rec.autos.simulators

> Perhaps you are used to a monochrome monitor at a 640x480 screen rez,
> or another ridiculously poor image display, but I expected a vast jump
> in visual quality over NT and NR2003. What I got was the same ISI type
> of graphics I have seen since F12000.

> I run on an 18" LCD at 1280x1024x32, with a P4 3.0ghz, 1024 RAM, Radeon
> 9800 Pro. I max out the detail levels on every screen from within the
> game and still get average display quality when compared to the same
> spot on the track from NR2003. Shimmering fences, jaggies galore (No AA
> allowed per the readme), and car models that are so unlike any NNC car
> that I ever seen up close. Even when I sacrifice some FPS by using AA
> (wtf is that anyway? It's 2005 and devs are making games that DON'T use
> modern GPU enhancements?) the image quality improves somewhat. I have
> to go to 6x AA to get the image that I want, but can't race with the 17
> fps that I now get at DAytona. Gee, what an option. Thanks EA!

> BTW, Paris Hilton, Brooke Burke, Anna Kournikova are all stunningly
> beautiful. NSR run as is, right out of the box looks like my big toe.

>> I run both NR2003 and NSR at similar settings (16bit though) and think
>> NR2003 looks better; just more natural.  But in any case, aside from the
> odd
>> NSR car shapes I think it's safe to say they're close enough graphically
>> that it's a matter of personal preference.  Kind of the old F12K vs. GP4
>> argument.  No end to that one... ;-)

>> It is interesting to see mention of the notorious ISI graphic stutter
>> popping up.  GTR seems plagued by it, but I hadn't seen it in NSR yet.

>> As for your finishing question, probably not any track-based ones, but
>> RBR
>> looks fine without AA.  Very few straight edges out in the wild!

>> SB

> Well I think it's probably more than what they are describing in GTR
> actually. The frame rates drop from maybe 60 to 20 ( or 40 to 10) for a
> few
> seconds and then back up to 60. :-)
> --
> David G Fisher