rec.autos.simulators

OK here is my system:
P100
32 meg ram
intergraph rendition version

next the question

I  have read the manual for the demo tried everything they have said to
try but my frame rate is still
With or with out hardware acceleration about 5-6 fps in 640x480 and only
9 or ten in non
accelerated low end p60 mode.  IS their something wrong or is this game
THAT bad graphically speaking?

and yes I am running in full screen mode.

ps. please e-mail me with an answer as this news server dose not receive
very many messages. Thank you

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

No driver update ever increased fps that much...

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!

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

 to his question of "is the game graphically that bad" is *YES*, CPR blows.>>

This answer is incredibly unsatisfactory.  I by no means have a top of the line
 3D system ( a slower than average P133 with a new Stealth II Rendition board)
 and it still looks and plays great.  The problem is that when you try to race
 the frame rate drops due to all the other cars on the track.  Mostly I just do
 hotlaps and work on setups.  I'd find it hard to recommend this game to
 someone with my hardware config, simply because of the frame rate sacrifices
 during a race -- but these things can (and I think WILL) be addressed going
 forward.

Randy

Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/

Please take a look at some of the things other people have been posting. We
had a lot of machines in this config (P200, 3dfx) in our test group and
experienced excellent graphics performance. sometimes reinstalling will
speed up your framerate...

John Browne
MS CART Team

AFAIC what needs immediate attention is the abysmal AI "in my opinion"
:)

Trev

You have obviously never played ICR2 and then the Rendition version on
the same machine to compare. My P166 plays ICR2 with all detail and 14
cars ahead on the standard version and it looks OK at 30fps. The
Rendition version however allows full field ahead and AWESOME graphical
touches and holds a steady 30fps and in show off mode hits 45+fps. The
processor never changed. Nascar2 with Rendition -dma holds at least a
10fps advantage over the standard N2 but once again with better
graphics. The reason GP2 does not gain any 3D card advantage is because
it is not ported to any 3D cards! So it is Processor dependant. And if
you invested in a P2-300 over a P2-266 you definately flushed some cash,
since the current IO system is maxed out at the 266mhz processor level,
unless of course you spent MAJOR bucks on ultra-fast periphreals, like
a  Seagate Cheetah harddrive etc. .
Every sim is different, BUT some are processor dependant and some are
definately 3D card dependant. And $100 bucks for a Verite card gets way
better performance gains than $400 processor in both N2 and ICR2.
-Jody-

Joe

   1. How is that relevant to the original supposition, that a good 3D
video card is wasted on a slow machine (P100 or P133)?  ICR3D only
proves that a *well-utilized* 3D card (even a lowly [by today's
standards] 1st-generation V1000) can do wonders, even with a slow CPU.

   2. How is that relevant to my gameplay?  When I'm trying out CPR,
should I say, "oh, its not a direct port, so I should accept inferior
performance"?  17 is not 49.

   The fact that CPR is D3D and not a hardware-specific port may make
a difference to potential buyers and to MS's programming and
marketing, but the end result is lesser performance.

   I *really* want CPR to be good.  I love ICR3D, but it is a dead end
product from the standpoint of future commercial development (in spite
of the valiant efforts of hackers like TSP).  CPR is a very promising
sim, the most promising aspect of which may be the committment of the
CPR team to be in it "for the long haul".  It just looks to me like it
may take a few versions, or a few more versions of D3D, or time for
the hardware to mature to match up with the choices made in the
execution of the sim.  :(  

   That's based on the demo, maybe the final release will be
substantially better.  Time will tell.

Before you send me UCE, I know what you're thinking...  Did he complain
to five or six postmasters last month?  Now, you must ask yourself one
question: "Do I feel lucky?"  Well, do you, punk?

GP2 is a bad example to use when you are talking "super-duper 3-D
cards".
A 3-D card has absolutely no beneficial effect on GP2.

Now....you want to talk frame rates?

I installed the Trial version of CART onto 3 machines yesterday, with
the following results:
1. P100, 2Mb Trident bog-standard PCI card, 32Mb machine RAM.
The best 'playable' frame rate I could get, in 380x400 res., was around
9 fps.

2. P200, 4Mb Cirrus Logic PCI card, 32Mb machine RAM.
Once again, running in the second-highest resolution, with graphics
trimmed to suit, the best fps was around 14 fps.

3. P166, Rendition card 4Mb, 32Mb machine RAM.
In 640 x 480, with hardware acceleration and smoothing, all graphics
except sky and 4 cars on the track, the best playable frame rate was in
the order of 19 fps.  By reducing the resolution to the next highest the
frame reate went up to over 22 fps.

Now....compare that with a P100 running the Rendition card, 32Mb machine
RAM and playing ICR2 Rendition.   Never below 30fps!!  Or the same
machine running NASCAR 2......minimum frame rate of 27fps.  Or the 166
with the Rendition card, wher the fps on ICR2 goes off the map and
NASCAR2 is above 30 fps.

So now consider what the majority of gripes will centre around with CART
Precision Racing......it will be the same as what we saw when GP2 was
released........SLOW!!!

Bruce.

Ya. Right up to the point where people start posting framerate numbers
(which are provided with CPR). I get an average of 27fps with my P5-166
3dfx, and draw ahead distance set to 15. While I can get around the track
at an OK framerate, I am turned off at the poor 3dfx performance. Maybe
the finished game will be better. I have by no means decided to never
purchase the game. But so far I am very skeptical. I really do like the
moving***pit. I do not think the control of the car is out of whack
at all. I am really OK with all that. The framerate is what one would
expect from a 2D game, but you need a 3dfx card to achieve.

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

Randy

No....I won't "take care'....I prefer to run a risk-ridden existence.

You missed my point entirely.

Not everyone is running high-end 2-D cards, just the same as not
everyone is running 3-D cards of any description.  The two systems with
the Trident and Cirrus cards were current models directed towards the
"family" user by non-computer specialists (department stores).  This is
the type of system that "Mr. Average" has slung at him with the words
"Yep! It's got Windows 95 all ready to run and a swag of Microsoft
products on it.....have fun!"

Mr. Average is most impressed....'Microsoft', eh!  I've heard of
them....they make EVERYTHING to use on computers so they must be good.

A week later he's back at the store having a face-to-face with the
salesman because this new MICROSOFT game that he bought at a games store
runs like a piece of garbage on his new computer that's full of
Microsoft stuff.  All the other stuff runs okay....why doesn't this
game?

THAT'S my point!!  Mr. Average doesn't give a tupenny damn about
'specialised ports', 'Rendition' or chrome-plated grimbel-sprigs....he's
just bought a Microsoft game that, to him, is crap.
--
Bruce.
(At home)

 standards] 1st-generation V1000) can do wonders, even with a slow CPU. >>

Yeah, because its 1st generation software.  Remember that when Indy Car II came
 out, only leading edge computers could run it in SVGA mode, and there was NO
 3D support.  My 486/66 was inadequate to run the game in high res.  I was
 finally able to with almost all details on in my P133.  It certainly stands to
 reason that a 3D card on a machine for which ICR2 was already running well
 UNACCELERATED would go through the roof when accelerated.  If you want to make
 a more accurate comparison, you'd have to say that

with NO 3d Accleration and suggested machine:

CPR on a P200MMX = ICR2 on a P133.
CPR on a P133 = ICR2 on a 486/66
CPR on a P60 = ICR2 on a 386/33

or something like that.    Comparing adding 3D features to ICR2 on a machine
 that ALREADY ran ICR2 at full speed without it is just gravy.  Then, as now,
 the developer has pushed everyone's hardware requirements up, and as I recall
 there were a lot of gripes about ICR2-high res when it came out, just as there
 a lot of gripes about GP2 when it came out.  Many people were upset that the
 game didn't truly shine unless you owned cutting edge hardware.  Now history
 repeats itself, and what makes it humorous is that many of these people are
 busy PRAISING GP2 and ICR2 for their performance, forgetting that those games
 ALSO alienated lower end machine owners when they came out!  Of COURSE GP2 and
 ICR2-3D run better on a medium speed Pentium than CPR does!

 accept inferior  performance"?  17 is not 49.

Fine, rip CPR for being an inferior performer, but rip it compared to other
 comparable simulation software coming out right now, not 2 or 3 years ago.
 And certainly try to remember not to single out MS/TRI for this one.  This has
 happened with every leading edge sim that's come out.  There are always a
 large number of users stuck with medium to low hardware (and until a few weeks
 from now I'm firmly stuck in that bunch) and the hardware doesn't cut it.

Humorously, John Wallace and I had it out some time ago over my suggestion that
 GP2's top priority should be 3D support.  At the time P200's were still not
 cheap to upgrade to, and he was saying GP2 was just fine for him because he
 had a P200 and a fast 2D video board.  We didn't get our 3D support, but now a
 machine that will run GP2 with all details on might only be so-so with CPR.
 This is the way it goes and has gone for years.  Why act as if its something
 new and single out MS as if they are somehow unique in this regard?  Perhaps
 just because its MS and its now in vogue to bash 'em.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/