rec.autos.simulators

I've been watching this thread and I believe you need to understand the point
Jeff is saying:

Whether Papyrus do it better than anyone else is irrelevant.
They probably do do it better but they are not perfect.
If it was perfect we would all be actually believing we were there in 1967.

What Jeff is saying is that a game should be able to run as good as it can on
the recommeded hardware listed by the Developer. He states that GPL needs more
than the "Recommended" hardware to run at it's best or even close to it.

I have another point to ponder on this:

GP2 came out requiring a faster than could be bought at the time PC and it has
lasted on the top of the Sim list for years. In this respect, as GPL appears to
be a better game according to the majority of posts in here, than most others
and given that it requires a high end PC to run close to it's best then the game
should be on our systems for quite some time.

            _
   ____ _  (_)
  / __ `/ / /
 / /_/ / / /
 \__, / /_/
/____/

Your not my type... :-)

You also said:

1stly you're wrong RAC Rally does. (See below) and I said 'run at it's best or
close to it'.
2ndly, don't call me Sir. We are all equal and it makes me sound old.

As you wanted ONE SINGLE GAME that runs flat out on it's recommended hardware
requirements. Well I thought for all of 2 seconds and came up with RAC Rally
Championship.
It requires a 486 DX2/66 - 8mb Ram - 1mb SVGA card
It RECOMMENDS P100 - 16mb Ram - 2mb SVGA

It ran just fine on my then P75 16mb ram 2mb S3 SVGA card

It does NOT run any faster on my P200mmx 48mb ram 4mb V2100 SVGA.
The game was governed at a specific frame rate (I think 30 fps??) and
although is not the best today it WAS the best Rally sim a few years ago.

Besides you AGAIN miss the point. The Recommended hardware is supposed to be a
guide. I would expect that if my PC was up to the recommended specs then the
game will run extremely well. But what IS happening is that software companies
are making more and more outrageous claims about the hardware so that people
will buy it even though they won't be able to play it like it looks on the box.

For example. My friend had a P100 with 16mb ram and 2mb SVGA.  Need for speed SE
stated that the minimum was P75 and the recommended was P100 and 16mb ram 1mb
SVGA. The game ran OK but when upgrading to cyrix 166 this made the game into a
completely different game that ran smoother, was more controllable etc etc...

As NFS SE was past it's use by date when he put in the 166 and when he had the
P100 in, it WAS in fashion and he had the recommended hardware then in theory
most people would only get to play the game properly when it was out of date.
Where's the sense in that?

Now the clincher:
I think we all agree that if the game runs faster then we can get better lap
times and therefore compete with each other and enjoy the game more.
If you don't have the money to upgrade your PC to the "Above the recommended
specs" then would it not be more enjoyable to be able to turn down the graphics
AND the physics (to what seems a good compromise for each INDIVIDUAL) in GPL (to
get back on the topic) and let the FPS be increased and therefore make you
competitive in 'friendly' competition etc? You wouldn't have to buy your best
lap time because you could afford the hardware.

I think that makes it my 0.04 cents worth now... :-)

Rrevved, you stated:

Your not my type... :-)

You also said:

1stly you're wrong RAC Rally does. (See below) and I said 'run at it's best
or
close to it'.
2ndly, don't call me Sir. We are all equal and it makes me sound old.

As you wanted ONE SINGLE GAME that runs flat out on it's recommended
hardware
requirements. Well I thought for all of 2 seconds and came up with RAC Rally
Championship.
It requires a 486 DX2/66 - 8mb Ram - 1mb SVGA card
It RECOMMENDS P100 - 16mb Ram - 2mb SVGA

It ran just fine on my then P75 16mb ram 2mb S3 SVGA card

It does NOT run any faster on my P200mmx 48mb ram 4mb V2100 SVGA.
The game was governed at a specific frame rate (I think 30 fps??) and
although is not the best today it WAS the best Rally sim a few years ago.

Besides you AGAIN miss the point. The Recommended hardware is supposed to be
a
guide. I would expect that if my PC was up to the recommended specs then the
game will run extremely well. But what IS happening is that software
companies
are making more and more outrageous claims about the hardware so that people
will buy it even though they won't be able to play it like it looks on the
box.

For example. My friend had a P100 with 16mb ram and 2mb SVGA.  Need for
speed SE
stated that the minimum was P75 and the recommended was P100 and 16mb ram
1mb
SVGA. The game ran OK but when upgrading to cyrix 166 this made the game
into a
completely different game that ran smoother, was more controllable etc
etc...

As NFS SE was past it's use by date when he put in the 166 and when he had
the
P100 in, it WAS in fashion and he had the recommended hardware then in
theory
most people would only get to play the game properly when it was out of
date.
Where's the sense in that?

Now the clincher:
I think we all agree that if the game runs faster then we can get better lap
times and therefore compete with each other and enjoy the game more.
If you don't have the money to upgrade your PC to the "Above the recommended
specs" then would it not be more enjoyable to be able to turn down the
graphics
AND the physics (to what seems a good compromise for each INDIVIDUAL) in GPL
(to
get back on the topic) and let the FPS be increased and therefore make you
competitive in 'friendly' competition etc? You wouldn't have to buy your
best
lap time because you could afford the hardware.

I think that makes it my 0.04 cents worth now... :-)

I've been watching this thread and I believe you need to understand the
point
Jeff is saying:

Whether Papyrus do it better than anyone else is irrelevant.
They probably do do it better but they are not perfect.
If it was perfect we would all be actually believing we were there in 1967.

What Jeff is saying is that a game should be able to run as good as it can
on
the recommeded hardware listed by the Developer. He states that GPL needs
more
than the "Recommended" hardware to run at it's best or even close to it.

I have another point to ponder on this:

GP2 came out requiring a faster than could be bought at the time PC and it
has
lasted on the top of the Sim list for years. In this respect, as GPL appears
to
be a better game according to the majority of posts in here, than most
others
and given that it requires a high end PC to run close to it's best then the
game
should be on our systems for quite some time.

Thanks BlackDog.  That's all I was trying to say.

Joe

Joe

Joe

I'm sort of puzzled. My 200mmz/3dfx1 ran the demo wonderfully. It ran the
full game really well in training mode (only *one* set of physics). But
add more than a couple of AI and the frame rate started to drop. With 5 it
was "ok" but with more it was increasingly poor.

Seems to me that this implies the physics is being calculated for each car
accurately and the more cars, the more CPU you need.

As for the overall requirements for the game... well, no-one's
programming's perfect, but I think you have to look at the leap in coding
that this sim represents and marvel that it runs on domestic hardware at
all! I'm impressed anyway, which makes me either gullible or realistic
depending on your point of view :-)

Andrew_McP

WarBirds (2D at that time) 6DOF-ish flight simulator (massively multiplayer
online btw, (150+ on the same server))

- Mat
WB: =para=
WarBirds Training Staff