rec.autos.simulators

by **Paul Jage** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:01:10

Been playing Nascar Heat, here in London and greatly enjoying it, so I
thought I would also buy Nascar 4. Received the latter today and thought I'd
share a Brit's initial view of it with you.

I'd read so many posts about N4's shortcomings, so I was prepared for the
worst (although with a Athlon 900, 256mb ram and V5500 card I thought I was
in pretty good shape for this game). To cut to the chase, I am
disappointed, but not with the depth of the game. I am far to superficial
for that, but with the graphics. Problems with AI, and other assorted
bugs/problems that have been discussed in this NG can be overcome with
patches. Its the look of the 'sim' that I dislike. Having to play around
with the graphics settings for hours just to get a frame rate in the 20's is
poor going. For me, so much of the immersion factor is the 'look of things'
as I race around the track from the***pit. I can live with the 800x600 res
(I can't remember the last time I had to use that in a game) but I am
resorting to turning down so many of the detail sliders, and reducing the
number of cars to 30 or so (or just drawing 30 of the 43). NH is on max
setting for all the graphics, which just makes it feel more 'alive'. I'm not
even sure that I agree with those who call NH's physics 'arcade' compared to
N4. Both seem to have their own merits. Perhaps my problem is that I've
suddenly realised that my computer is no longer cutting edge for such
companies as Papy and I can't enjoy N4 in all its graphical splendour. Maybe
because of this I am finding NH more 'fun' than N4.

I'm a shallow fellow, I admit it, but each to their own, and I'm not looking
to start a flame war; its just my humble opinion.

PJ

by **Kevin Anderso** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:01:59

If you had one of the higher end Geforces, it would be different for you. I
use a 64 meg Geforce Ultra with only an Athalon 600. I get 50 fps with
everything on and turned up. NH graphics are smoother but I am happy with
what I see.

--
Kevin Anderson

by **Sideshow Bo** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:31:29

>For me, so much of the immersion factor is the 'look of things'
>as I race around the track from the***pit.

>I'm a shallow fellow, I admit it, but each to their own, and I'm not
looking
>to start a flame war; its just my humble opinion.

I hear you... I bought CMR2.0 this past weekend and was happy with it.
Last night I downloaded a newer video driver and undid a few questionable
performance tweaks I'd made and the frame rate jumped by about 10-20fps.

It's a whole new game now because everything seems to happen quicker and I
can react quicker to the car's movement.

When you have to turn off graphics options and drop the resolution to get a
reasonable frame rate then it isn't a sim anymore - it's an arcade game.
IMO, a sim has at least 1024X768 resolution, dash/cockpit, trackside
objects, trees, clouds, reflections and textures and more.

Dale.

by **edb** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:45:22

I think your main bottleneck is your video card. i have a PIII 700 with a
Gefroce (bone stock, nonoverclocked Geforce 256) and 256 MB of RAM. I run
1100 something by 900 something in 32 bit (size and depth of my desktop)
with everything but dust and smoke (frame killers, no, frame ***ers
online) and when running an online race on my remote dedicated server (AMD
T-Bird 850) last night averaged 27-33 fps with 19 other comptitors. I was
dialed up to my local ISP at 56k, joining via internet.

I dumped 3dfx after my V3000 due to their disappearance as a company and
have been pleased with my plain 32mb GeForce. I am using OpenGL BTW. D3D is
ok, but my video card's software has more usable options under the OpenGL
tab so therefore I use it.

Best of luck,

edb

by **Simon Brow** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:07:29

20 fps seems very slow for such a system, are you using FSAA?

by **Cyril M** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:00:48

Hey DAle:

Would you mind telling me exactly what you did to get the fps to jump that
high? My comp isn't great, and I barely get by in low res mode..so I'm
trying to squeeze some extra fps out of it.

Thanks

Cyril

by **Sideshow Bo** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:53:26

Sorry Cyril, it's an ATi Radeon/Windows 2000 thing so it probably doesn't
affect you but:

http://www.rage3d.com/#983991726 if you or anyone else is interested.

FWIW, 1000 point jump in 3DMark2000 and a massive (yet unmeasured)
improvement in CMR 2.0. Not that I live and die by 3DMark like some people
but, I can see quite a difference.

Radeon performance in W2K is now equal to what it was in WinME before I
deleted ME - the second day I had my new PC :-)

When I get some time I have to try my other sims...

Dale.

by **Paul Jage** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:10:00

I'm not using FSAA. But plainly I have a problem, if others with slower
systems are achieving greater frames rates. Not sure what to do now!

PJ

> 20 fps seems very slow for such a system, are you using FSAA?

> > Been playing Nascar Heat, here in London and greatly enjoying it, so I
> <snip>
> > to start a flame war; its just my humble opinion.

> > PJ

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:45:39

Paul...I don't have on my newsreader your post listing your specs...the
first
place to look for speed improvements is drivers, then bios settings.
make sure you have up to date video and sound drivers and dx8a. Then, if
you
have a Athlon with a Via chipset, get the newest Via 4in1 drivers for your
mother-board.
4.28 is the latest official version with 4.29 in beta.
dave henrie

by **Robi** » Sun, 11 Mar 2001 03:27:30

There was a sneak release of the 4.29 final version on electric tech... I
think this is the address:

http://electic.com/patches.shtml#984111504

I dl'd them this morning and installed. No great improvement on my system
but no problems either.
Robin

> Paul...I don't have on my newsreader your post listing your specs...the
> first
> place to look for speed improvements is drivers, then bios settings.
> make sure you have up to date video and sound drivers and dx8a. Then, if
> you
> have a Athlon with a Via chipset, get the newest Via 4in1 drivers for your
> mother-board.
> 4.28 is the latest official version with 4.29 in beta.
> dave henrie

> > I'm not using FSAA. But plainly I have a problem, if others with slower
> > systems are achieving greater frames rates. Not sure what to do now!

by **Dog-Le** » Sun, 11 Mar 2001 03:53:52

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

It's dead, Jim...

Access Denied!

-Larry

> There was a sneak release of the 4.29 final version on electric tech... I
> think this is the address:

> http://electic.com/patches.shtml#984111504

> I dl'd them this morning and installed. No great improvement on my system
> but no problems either.
> Robin

> > Paul...I don't have on my newsreader your post listing your
specs...the
> > first
> > place to look for speed improvements is drivers, then bios settings.
> > make sure you have up to date video and sound drivers and dx8a. Then,
if
> > you
> > have a Athlon with a Via chipset, get the newest Via 4in1 drivers for
your
> > mother-board.
> > 4.28 is the latest official version with 4.29 in beta.
> > dave henrie

> > > I'm not using FSAA. But plainly I have a problem, if others with
slower
> > > systems are achieving greater frames rates. Not sure what to do now!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Jim Brindl** » Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:54:09

where did you get them from, I haven't seen either in the shops yet.
Jim

by **Robi** » Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:27:31

Okay, how about this site then:

http://www.viahardware.com/download/index.shtm#4in1

Hopefully this will work... it did for me tonight.
Robin

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> It's dead, Jim...

> Access Denied!

> -Larry

> > There was a sneak release of the 4.29 final version on electric tech...
I
> > think this is the address:

> > http://electic.com/patches.shtml#984111504

> > I dl'd them this morning and installed. No great improvement on my
system
> > but no problems either.
> > Robin

> > > Paul...I don't have on my newsreader your post listing your
> specs...the
> > > first
> > > place to look for speed improvements is drivers, then bios settings.
> > > make sure you have up to date video and sound drivers and dx8a. Then,
> if
> > > you
> > > have a Athlon with a Via chipset, get the newest Via 4in1 drivers for
> your
> > > mother-board.
> > > 4.28 is the latest official version with 4.29 in beta.
> > > dave henrie

> > > > I'm not using FSAA. But plainly I have a problem, if others with
> slower
> > > > systems are achieving greater frames rates. Not sure what to do now!

> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Paul Jage** » Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:05:23

I wonder if one of my slow FPS problems is with the view that I 'drive'
from. The in-car view seems to be a greater frame rate killer than the
others available (even with rear view mirror down to a minimum. True?
PJ

> where did you get them from, I haven't seen either in the shops yet.
> Jim

> > Been playing Nascar Heat, here in London and greatly enjoying it, so I
> > thought I would also buy Nascar 4. Received the latter today and thought
> I'd
> > share a Brit's initial view of it with you.

> > I'd read so many posts about N4's shortcomings, so I was prepared for
the
> > worst (although with a Athlon 900, 256mb ram and V5500 card I thought I
> was
> > in pretty good shape for this game). To cut to the chase, I am
> > disappointed, but not with the depth of the game. I am far to
superficial
> > for that, but with the graphics. Problems with AI, and other assorted
> > bugs/problems that have been discussed in this NG can be overcome with
> > patches. Its the look of the 'sim' that I dislike. Having to play around
> > with the graphics settings for hours just to get a frame rate in the
20's
> is
> > poor going. For me, so much of the immersion factor is the 'look of
> things'
> > as I race around the track from the***pit. I can live with the 800x600
> res
> > (I can't remember the last time I had to use that in a game) but I am
> > resorting to turning down so many of the detail sliders, and reducing
the
> > number of cars to 30 or so (or just drawing 30 of the 43). NH is on max
> > setting for all the graphics, which just makes it feel more 'alive'. I'm
> not
> > even sure that I agree with those who call NH's physics 'arcade'
compared
> to
> > N4. Both seem to have their own merits. Perhaps my problem is that I've
> > suddenly realised that my computer is no longer cutting edge for such
> > companies as Papy and I can't enjoy N4 in all its graphical splendour.
> Maybe
> > because of this I am finding NH more 'fun' than N4.

> > I'm a shallow fellow, I admit it, but each to their own, and I'm not
> looking
> > to start a flame war; its just my humble opinion.

> > PJ

rec.autos.simulators

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4

Brits View of N4