rec.autos.simulators

by **Patrick Gilmor** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Don't worry, like many of the racing sims released in the last few years,
I'm sure there will be a small but vehement "anti-GPL" group that will
lambaste the sim for anything and everything. In addition, the trolls will
probably return with the "GPL is an arcade game not a sim because I suck at
it" thread that was really big when the first demo was released. Another
popular thread will be along the lines: "GPL sukz 'cause with a full field
of cars and all graphics turned on it runs crappy on my Cyrix 166 in
software rendering mode" or something like that.

As far as racing sims requiring a high-end PC when they are newly released,
there is certainly nothing new about that. I personally have just upgraded
to a system that will allow me to play F1RS at a really good frame-rate with
all of the details on, and look how long that has been out. In the last few
years of racing sims, I have yet to see the argument "we just didn't put a
good physics model in because we knew it would be slow on today's
computers".

Patrick Gilmore

by **John Walla** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:55:04 -0400, "Marc Collins"

>Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am
>not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described.

Well, advice on how to configure and what you are/are not doing can
wait until people are using legitimate software. Quite apart from the
oft mentioned morality aspect, without knowing exactly what that
pre-release was and how it differed from any other version I've tried
it's impossible to comment.

I would however like to point out that I can race all 19 AI, in
640x480, with textures etc at 36fps on my Celeron 300, and could do so
also on a P225MMX Pentium. Last night I had a fair attempt at a full
Grand Prix at the Ring (crashed out after 5 laps) with all AI and the
frame-rate was perfect all through, only a small drop to 20fps or so
at the start.

I'd hate to see people worried by warez version horror stories.

Cheers!
John

by **Tilu** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

hehe, you must be jokeing here.....

by **John Walla** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:24:28 -0400, "Marc Collins"

>>1. My platform throughout the development period was a P1/225MMX with a
>>Orchid Righteous 3D.
>And?? I am not sure what your point is.

That a P225MMX is not exactly computing Utopia, and certainly far less
of a system than the one the original poster (you?) was using. It
shows that good frame-rates are easily achievable if you are using a
version which is suited to that (a release one for example).

There is no comment that can be made on the 0.2.0.0 version, you'd be
as well calling Sierra support. I simply want to point out that the
horror stories of frame-rate are not a problem. With the warez version
you don't know what you're playing with and what additional overheads
are in there. I could happily race 19AI on my P225MMX/Voodoo1 and can
do so in 800x600 on my Celeron 300 with V2200. The figures Alison
posted are more representative.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:46:58 -0400, "David G Fisher"

>I need to ask this question. If GPL's physics model is so great that it saps
>the CPU so much, how the hell can the developers of sims which came out a
>year ago be so harshly criticized for their physics models?

Remember GPL has been in development for four years. It's not hardware
dependent, more dependent upon having the vision, talent and
determination to set out on the road to such a detailed architecture
and physics and see it through to the end.

Four years ago Intel had a vague idea what would be around at that
time and less idea of the cost, none of us had any idea and sure as
heck Papy didn't know. Probably GPL and Prost Grand Prix kicked off
around the same time, it's just what's been done within it that
differs.

Cheers!
John

by **Bart-W. van Lit** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Bruce Kenwell said
The warez version is a different build to that used by the core
testers....particularly to that which Alison obtained her statistics
from.
This "beta" was never supplied to the core testers.

So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Bart

> >I guess a 0.2.0.0 is an old beta or a joke by papyrus to fool all warez
> >downloaders :-)

> hehe, you must be jokeing here.....

by **Bart-W. van Lit** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

So a pII-300 or AMD k6 300 will differ a lot !?
That sounds more like a bug in stead of a feature!!

Bart

> but
> >> means that the framerate will dive to undriveable levels more frequently
> as
> >> there is simply more opportunity to be near other cars on the track.

> >I had said this in a previous post on another thread:
> >* Is Alt-F to be believed? I have a P2-300 with 4 meg V2200 and
> > 3Dfx Voodoo. Framerates are *identical* with either card. FPS
> > runs 33-36, never in the 20's, even with full field of AI.

> >The only time I've seen the FPS take a serious hit was when there was
> >a traffic jam in the pits at the start of a practice session and it
> >was in the mid ***s for about 30 seconds. When running with full AI,
> >the lowest I've seen is about 25fps for very short periods of time (so
> >I correct what I said in the previous post).

> >Not sure what the biggest difference in our machines is that could
> >cause such a large difference in performance, but I'm pretty happy
> >with what I see so far...

> >--

> >Neil Yeatman
> >Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

by **John Walla** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

>I don't want to scaremonger, I'm basing this opinion on the general trend from
>this newsgroup, but it would seem AMD chips may be at a disadvantage.

Possibly, but remember that Alison used an AMD chip all through
testing, in fact until very recently, and I believe her results were
based upon that.

Cheers!
John

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Everyone has their own likes/dislikes. Some prefer maximum framerate at
the expense of detail: others prefer graphical quality at the expense of
smooth refresh. A third group spends time arriving at their blend of
both.
And there are those who whinge and moan and forever twiddle with the
vast range of settings but are never satisfied and probably never will
be because the term "compromise" is not in their vocabulary.

I fall into the "compromise" category and I find this very easy to do
with GPL for one reason: the graphics settings can be adjusted "on the
fly". Hit pause, go into the correct menu screen, make the adjustment
and back to the race....all in a few seconds. No need to back out
through several menus and then restart the race....it's a simple and
flexible procedure that Papyrus have supplied.

Why is this so good? Simple: you have chosen a maximum field for
Monaco. You have chosen an 800 x 600 resolution and you want maximum
graphical detail. However, for the start and perhaps the first couple
of laps, when there are quite a few cars on screen at the same time, you
can very quickly (a) drop the res to 640 x 480 and/or (b)uncheck some of
the boxes in the graphics choices. This speeds up the framerate for
that important first lap and, when things settle down and (perhaps!) a
few cars drop out, you can up the resolution and the graphical details
again.

Very simple, very, very effective and surely a great way of attempting
to satisfy everybodys needs.

> If by that you mean the real stream of betas was/is faster, then thank
> goodness! If GPL has the ability to process a full or near full field of

--
Regards,
Bruce.
----------
The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:-
http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

And?

> I need to ask this question. If GPL's physics model is so great that it saps
> the CPU so much, how the hell can the developers of sims which came out a
> year ago be so harshly criticized for their physics models? If they had done
> a physics model as advanced as GPL's, nobody would have been able to play
> the games. A year ago the fastest CPU was a P200. GPL is apparently
> unplayable on a P200.

--
Regards,
Bruce.
----------
The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:-
http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

by **Johan Foedere** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Do you mean a bug in the software or in the hardware?

I don't believe it's possible for game devellopers to program for every
possible processor. So it's definatly not a software bug.

And I also don't think it's a hardware bug. It's just a different
approach in processor design. I do think however, that processor
manufacturers should give more details about the stronger and weaker
point in their processor. In that way you can compare the processors and
then decide which one you'll buy. Just the way you do with a car. One
has more space, but is more expensive, the other has less space, but is
cheaper. If you don't need the extra space you can save the extra money,
but at least you won't be surpriced if you get stuck with you knees.

Forgive me if this is bad comparison, but you know what I mean... I
hope. :-)

// Johan

> So a pII-300 or AMD k6 300 will differ a lot !?
> That sounds more like a bug in stead of a feature!!

> Bart

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

No.

> So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

> Bart

--
Regards,
Bruce.

by **Johan Foedere** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Me neither.

> No.

> > So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from
> > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

> > Bart

> --
> Regards,
> Bruce.

by **Marc Collin** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Fantastic! Thanks for clarifying that.

Marc.

>On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:24:28 -0400, "Marc Collins"

>>>1. My platform throughout the development period was a P1/225MMX with a
>>>Orchid Righteous 3D.
>>And?? I am not sure what your point is.

>That a P225MMX is not exactly computing Utopia, and certainly far less
>of a system than the one the original poster (you?) was using. It
>shows that good frame-rates are easily achievable if you are using a
>version which is suited to that (a release one for example).

>>Once again, we will see what the final version is like. I am dearly
hoping
>>that it is a vast improvement over the 0.2.0.0...I just don't know how
>>realistic it is to expect that. Apparently you could shed some light on
the
>>subject but did not in your reply. Could you please?

>There is no comment that can be made on the 0.2.0.0 version, you'd be
>as well calling Sierra support. I simply want to point out that the
>horror stories of frame-rate are not a problem. With the warez version
>you don't know what you're playing with and what additional overheads
>are in there. I could happily race 19AI on my P225MMX/Voodoo1 and can
>do so in 800x600 on my Celeron 300 with V2200. The figures Alison
>posted are more representative.

>Cheers!
>John

rec.autos.simulators

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics