rec.autos.simulators

I got the game last night, and it runs essentially the same on my
P133/32MB/Matrox Millenium as it does on his MMX225/80MB/Herc128!

A bit choppy in 640x480, and perfect if I turn some textures off. He _must_
have some kind of misconfiguration here! I find it _very_ playable on my P133
(the base system for 640x480 as indicated in the game manual) and I suspect
that users with P90's will find the default 320x200 or 640x480 with all
textures turned off to be acceptable as well.

Sam

--

/| http://b52-78.datanet.nyu.edu/  (currently defunct)
/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
/| I speak with my voice only, nobody else's!

: Do you wonder why Activision decided not to release a DEMO? I don't.
:
: Do you still wonder why Activision STILL has not answered legitimate
: QUESTIONS about I76 System Requirements in this newsgroup? I don't.
:
: Do you wonder  why the Beta Testers of this game would proclaim high marks
: for the graphics? I do.
:
: Do you wonder why 800X600 and 1024X768 are included as options in I76? I do.
...

        Hey, have you actually played the game at all?  Or have you seen
it on a friend's machine?  The game is fun.  Frame rate or not, the game
kicks ass.  Most Pentiums will, at the least, be able to play the game
with a decent frame rate in VGA.  I have a Cyrix 6x86-150+, 16MB EDO, a
cheapie motherboard, and an S3 Trio 64 video card.  My system runs under
the benchmarks of both Pentium 150's and of other 6x86-150's (it's the
motherboard that's the big problemo).  I have to run the game with almost
all detail down in VGA for a good frame rate.  Am I complaining?  No!  The
game rocks.  Maybe next time you'll judge a game by how it plays, not by
how it looks.  

: Do you think that *** magazines will give I76 a GREAT rating? I do.

        I wonder why.  Maybe because they'll actually play the game,
unlike you likely have.

: Do you think that the *** magazines will publish a  CLEARLY WRITTEN
: ARTICLE concerning the EXCESSIVE system requirements for this game? I don't.

        They have before for games like Nascar when it came out, like
Quake when it came out, etc, and I think they will here, also.  They'll
basically say "The game rocks if you have the machine to run it.  If you
don't (which I assume would be like P90 or less), it gets too slow even in
VGA to be playable".  But for any system that can handle the game at a
playable frame rate in VGA (which I would be is around an average P100 or
so), what's the problem?

Jeff
  _,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^^^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_

|   "all pain disappears it's the nature of my circuitry  /  drowns out     |
 \   all i hear there's no escape from this my new consciousness" - NIN    /
  ^^'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,___,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'`^`'~=-,_,-=~'^^

First of all, the Demo would be like 60 megs long....and Activision has
said they will
release a demo, but most likely they're waiting for hte magazines to pick
it up, as its going
to take some CD space to get this game up and running.....

I play this game in 320x200 mode with almost full detail, full screen, on a
P120 and
the FPS is close to 30.......

Of course, if you guys and ***ing about SVGA 640x480 graphics then what
do you
expect......I don't know of many games that run at hi-rez smoothly, with as
much
detail as this game has.....

What?  Please Elaborate...

do.

Perhaps the reason why ALL games include these resolutions, so that
way...10 years from
now, you can fire up the game in the new ultra-high rez and experience it
all over again

Pro-200.....and I still play the game in 320x200.

People have come to expect too damn much........thats a personal IMHO.  I
do not represent
Activision in any way, shape, or form.......there's a lot going on here in
this game.....ground
detail, car details, etc, etc, a much more complex terrain model than MWII
Mercs has.....

Its a great game.....

don't.

Again, *WHAT* Excessive system reqiurements??  All new games that come out
require
super-computers to run....its been that way since the PCjr!  Once the 3DFX
Patches are
out I'm sure a lot more people will be satisfied.....

Brant
Just all IMHO......

<..>
<...>

On my P100, I get really smooth framerates (I'd say 25-30) with everything
cranked up to maximum (except for the rear view mirror) at 320x200 - It's
still a lot of fun that way.

But, I don't want to spoil anything, so I've only gone up to mission four
and am now going to wait for the Direct3D patch before continuing.  I'm
still pretty happy I got it though, frankly it's almost worth it just for
the intro.

Yes, I dunno if it was just me but the ALPHA version of this game had awful
looking VGA graphics....when I finally got a BETA copy, it was MUCH better.
IMHO this game is perfectly playable in VGA resolution, it looks NICE in
VGA resolution.  Yes, it looks better in SVGA, but it WILL require you to
have a 3D card accelleration to run it with full detail.  On my pro-200
full-detail VGA mode has got to be 40+fps easy.

As for 800x600, there's no way you're getting fast framerates at this
resolution.....its just not happening.  Svga places a HUGE amount of work
on the processor/bus, etc.........the fact is this: Without 3D support, no
game is truely SMOOTH at 640x480 full detail....unless its a few years old,
and doesn't have the tons and tons of hi-detail texturemapping that all new
games seem obsessed with.

This seems to be one of those really common problems with USENET.  Some
people play a game of Duke Nukem 3D on a 486 getting like 15FPS and
they go WOW, MAN IS THIS AWESOME..>SUPER SMOOTH FRAMERATES<!!!....and
the rest of us go "You must be on crack, buddy..".  Personally the best
I can do on Quake with my Pro-200 (STB Lightspeed 128 videocard...a
pretty quick setup IMHO) is like 24fps using QBENCH.  That, to me, is
unplayable.
    I MUCH prefer 320x200 at 60fps....I mean, I could go inbetween and
still get perfect framerate....but the *** is that if suddenly a
bunch of stuff starts happening, the frames drop like bricks.........I
much prefer a constant, unwavering 40fps in low rez over hi-rez.
Hopefully in the future all SVGA games will offer off-chip support (3D,
Texturemapping, whatever). Kinda sucks when you think that in 1989 we
got VGA graphics and today...with machines ten times more powerful than
anything out in 1989, we still cant do SVGA smoothly on bone-stock
machines...

Brant

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Dan Stanfill (Mars Man)                               |
| Lead Programmer, Interstate '76                       |
| Activision, Inc.                                      |
|                                                       |
| (Remove the _nospam from the email address to replay) |
|                                                       |


+-------------------------------------------------------+

Kind of like criticizing a Saturn for being too slow, and following it
up by saying "I have a Ferrari, so I know what fast is."

Not that I would not like 3D support in I76, but I am not going to let
its absence stop me from buying the game. I have been waiting over ten
years for a game like this (since Autoduel...).

Regards,

Benjamin E. Sones

I play the game on my p120 with 24mb of ram and reactor card and it is
playable at 640x480 with some textures off... I really cant complain,
this game rocks when playing it with a gp1 like I do!!!

I love the conversations between you and the other (what's his name..?
sparky? cant remember...anyway)

So if you have a p100 with decent graphic card and 16 ram or more I
suggest you to look at it cuz its pretty damn good!!

speed (a bit higher, actually...I get about 28fps or so in Qbench on
my Pro200)for months and months now, and it's quite playable.  Maybe
you have some kind of funky-cool-supervision.  Or something.  I
dunno...

Anyway.

C. Tew

----
Goodbye
You can keep this suit of lights
I'm not coming down...
-U2, "Gone"
----

I'm not saying I76 is badly coded or anything.  Besides, hey, I'm
playing Quake at 320x200.  But I don't want some people to expect high
frame rate from 640x480 I76.

No, it isn't greatly exaggerated. Every 3d card owner on the planet gets
pissed when there are superior alternatives to 3d game development (be it
OpenGL, Direct3d, or native ports), yet game companies insist at relying on
crummy old directDraw and VESA technology for their 3d titles. Xwing VS Tie
comes to mind. It's ignorant. Game companies must finally face the fact
that a ***y P90 with a good 3d card will walk all over an MMX200 - hands
down. What seems more exaggerated now? Playing a game on an overpowered
machine that will NEVER live up to the 3d gamers expectations? Or
supporting the drop-jaw technology out there NOW (3dFX, Verite, etc.),
which is most decidedly here to stay and flourish?

But you can't purchase a Ferrari at the price of a Yugo.  However, a  P166
or P200 upgrade is considerably more costly than a 3d board. You're making
a moot point by correlating speed with street value  :)