rec.autos.simulators

by **Matt Mye** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

[snip]

I've done the same thing, turning off verges, banks, hills and sky,
only smoke in the mirror and no texture in the mirror gives me and
estimate of 18fps, and running at 16.2fps results in very smooth
racing.

Matt Myers
---------------------------------------------
Expressing individualism is just plain wrong.

Crow T. Robot

by **Julian Lov** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

> Half an hour later, I came up with a solution. I kept the
> original settings and let my estimated frame rate be 18.2fps, but I
> lowered the actual frame rate down to 14fps. It worked.

That's the way to do it - just keep the actual fps about 2 lower than the
estimated fps, and you can keep processor occupancy at about 100% on most
tracks with all except sky and mirror textures on. Except Monaco, of
course :)

Julian
_____________________________________________________________________

University of Oxford

by **Per Eklu** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I compared the framerates in GP2 and the ones I got in Quake (which
were about the same on full detail in GP2). They show that they are a
new generation of highly demanding 3D games coming now. So GP2 isn't
slow, it's just more demanding than before. And I hope there will be
support for 3D cards, or Win95 Direct 3D.

Per Eklund

rec.autos.simulators

To those who say GP2 is slow on SVGA

To those who say GP2 is slow on SVGA

To those who say GP2 is slow on SVGA

To those who say GP2 is slow on SVGA