
> Granted, my first reaction was similar after loading the game up, banging
> everything on full & stuttering down the pit lane in Melbourne like a
> demented kangaroo.
> With a bit of tweaking (Cockpit high, specular & environment mapping on,
own
> car high, other cars low, visible cars 6, no detail in mirrors, only
> grandstands, bridges and, erm, something else (fences?) on, view distance
416
> with TNT(1). Mirrors off gives me 3-4fps more (lots more on the grid). FFB
> makes little or no difference.
> All I can suggest is play with the settings until you get the balance
> between looks & speed that suits you - the game below all this really is
> good fun when you get into it.
> My only (major) complaint would be how difficult it is to get a clean
start
> :-/
> Maybe all this talk of poor framerates is subjective? When you're used to
> 60+fps anything less is a letdown.
> When you're used to 25-30 the drop seems very minor.
> As I'm picking up my GeForce (DDR - Yeah Baby!) this week could somebody
> using one *who has tweaked the graphics to suit* please tell me what kind
of
> performance I should expect.
> bod
> (Trying hard not to take anything personally ; )
This newsgroup clearly has a mixed opinion about the title.
Let's see how ISI/EA supports the title, and how the third party utilities
will help the software. At least it can't go down, but just have a better
experience out of it in the future.
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
There is one setting which turns the starts into a slide show when set at
"maximum", but when I turn it down just one notch to "high", it runs smooth.
It's the "Texture Mapping Detail" setting.
David G Fisher
> Oh while I think about it, I agree all those EA Sports
> advertising boards round the track really add a touch of realism
> to the game!
> Chris
> >I am running it on a PIII 800 with a GeForce DDR card and am
> finding the
> >frame rates dissapointing to say the least.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
