It seems to ignore me when I attempt to gear down and up ??
Apart from that the graphics are OK. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Brad
snip
> reposted .....
> Nascar Revolution - Heres what's wrong with it:
l8er
ronny
--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
>>Is it just me or does the driving controls in Nascar Revolution suck big
>>time. I am using a NASCAR Pro from Thrustmaster and turning,
accelerating,
>>braking all seem to take place in slow motion ???
>>It seems to ignore me when I attempt to gear down and up ??
>>Apart from that the graphics are OK. Any feedback would be appreciated.
>>Brad
>reposted .....
>Nascar Revolution - Heres what's wrong with it:
>First:
>My system: PII-333 overclocked 375 / Monster2 / 128MB.
>I REALLY wanted to like the game. I bought it one hour after the
>first copy hit town. I have been trying to make it run and drive
>well enough to keep it,
>BUT,I couldn't understand why Nascar Revolution was in slow
>motion while in the dashboard view, yet gave a good sense of
>speed in the external views.
>I also couldn't understand why adding more opponents would put
>the game into slow motion. It wouldn't stutter, just go into slo-mo.
>Also, the speed of the game would randomly *vary* from normal
>to slow. At one point I thought it must have a memory leak to
>behave as it does.
>I couldn't understand why replays would speed up and slow down
>randomly.
>*** THEN, I found out why. ***
>(Old timers hang on to your seats).
>Electronic Arts is slowing down / speeding up the game to
>give accurate lap times when the system is under a heavy load!
>NOTE: Old timers: Can you say Grand Prix II?
>I thought you could.. :)
>I ran a few tests with Nascar Revolution tonight:
>1) I turned the graphics to the absolute minimum, set the field of
>opponents to 10 or so, and ran laps in the external or bumper cam
>views. When I did that, 30 seconds on the lap timer displayed on
>the screen was equivalent to approx. 30 seconds on the sweep second
>hand of my clock.
>2) When I turned the graphics to maximum, the field to 43, 30 secs.
>on the lap time display was equivalent to 50-80 seconds of real
>clock time.
>SLOW MOTION.
>When you are in dashboard view, the same thing occurs since it
>apparently is a graphics HOG, in that mode. A 30 second lap time
>on the screen, might take 45 secs. to 1 minute of wall clock time.
>SLOW MOTION.
>Also, the time varies *all over the place*. If you run laps with a
>full field and then watch a replay, you can see the cars speed up and
>slow down abnormally. What is happening is that the replay load is
>different from the load that the system was under when the lap was
>recorded and it has trouble synchronizing.
>It sucks..
>For those of you that don't understand this phenomenon, here is how
>it works:
>- Let us assume that I am a simulation programmer and I have a
>program that wants to display 2 seconds of a racecar traveling from
>the far left to the far right of the screen, and that the 2 seconds
>require 100 frames of animation. (50 frames per second.). Think of
>the 2 seconds as being recorded on a strip of movie film 100 frames
>long.
>In the corner of the imaginary screen will be a timer displayed by
>the program that displays how long the operation is taking. The timer
>should start at 0 seconds at frame 1 and when the car reaches the
>right side of the screen, frame 100, the timer should indicate 2 secs.
>In order to accomplish this at normal speed, my program and the
>computer running it will have to be capable of displaying
>50 FRAMES PER SECOND for 2 seconds.
>O.K.?
>- Now, let's assume that either my program is slow, or the computer
>I am wanting to display the 100 frames on, is slow. For example,
>let us assume that it can only display 25 FRAMES PER SECOND.
>- So, I have a choice:
> I can let the program *skip every other frame* (STUTTER) and
> complete the 2 second trip of the car in 2 seconds of real clock
> time, and my timer in the corner of the screen will simply be a
> real clock so it will show that it took 2 seconds. The car would
> jerkily move from left side to right side in 2 seconds, since every
> other frame was dropped.
> OR
> I can display ALL the 100 frames in 4 seconds of real time
> (SLOW MOTION, NO STUTTER). My timer in the corner would
> have to be a *fake* clock that showed that only 2 seconds had
> passed, when actually it had required 4 seconds of real time.
> The car would smoothly traverse the screen, but in (REALLY)
> slow motion....
>Are you getting my drift here? If you watch the lap timer in a sim
>like Grand Prix Legends or N2/1999, you will notice it is just a
>simple clock ticking off your time. Nothing you do can alter its
>steady ticking.. :) If your system is incapable of producing the
>speed necessary, it will simply skip frames and stutter, but the
>timer will keep on ticking normally. The good news is that your
>overall sense of speed won't suffer unless the stuttering
>becomes ridiculous.
>You may say that you don't like stutter, so why isn't the method
>used in GP2 and now, Nascar Revolution a good method? There are
>several reasons. One is that a game or sim that speeds up and slows
>down is extremely difficult to control. It is changing all the time.
>It has NO consistency. Also, there is the problem with replays.
>Nascar Revolution has the jerky replay problem in *spades*.
>Multiplay with Nascar Revolution ought to be VERY interesting as the
>systems try to get their facts (clocks) straight. LOL!!!
>Stutter sucks, but intermittently varying the *speed* of a game
>sucks MUCH, MUCH more.
>In Nascar Revolution and Grand Prix II, a second on the timer ain't
>necessarily a second in the real world since those programmers have
>chosen to eliminate stuttering by displaying each an every frame of
>animation, no matter how long it takes. They simply slow down and
>speed up the animation, but they *never* stutter. They feel like
>you are driving in JELLO when the load gets heavy.
>In the case of Grand Prix II, this technique was carried to an
>extreme with system load controls you could adjust to attempt to make
>1 second of game time equivalent to 1 second of real world time.
>Replays of GPII lap records had to be carefully scrutinized to be
>sure that the user had not loaded his system to the max, easily, and
>perfectly cruised around the track in slo-mo and recorded a replay
>which when played back on a faster system would whiz around the
>track at a record pace, with a perfect line, etc..
>That's enough of this. Nascar Revolution is pure and utter technical
>crap. They HAD to do it, or the returns for stutter on this HOG of
>a program would have been enormous. As we say down here in Tennessee,
>they have '10 pounds in a 5 pound sack'.
>Maybe, like GP2, when faster systems arrive, there will be no
>problems with speed variations in Nascar Revolution, but until then,
>you are warned... :)
>--
>// rrevved posts from mindspring dot com
Jerry Morelock
on this one.They were more interested in beating Nascar 3 out than they were
abt testing this public (beta) release !!!! EA sucks.
on this one.They were more interested in beating Nascar 3 out than they were
abt testing this public (beta) release !!!! EA sucks.
> I don't know, guys. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this
> game that can't be fixed. I mean, lets look at the pluses first. The
> graphics are beautiful. As good as anything out there, in fact. thats
snip
> I'm all for flaming a game that is bad, I was one of the guys on the soapbox
> when microsoft released CPR(don't get me started on that one). But I don't
> think that steep hardware requirements alone should warrant a flame of
> inferno proprtions. GPL isn't all that easy on the hardware either, and
> quite frankly the brakes suck on it, too.
l8er
ronny
--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
>>The graphics are beautiful. As good as anything out there, in fact.
thats
>>said, though. With good graphics comes system hogging, and the better the
>>games get, the bigger the system we will need.
>O.K., this game is unplayable on a PII-450/VoodooII without massive
>slowdowns. What kind of computer should we buy to play it?
>--
>// rrevved posts from mindspring dot com
>> I don't know, guys. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this
>> game that can't be fixed. I mean, lets look at the pluses first. The
>> graphics are beautiful. As good as anything out there, in fact. thats
>snip
>> I'm all for flaming a game that is bad, I was one of the guys on the
soapbox
>> when microsoft released CPR(don't get me started on that one). But I
don't
>> think that steep hardware requirements alone should warrant a flame of
>> inferno proprtions. GPL isn't all that easy on the hardware either, and
>> quite frankly the brakes suck on it, too.
>Hmm, could it be that the brakes on those '67 F1 cars "sucked"? As in
>being
>a lot less effective compared to the '99 models?
>l8er
>ronny
>--
>Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
>to take effect. Reboot now?
> |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
> ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
> |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
Haha this is rich. I have a hotrod (at least for the next 2 weeks) computer
at my desk. The game is total shit. Period. I have a P2-450, Voodoo2
(12MB), 128MB ram and my computer is setup better than yours. The
game still blows.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
> hello, it is a arcade racer, not a sim. It is alright to bang the wall a
> little, man, have some fun with it.
l8er
ronny
snip
> >> think that steep hardware requirements alone should warrant a flame of
> >> inferno proprtions. GPL isn't all that easy on the hardware either, and
> >> quite frankly the brakes suck on it, too.
> >Hmm, could it be that the brakes on those '67 F1 cars "sucked"? As in
> >being
> >a lot less effective compared to the '99 models?
> >l8er
> >ronny
-Larry
