>Rubbish!
>I can run GP2 with all detail on (including sky) on a PII 450 and the only
>tracks that slow down at all are those done by third-party fans.
Does this include that eternal GP2 Hog, Monaco? :)
Z.
Please remove my_pants when replying.
>People who inform themselves via specialist media, web and usenet will be
>the minority of the total number of people buying GP3. My guess is at least
>80% of sales will come via ads in lifestyle magazines/TV and from displays
>in mainstream stores.
>Jan.
Long story short(g), I use the newsgroups now. I didn't before.
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Own Grand Prix Legends? http://www.vroc.net
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
> >Rubbish!
> >I can run GP2 with all detail on (including sky) on a PII 450 and the
only
> >tracks that slow down at all are those done by third-party fans.
> (haven't tried it... but...)
> Does this include that eternal GP2 Hog, Monaco? :)
> Z.
> Please remove my_pants when replying.
><snip>
>> Add the slomo problems to that, and I still deeply regret that I
>> bought GP2...
>> Andre
>Wow, I'm astounded by that comment....I have quite a few regrets regarding
>software purchases I have made over the years, but GP2 is certainly not one
>of them. It still sits on my hdd after some 5 or so years and with all the
>3rd party addons available I will still be playing it for some time
>yet...well at least the few weeks....Roll on GP3 !
>Cheers Phil
Andre
Yes I did. Turned down the graphics. Enjoyed the playability.
As you said: "playability is ESSENTIAL", graphics only "fun".
The playability was there, the higher detail graphics levels were a
bonus.
With the exception of Monaco, I'm sure most run very adequately full
detail on something like a PII-350. And with "a lot" of detail it ran
ok on p166-p200 (with typical framerates of '96). Don't judge the
whole game based on Monaco.
Aren't you a just a little bit naive? "Don Quixote" battling against
all the marketing departments of the world... Good luck.
At least the playability ("the playability is ESSENTIAL" etc...)was
there, unlike some other recent resource hogs that I will not name.
Do you try to run Quake III in 32bit 1920*1600 on your lousy system
because they made it possible to scale with hardware?
For full-detail graphics, not for the "playability" part.
Very convenient. Smart. I guess some people are good at finding
reasons to act wrong without feeling guilty <G>
Hmmmmmm.. I'm not surprised really.....
JoH
<Snip>
JoH, I understand your points, and when I bought the game I didn't
expect that I could run it in SVGA with all details on. But I could
not run it on my P133 in SVGA with allmost all the details off, the
slowmo problems were terrible.
VGA really was outdated when GP2 was released, and the bad fps was a
huge dissappointment after all the beautiful screenshots.
The 'slowmo' problem was and still is a ridiculous solution. For me,
it made the game unplayable and took away all sense of speed.
I allmost got a heart attack when the same slowmo problem appeared in
GPL 1.1, thank God they fixed that with 1.2!
Andre
>>YES!
>>If GP3 runs as bad on my system as GP2 did when it was released (and I had a
>>high performance PC then!) Mr Crammond and friend won't get any money from
>>me!
>>Playability is ESSENTIAL.
>>Graphics are fun.
>Exactly.
You say "A", and act "B"; GP2 always had the "essential", and got more
and more graphics through time.
JoH
This is getting confusing :)
Graphics are not important, but I did expect GP2 to run in SVGA, even
with most details off. In SVGA it was completely unplayable.
But, as I allready said, the biggest problem for me was the slowmo
problem. I could not believe it when I found out that Geoff used such
a stupid solution.
Andre
>>The playability was there, the higher detail graphics levels were a
>>bonus.
>>>OF COURSE GP2 can run with all graphic detail on a P3-600.
>>>But still... only just.
>>With the exception of Monaco, I'm sure most run very adequately full
>>detail on something like a PII-350. And with "a lot" of detail it ran
>>ok on p166-p200 (with typical framerates of '96). Don't judge the
>>whole game based on Monaco.
>>>> You know, some people understood that they could turn down the
>>>> graphics without losing the playability.
><Snip>
>JoH, I understand your points, and when I bought the game I didn't
>expect that I could run it in SVGA with all details on. But I could
>not run it on my P133 in SVGA with allmost all the details off, the
>slowmo problems were terrible.
>VGA really was outdated when GP2 was released, and the bad fps was a
>huge dissappointment after all the beautiful screenshots.
>The 'slowmo' problem was and still is a ridiculous solution. For me,
>it made the game unplayable and took away all sense of speed.
It's just that GP2 is just about the worst example to illustrate that
"graphics mean nothing and playability is all"
JoH
>>>>Playability is ESSENTIAL.
>>>>Graphics are fun.
>>>Exactly.
>>I find this quite amazing.....
>>You say "A", and act "B"; GP2 always had the "essential", and got more
>>and more graphics through time.
>This is getting confusing :)
>Graphics are not important, but I did expect GP2 to run in SVGA, even
>with most details off. In SVGA it was completely unplayable.
>But, as I allready said, the biggest problem for me was the slowmo
>problem. I could not believe it when I found out that Geoff used such
>a stupid solution.
But surely there was a way to make it playable in SVGA on a P133. You
must have had a below-average P133 then :-) Of course, not talking
about +20 fs here. 16 was quite good at the time. Not exceptional, but
surely tolerable in '96.
JoH
I concur with that statement. I've tried the GPL demo many times and I have
a very hard time completing a lap without going into the grass or what not.
This game is extremely difficult. That is why I have not purchased it. Maybe
someday if I see it in a bargain bin, I'll pick it up. But for now, I can't
justify paying $50-60 for this game based on the demo. Papyrus IMO has
always been a little guilty of not translating loss of grip. I remember
having to be oh so gentle in road courses in ICR2 (and the original for that
matter!) because I could never tell when I was at the limit. Even though GP2
ran like a dog when it first came out (hell, I bought a Pentium Pro 200
thinking it would run better) it was always far more accessible to the
average sim racer. By that, I mean people who like the simulation of an F1
season or race without being constantly frustrated.
Regardless, based on the playability of World Circuit (GP1 across the pond)
and GP2 I will buy GP3. Although I will pick up the warez if it's available
before GP3 arrives in North America.
Michael M
I know for a fact that you speak for a big portion of simracing fans Andre.
Thanks for saying what others fear to...
...apart for that GP2 bashing. How can you not like it? I had fun with it
on my old Pentium 100 back in the days, in VGA with most of the graphics
eliminated. But it was still an incredible feeling. I have yet to see
(excluding GPL) that same sense of "being in a real F1 car". ;-)
--
-- 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.
Grand Prix 2 is the best VGA game ever made. The SVGA mode for me was just
a gift for 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.
GP2 can run at 25fps with all details on with a 485 DX2 in SVGA. Of course,
it will take you 30minutes just to make a lap.
--
-- 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.
How can you be so sure Bruce? The Internet has the power for that even
today. Why do you think the movie BattleField Earth or Batman&Robin have
failed at the box-office? One of the reason was the backslash on the net.
Or how can you understand the success of the Blair Witch project, with
almost only internet marketing? Same goes for games, I do think it can
apply to the same situation. The internet (Usenet in this case, but
technically this has more wisdom than any other "sectors" of the net) has
the power to effect significantly sales for any type of Entertainment.
--
-- 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.
