rec.autos.simulators

by **Eldre** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Moedt) writes:

>>My question is, what does F1 2000 offer for the extra Mhz
>>required that GPL doesn't. I believe GP3 will run on a 266mhz
>>even in software mode and the recommended machine is a 400mhz.
>>This will include accurate weather rendering.

>I wouldn't pay too much attention to the minimum/recommended system
>specs....

>Remco

I'd say you need MORE processing power than the minumum specs. Minimum means
with no(or few) graphics, fewer sounds, lower resolution. Not really enough
for most people to enjoy the experience, and I think, misleading...

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Alan Orto** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

That's because your using a TNT2. If you had a Voodoo3 it would be a
different story.

> I'm running gpl on a p3 550, TNT2, SBlive, and I can't run it with all
> graphics options on during a race and have a usable frame rate. So
> maybe what the F1 2000 recommendations are is REALISTIC.

> >GPL Minimum system: 166mhz
> >F1 2000 Minimum system: 233mhz
> >GPL recommended: 266mhz
> >F1 2000 recommended: 450mhz!!!

> >What extra realism that isn't in GPL does F1 2000 offer that the
> >recommended system to run it should need to be almost twice the
> >speed as one to run GPL?

> >Chris

> --
> Don Scurlock
> Vancouver,B.C.

by **Thore Sorense** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:05:57 -0700, Chris Bloom

>GPL Minimum system: 166mhz
>F1 2000 Minimum system: 233mhz
>GPL recommended: 266mhz
>F1 2000 recommended: 450mhz!!!

>What extra realism that isn't in GPL does F1 2000 offer that the
>recommended system to run it should need to be almost twice the
>speed as one to run GPL?

I have wondered for a long time....

For over a year ago I installed POWERSLIDE on my 200MHz Pentium with 32
MB ...and a Voodoo 1 with 4 MB...it looks better (gliding?) than all the
other sim's I tried....and I have almost them all...on my Pentium 400
with 128MB and a Voodoo2 /12MB...

Why don't "they" (gameproducers) use the same engine?

The "sliding" is also very "rallylike", but I don't like the cars,
tracks and drivers.....:-)

"They" could just put in some realistic rally-cars, tracks and "real"
driver names, and that would be it....!

--
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards

DK-2700 Bronshoj - Denmark

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I think that his point, Mel, is that F12000 does not have as high a "physics
level" (if you know what I mean) as GPL. Therefore, if the vast majority of
graphics calculations are now handled by 3-D cards, why does F12000 require
a higher base level system to run on than GPL?

Is that correct, Chris?

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> Ok... First off, I'm a huge GPL fan. The most realistic by far, blah,
blah,
> blah. However, I kinda like F1 2000 too. I seem to remember when GPL came
out
> that quite a few folks were whining about the system specs, complaining
that it
> was undrivable during a race with only a few cars. Suddenly, (two years
later)
> GPL will run on a minimal machine. Hmmm... Maybe its all... relative???

> Warlock!

> > GPL Minimum system: 166mhz
> > F1 2000 Minimum system: 233mhz
> > GPL recommended: 266mhz
> > F1 2000 recommended: 450mhz!!!

> > What extra realism that isn't in GPL does F1 2000 offer that the
> > recommended system to run it should need to be almost twice the
> > speed as one to run GPL?

> > Chris

> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

by **Ruud van Ga** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Sarcasm intended?
It's not the physics. If you crank down the graphics option a notch,
and a notch, and another notch, the game actually runs quite fast but
begins to look ugly. Nothing done to the physics yet, just graphics.
Graphics is the bottleneck here. We need geometry engines, we need
fast DMA paths to the graphics pipeline, we need scalability in adding
multiple 3D cards to get better performance, much like CPU stacking,
and we need faster paths and better 3D libraries (cough, OpenGL?!) to
support the hardware more transparently.
F12K has more things to do regarding detailed props around the track.
And the cars are perhaps more detailed (or worse; stay detailed too
long if they move farther away from the viewpoint).

>David G Fisher

>> GPL Minimum system: 166mhz
>> F1 2000 Minimum system: 233mhz
>> GPL recommended: 266mhz
>> F1 2000 recommended: 450mhz!!!

>> What extra realism that isn't in GPL does F1 2000 offer that the
>> recommended system to run it should need to be almost twice the
>> speed as one to run GPL?

Ruud van Gaal
MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl
Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

by **Joe6** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>im sure f12000 has a lot of eye candy
>;)

Except it *doesn't*, that's just the thing. What it has is a very
poorly optimized graphics engine.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Joe6** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>IMHO htis is quite simple to explain. GPL used Glide. F1 2000
>uses (unfortunately) Direct3D. Direct3D is way more innefficent
>than Glide. Especially on 3dfx cards :-)

There's not THAT big a difference between Glide and a D3D application
- not a WELL written D3D app anyway, something F1200 surely isn't.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Joe6** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

We need good programmers.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Chuck Kandle** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> >IMHO htis is quite simple to explain. GPL used Glide. F1 2000
> >uses (unfortunately) Direct3D. Direct3D is way more innefficent
> >than Glide. Especially on 3dfx cards :-)

> There's not THAT big a difference between Glide and a D3D application
> - not a WELL written D3D app anyway, something F1200 surely isn't.

No, I'd disagree on this assertion. Every Glide title I own, when I
also run it's D3D counterpart, looks *much* improved in Glide as well as
performing a lot faster. This title could definitely have benefited
from a Glide port. OGL woulda made sense as well...

--
Chuck Kandler #70
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at:
http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun!

They'll call you names
And spit in your face,
But legends never die. --Gene Simmons

by **David Ewin** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> My question is, what does F1 2000 offer for the extra Mhz
> required that GPL doesn't. I believe GP3 will run on a 266mhz
> even in software mode and the recommended machine is a 400mhz.
> This will include accurate weather rendering.

Chris, you can't even run GP2 at Monaco with everything on and not get slowdown
with a 266 MHz machine, so I seriously doubt that GP3 will be very playable on
a machine of that spec. I'm a big fan of Geoff Crammond, and I eagerly await
GP3, but I'm betting that you're going to need some serious horsepower to do
the game justice.

Hoping I'm wrong,

Dave Ewing

--
*****************************************************
David A. Ewing

*****************************************************

by **David G Fishe** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> >I guess it has a better physics engine than GPL.

> Sarcasm intended?
> It's not the physics. If you crank down the graphics option a notch,
> and a notch, and another notch, the game actually runs quite fast but
> begins to look ugly. Nothing done to the physics yet, just graphics.
> Graphics is the bottleneck here.

I was just repeating the line I used to hear a lot when discussing GPL. I
could also apply everything you've just said above to GPL as well. When I
and others had a slower machine and had trouble runing GPL, we were told it
was the physics engine which was causing the low fps. Yet, if I switched to
chase view, my framerate jumped up 10fps. Nothing done to the physics yet,
just graphics. GPL's graphics were also very sparse compared to F1 2000.

I think F1 2000's physics engine is as good as any I've experienced so I do
expect it to require a lot of horsepower. Actually, I run it with all
graphics at high or max, and it runs great. Still runs better than GPL.
People just don't know how to keep their computer running at it's best.

466 TNT2 Ultra, 96 megs.

David G Fisher

> We need geometry engines, we need
> fast DMA paths to the graphics pipeline, we need scalability in adding
> multiple 3D cards to get better performance, much like CPU stacking,
> and we need faster paths and better 3D libraries (cough, OpenGL?!) to
> support the hardware more transparently.
> F12K has more things to do regarding detailed props around the track.
> And the cars are perhaps more detailed (or worse; stay detailed too
> long if they move farther away from the viewpoint).

> >David G Fisher

> >> GPL Minimum system: 166mhz
> >> F1 2000 Minimum system: 233mhz
> >> GPL recommended: 266mhz
> >> F1 2000 recommended: 450mhz!!!

> >> What extra realism that isn't in GPL does F1 2000 offer that the
> >> recommended system to run it should need to be almost twice the
> >> speed as one to run GPL?

> Ruud van Gaal
> MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl
> Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

by **ymenar** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Naw ;)

You won't get me into that game David. Well not today ;-)

It has good physics (oh see my words are getting less and less harsh each
day (but the tracks still sucks eh!)), but the balance between the graphics
vs. physics can't clearly not be higher than GPL. Per example, simply
taking off some graphics that shouldn't take much processing power will give
to the user in F1 2k a good framerate. So it is programming, but It's not
very important to my eyes. I ran racing simulators without eye-candy for
years...

Hypothetically, let's say GPL runs at 288hz of physics + 200 of graphics, F1
2k probably runs at 300hz of graphics and 150hz of physics. It's NOT the
double of processing power like you get the feeling of it vs. your computer
speed when comparing GPL to F12k.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **David Kar** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

So . . . you like the game then, eh?

--DK

> There's not THAT big a difference between Glide and a D3D application
> - not a WELL written D3D app anyway, something F1200 surely isn't.

> Joe McGinn
> _____________________
> Radical Entertainment

by **Chris Bloo** » Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00:00

That is correct.

>I think that his point, Mel, is that F12000 does not have as
high a "physics
>level" (if you know what I mean) as GPL. Therefore, if the
vast majority of
>graphics calculations are now handled by 3-D cards, why does
F12000 require
>a higher base level system to run on than GPL?

>Is that correct, Chris?

>--
>Regards,
>Bruce Kennewell,
>Canberra, Australia.
>---------------------------

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

by **Nobod** » Sun, 16 Apr 2000 04:00:00

They were only sold to game developers!

rec.autos.simulators

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?

What the hell is going on here?