rec.autos.simulators

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Bruce Kennewel

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Bruce Kennewel » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

When I bought the sim (about 2 minutes after it was released here!) I
did so on the basis that it was Rendition- ready.  Actually bought the
Rendition card prior to getting the game.
But Papyrus never made any mention of 3Dfx back then......none
whatsoever.
The first I saw of 3Dfx was in this group.

So why would anyone buy the game just for 3Dfx until a 3Dfx patch has
been released?
DOH!!

--
Bruce
(at work)

"Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get
tired."
(Jules Renard)

papa..

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by papa.. » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Oh Im sorry I asked to be as clever as you but unfortunetely it didnt
happen....damn.

Yes sorry I heard that PAPY was going to release a Voodoo Patch for
Nascar2 and I foolishly went out and finally bought the sim. This of
course was a mistake considering that Sierra now runs Papy and Sierra
doesnt seem to be able to buy a clue in regards to 3d Cards.  Witness
Red Baron2...Notice Im not calling anyone names or screaming for
support...Im just making long posts wondering where in the heck the
developers are in this foresaken newsgroup...

Nother words I know I made a mistake actually believing that a Voodoo
patch was gonna be forthcoming from PAPY/Sierra...since apparently
they only support the Rendition. No problem...lesson learned...I
should have stuck with Nascar1 which to my untutored eyes appears
extremly similar to Nascar 2.

PAPA DOC

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Infamous
Pink Flamingo Pilot...

Ronald Stoeh

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Ronald Stoeh » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00


> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:26:51 +0100, Ronald Stoehr

> >Well, I just had a little collision with "Flamingo" in csipgf. After
> ><suggesting> to post a joke only once, he started calling me names.
> >Now he's posting "helpful" posts in ras as well. Down goes the
> >neighbourhood...

> >l8er
> >ronny

> Don't distort the facts. He was just having some fun and you go in
> there and stomp on his virtual head. As I said once before to you
> (don't know if you read it yet), if you don't like what someone posts
> then don't read it. Duh........how simple can it be.

I stomped on his virtual head??? Now, that's funny.

You know, I always read his posts first on csipgf, because I value
his knowledge about flight sims. I was really surprised to see him
react the way he did to a flame-less, smiley-supported suggestion.

Oh, well...

l8er
ronny

--
          |\      _,,,---,,_        I want to die like my Grandfather,
   ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              in his sleep.
        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'     Not like the people in his car,
       '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            screaming their heads off!

Ronald Stoeh

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Ronald Stoeh » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00


> Aw hell Ron you still sore...I promise I will work you in on the next
> joke on the flight sim group that way you can feel like part of the
> group....really I promise...

No hard feelings, if you tell us the joke only once. Oh well, if it's
good, twice! Maybe some other guy didn't get it the first time.

Of course, Letterman has a lot of success with repeating jokes.

I still don't get it! If I would have flamed your ass, called you
names, you could be pissed. But a little suggestion...

l8er
ronny

--
          |\      _,,,---,,_        I want to die like my Grandfather,
   ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              in his sleep.
        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'     Not like the people in his car,
       '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            screaming their heads off!

Jo

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Jo » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>patch... Until recently. One other thing is that I happen to know that
>Nascar2 flys on a P5-166 in 640x480 at max detail.

That obviouly depends on your 3d hardware or some other detail. I have
to cut off MOST details to make it "fly" on my P200 in 640x480. I
expect a hude performance increase from the 3dfx patch.

Joe

Joachim Trens

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Joachim Trens » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Hi Pierre,

I don't think it will greatly decrease the revenue of any sim producer if he
does _not_ participate in this forum. Also, there's a lot of gibberish, and
sadly little serious information here for the sim developers.
Nobody here holds the holy grail of knowledge, and the sim developers and
their beta testers aren't entirely dumb themselves. So what should they come
here for? Nagging kiddies? Overly self-assured braggarts?
I think there's very little reason for them to show up here. If they do it,
it is very very nice of them, but if they back out again because they get
fed up, I think most of us can understand...

Achim

Bruce Kennewel

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Bruce Kennewel » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

(snip)
I should have stuck with Nascar1 which to my untutored eyes appears
extremly similar to Nascar 2.
(unsnip)

The '2' version in Rendition is a far more enjoyable experience, p/doc.

--
Bruce.
(At home)

Greg Cisk

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Greg Cisk » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00



>>patch... Until recently. One other thing is that I happen to know that
>>Nascar2 flys on a P5-166 in 640x480 at max detail.

>That obviouly depends on your 3d hardware or some other detail. I have
>to cut off MOST details to make it "fly" on my P200 in 640x480. I
>expect a hude performance increase from the 3dfx patch.

This is with no 3D hardware. Just a Diamond Stealth 3D 3000
(Virge) card. Max detail, draw 12 cars ahead, 4 behind, no
problems.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Jo

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Jo » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>I think there's very little reason for them to show up here.

Sounds like a very old-fashioned attitude. In the long term, they WILL
make more money if they interact more with their users, as opposed to
going off an developing products in isolation.

Look at all the crappy arcade racers (NFS2, TD4, Andretti) that came
out last year. All of those developers could have delivered vastly
superior products just be taking the trouble to find out what people
really want, which they can do here.

Joe

Jo

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Jo » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>This is with no 3D hardware.

Sorry, I meant 2d (typo). P200, ATI Mach 64. Nascar2 CRAWLS on this
system at max detail.

Joe

John Walla

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by John Walla » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 28 Jan 98 19:15:41 GMT, "Piers C. Structures"




>> A flight sim has a lot more work load than a racing sim.

>Interesting comment and one that I suspect is untrue or at the very
>least misleading in terms of todays mass market entertainment products.
>I would say it was untrue also in terms of the physics involved, but
>that's not a conversation that will have any relevance to computer
>simulations of real world physics for perhaps hundreds of years.

If you look at something like GPL, it is basically computing the
physics of a flight sim - up, down, left, right, aero interactions,
alterations in aero surfaces and airflow etc etc. All this and tire
interactions, slip angles, wheelspinm brake locking - and a trackful
of other cars doing the same thing.

Seems like flight sims have it easy :-)

Cheers!
John

John Walla

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by John Walla » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:32:04 -0600, "Greg Cisko"


>I hate to break in here again, but :-) The difference in framerate
>from Nascar1 to Nascar2 is astounding. Is this not the case?

Isn't it amazing what you can do when the effective screen size to be
rendered is shrunk....?

Cheers!
John

Richard Walk

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Richard Walk » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00



I have to admit it *seems* that way - the mechanics of tyre / road
interaction are very poorly understood compared to the relatively
straightforward physics of a modern jet fighter, but I wouldn't want to
get into a flame war over it ;-)

I wonder if any of the flight sims accurately model a stalled aircraft?
The maths involved with that seems simply horrendous. If any software
house has managed to do that by the physics then I take my hat off to
them!

Cheers,
Richard

Greg Cisk

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Greg Cisk » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:32:04 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>>I hate to break in here again, but :-) The difference in framerate
>>from Nascar1 to Nascar2 is astounding. Is this not the case?

>Isn't it amazing what you can do when the effective screen size to be
>rendered is shrunk....?

Is that all they did? Jeezz. I thought they optomized it or something :-)
Anyway, I just know it runs just fin on my P5-200MMX and do not
really think a 3dfx patch would really add much in the way of framerate.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Greg Cisk

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

by Greg Cisk » Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:00:00

You problem is your video card then. If you reboot into DOS
the thing will fly on a P5-166. At least it does in Illinois :-)

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.



>>This is with no 3D hardware.

>Sorry, I meant 2d (typo). P200, ATI Mach 64. Nascar2 CRAWLS on this
>system at max detail.

>Joe


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.