rec.autos.simulators

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

D. Floy

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by D. Floy » Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:01:22

Is anyone out there running the GF4 4200 on a 800 mhz P3? If so what
framerates are you getting in F1 2002??? Just curious...my card should be
arriving soon..

--
Dale Floyd,
Floyd Racing #38 - #83

Haqsa

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by Haqsa » Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:42:19

I'm running it with a 900 mhz PC.  Frame rates depend on whether your
new card causes you to go nuts with the detail level or not.  IIRC I am
typically getting barely 20 fps on the starting grid, mid 20's in the
pits, and 30's to 40's while racing.  I am running at 1024x768x16 with
most details turned up to the max recommended (i.e. not in the red) and
Quincuncx FSAA (30.82 drivers).  A little bit of playing with detail
level or perhaps turning off FSAA would speed it up a bit, but I don't
care.  It's quite playable, except at the start, but more importantly
(to me) it is near photo-realistic at times and I find that that,
combined with the full rate physics and excellent sound and force
feedback, gives me more of a feeling of immersion than any other game.
Besides, the frame rate comes back up quickly as the other cards
disappear around the next bend.  ;o)


David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:42:46

I get 60-90fps with no AI on my own, on a GF2 and 868 P3....

thats with most detail off, but as we know about f12002, unless your getting
upwards of 50fps, its unplayable compared to 70-90 or at best 150fps...

Hit a curb at 30fps, then hit the same one at 90fps....the car hardly moves
at 90, flies into the sky at 30, stupid physics lag....

A good aim is to be sure your game is running near properly is above 70....

Above a 100 i'd think its starting to work in a sweet zone....and driving is
a damn sight easier at higher FPS due to lack of physics delay....


> I'm running it with a 900 mhz PC.  Frame rates depend on whether your
> new card causes you to go nuts with the detail level or not.  IIRC I am
> typically getting barely 20 fps on the starting grid, mid 20's in the
> pits, and 30's to 40's while racing.  I am running at 1024x768x16 with
> most details turned up to the max recommended (i.e. not in the red) and
> Quincuncx FSAA (30.82 drivers).  A little bit of playing with detail
> level or perhaps turning off FSAA would speed it up a bit, but I don't
> care.  It's quite playable, except at the start, but more importantly
> (to me) it is near photo-realistic at times and I find that that,
> combined with the full rate physics and excellent sound and force
> feedback, gives me more of a feeling of immersion than any other game.
> Besides, the frame rate comes back up quickly as the other cards
> disappear around the next bend.  ;o)



> > Is anyone out there running the GF4 4200 on a 800 mhz P3? If so what
> > framerates are you getting in F1 2002??? Just curious...my card should
> be
> > arriving soon..

> > --
> > Dale Floyd,
> > Floyd Racing #38 - #83

David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:45:14

also why just have nice graphics where you could have 100FPS without FSAA
and thats at 1600x1200, why run 1024x768 and FSAA when you can run 1600x1200
with none :) and get 40more FPS and have physics that arent lagged to hell
making your life as hard as hell behind the wheel....!

turn all that rubbish off and try the game at 100fps :)


> I'm running it with a 900 mhz PC.  Frame rates depend on whether your
> new card causes you to go nuts with the detail level or not.  IIRC I am
> typically getting barely 20 fps on the starting grid, mid 20's in the
> pits, and 30's to 40's while racing.  I am running at 1024x768x16 with
> most details turned up to the max recommended (i.e. not in the red) and
> Quincuncx FSAA (30.82 drivers).  A little bit of playing with detail
> level or perhaps turning off FSAA would speed it up a bit, but I don't
> care.  It's quite playable, except at the start, but more importantly
> (to me) it is near photo-realistic at times and I find that that,
> combined with the full rate physics and excellent sound and force
> feedback, gives me more of a feeling of immersion than any other game.
> Besides, the frame rate comes back up quickly as the other cards
> disappear around the next bend.  ;o)



> > Is anyone out there running the GF4 4200 on a 800 mhz P3? If so what
> > framerates are you getting in F1 2002??? Just curious...my card should
> be
> > arriving soon..

> > --
> > Dale Floyd,
> > Floyd Racing #38 - #83

David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:55:57

Id expect your CPU to be the main factor in not getting the maximum
potential from this card, as its too slow to fill it, youll prolly 60-90FPS
same as my GF2 id imagine....as your CPU wont feed it fast enough for it to
sing...

Id think a 13-1500mhz processor would get be needed to see any great
improvements in fill rates, hope the card doesnt suck your CPU dry...

The GF2 still sucks my 868 dry, as for putting a GF4 in an 800 machine
unless your previous card was a V3, id think youll not see any where near
the optimum output levels from it.....

sorry :)

It would prolly dish out 130+fps or maybe higher CPU, on your maybe youll
only see 80ish.....but thats just my feelings on using the lastest GFX cards
in slow machines....

backlog and CPU jam time....


Some Call Me Ti

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by Some Call Me Ti » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:07:09

The physics are not any faster at higer fps in f12002 as you either set it
to 100hz or 200hz (high or normal) phsyics. I aslo very much doubt if you
can see any diffence visually in frame rate between 50 and 100fps unless
you've got weird inhuman eyes. 36fps in GPL is certainly more thasn good
enough for all us simmers anything above is a waste of power which is better
spent on visual quality.

Some Call Me Tim

David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:39:25

have you played it? i take it you havent? the difference is MASSIVE...

and the way it samples the physics when the game is 100+FPS is awesome, any
monkey thats played some F12002 on a fastmachine knows this....

please re-read my posts, as they are based  ON FACT, not belief....

the engine is VERY frame rate dependant, ive never experienced a sim like
it..



David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:47:23

also...its not FPS for the eye, its Frame Per Meter on the road, this is why
at 150fps F12002 looks outstnading compared to 50 or so....

at 50fps you get 1 frame per metre of track at 200mph.....at 150fps you get
3 frames per metre, this makes a MASSIVE difference in visual smoothness and
makes games like GPL look like slomo replays of poorly recorded low budget
low FPS movies....

Its not what the eye can see, its how many times get a refresh per metre...

To this point find a GPL replay at 200mph (down to stavelot at spa) pause it
click the frame forward and it skips maybe 2metres between frames it
70metres per second on the road, is 0.5frames per metre....

now watch F12002 at 200mph with 150fps.....LOL the difference is ***ing
massive!!....

But this still doesnt explain why at 30fps in f12002 you hit a curb and it
reacts twice as bad as a guy running 90fps.....the model is running better,
and f12002s model just gets better the faster it runs, any PC lag of low FPS
it runs and reacts to high pressure impacts with curbs with bizarre
results....

Any with a trick machine try a slowmo program to give you 50% processor
usuage, try taking the curbs at monza T1 with 25fps, then try it with
100....

night and day....



David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:52:19

also tell me the 36fps is fine, with a number of GPLers suffering eye
problems in GPL, they dont or are no longer suffering in F12002...more FPS
the better...

GPL great sim, but jesus christ does it look slow and *** at high speed
after seeing what 3x the FPS looks like.....



> also...its not FPS for the eye, its Frame Per Meter on the road, this is
why
> at 150fps F12002 looks outstnading compared to 50 or so....

> at 50fps you get 1 frame per metre of track at 200mph.....at 150fps you
get
> 3 frames per metre, this makes a MASSIVE difference in visual smoothness
and
> makes games like GPL look like slomo replays of poorly recorded low budget
> low FPS movies....

> Its not what the eye can see, its how many times get a refresh per
metre...

> To this point find a GPL replay at 200mph (down to stavelot at spa) pause
it
> click the frame forward and it skips maybe 2metres between frames it
> 70metres per second on the road, is 0.5frames per metre....

> now watch F12002 at 200mph with 150fps.....LOL the difference is ***ing
> massive!!....

> But this still doesnt explain why at 30fps in f12002 you hit a curb and it
> reacts twice as bad as a guy running 90fps.....the model is running
better,
> and f12002s model just gets better the faster it runs, any PC lag of low
FPS
> it runs and reacts to high pressure impacts with curbs with bizarre
> results....

> Any with a trick machine try a slowmo program to give you 50% processor
> usuage, try taking the curbs at monza T1 with 25fps, then try it with
> 100....

> night and day....



> > The physics are not any faster at higer fps in f12002 as you either set
it
> > to 100hz or 200hz (high or normal) phsyics. I aslo very much doubt if
you
> > can see any diffence visually in frame rate between 50 and 100fps unless
> > you've got weird inhuman eyes. 36fps in GPL is certainly more thasn good
> > enough for all us simmers anything above is a waste of power which is
> better
> > spent on visual quality.

> > Some Call Me Tim

Haqsa

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by Haqsa » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:58:03

Hey, weren't you the guy slamming F1 2002 a couple of months ago?   ;o)



> also tell me the 36fps is fine, with a number of GPLers suffering eye
> problems in GPL, they dont or are no longer suffering in F12002...more
FPS
> the better...

> GPL great sim, but jesus christ does it look slow and *** at high
speed
> after seeing what 3x the FPS looks like.....



> > also...its not FPS for the eye, its Frame Per Meter on the road,
this is
> why
> > at 150fps F12002 looks outstnading compared to 50 or so....

> > at 50fps you get 1 frame per metre of track at 200mph.....at 150fps
you
> get
> > 3 frames per metre, this makes a MASSIVE difference in visual
smoothness
> and
> > makes games like GPL look like slomo replays of poorly recorded low
budget
> > low FPS movies....

> > Its not what the eye can see, its how many times get a refresh per
> metre...

> > To this point find a GPL replay at 200mph (down to stavelot at spa)
pause
> it
> > click the frame forward and it skips maybe 2metres between frames it
> > 70metres per second on the road, is 0.5frames per metre....

> > now watch F12002 at 200mph with 150fps.....LOL the difference is
***ing
> > massive!!....

> > But this still doesnt explain why at 30fps in f12002 you hit a curb
and it
> > reacts twice as bad as a guy running 90fps.....the model is running
> better,
> > and f12002s model just gets better the faster it runs, any PC lag of
low
> FPS
> > it runs and reacts to high pressure impacts with curbs with bizarre
> > results....

> > Any with a trick machine try a slowmo program to give you 50%
processor
> > usuage, try taking the curbs at monza T1 with 25fps, then try it
with
> > 100....

> > night and day....



> > > The physics are not any faster at higer fps in f12002 as you
either set
> it
> > > to 100hz or 200hz (high or normal) phsyics. I aslo very much doubt
if
> you
> > > can see any diffence visually in frame rate between 50 and 100fps
unless
> > > you've got weird inhuman eyes. 36fps in GPL is certainly more
thasn good
> > > enough for all us simmers anything above is a waste of power which
is
> > better
> > > spent on visual quality.

> > > Some Call Me Tim

Haqsa

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by Haqsa » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:25:19

Frankly I didn't think it even had the potential to run that fast on my
machine, which is why I haven't tweaked it much.  Sounds like I should
try it once to see how it feels, but to be honest the immersion factor
is just as important to me as good game performance.  Unless it feels
orders of magnitude better I will probably go back to the high detail
settings.  Thanks for the tip though.



pw

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by pw » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:43:23

There may be an obvious answer to this question, but so far I haven't
found it in the manual or in the control assignments!

What is the frame rate key for F12002?

Sorry!

-pw

David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:37:38

ermm not played it for a while cntrl f? or alt f? shift f....

> >I get 60-90fps with no AI on my own, on a GF2 and 868 P3....

> There may be an obvious answer to this question, but so far I haven't
> found it in the manual or in the control assignments!

> What is the frame rate key for F12002?

> Sorry!

> -pw

David Powel

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by David Powel » Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:38:25

Im still slamming it (dont play it):) but it works as example of Frames per
metre theory perfectly :)


> Hey, weren't you the guy slamming F1 2002 a couple of months ago?   ;o)



> > also tell me the 36fps is fine, with a number of GPLers suffering eye
> > problems in GPL, they dont or are no longer suffering in F12002...more
> FPS
> > the better...

> > GPL great sim, but jesus christ does it look slow and *** at high
> speed
> > after seeing what 3x the FPS looks like.....



> > > also...its not FPS for the eye, its Frame Per Meter on the road,
> this is
> > why
> > > at 150fps F12002 looks outstnading compared to 50 or so....

> > > at 50fps you get 1 frame per metre of track at 200mph.....at 150fps
> you
> > get
> > > 3 frames per metre, this makes a MASSIVE difference in visual
> smoothness
> > and
> > > makes games like GPL look like slomo replays of poorly recorded low
> budget
> > > low FPS movies....

> > > Its not what the eye can see, its how many times get a refresh per
> > metre...

> > > To this point find a GPL replay at 200mph (down to stavelot at spa)
> pause
> > it
> > > click the frame forward and it skips maybe 2metres between frames it
> > > 70metres per second on the road, is 0.5frames per metre....

> > > now watch F12002 at 200mph with 150fps.....LOL the difference is
> ***ing
> > > massive!!....

> > > But this still doesnt explain why at 30fps in f12002 you hit a curb
> and it
> > > reacts twice as bad as a guy running 90fps.....the model is running
> > better,
> > > and f12002s model just gets better the faster it runs, any PC lag of
> low
> > FPS
> > > it runs and reacts to high pressure impacts with curbs with bizarre
> > > results....

> > > Any with a trick machine try a slowmo program to give you 50%
> processor
> > > usuage, try taking the curbs at monza T1 with 25fps, then try it
> with
> > > 100....

> > > night and day....



> > > > The physics are not any faster at higer fps in f12002 as you
> either set
> > it
> > > > to 100hz or 200hz (high or normal) phsyics. I aslo very much doubt
> if
> > you
> > > > can see any diffence visually in frame rate between 50 and 100fps
> unless
> > > > you've got weird inhuman eyes. 36fps in GPL is certainly more
> thasn good
> > > > enough for all us simmers anything above is a waste of power which
> is
> > > better
> > > > spent on visual quality.

> > > > Some Call Me Tim

Some Call Me Ti

GF4 4200-128MB F12002 Framerates...

by Some Call Me Ti » Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:42:41

Seems like your're getting very confused David. As I said F1-2k and most
sims for that matter run at a certaint physics update 200 or 400hz in the
case of F1-2k as this has no bearing on fps. You get the same physics if you
run 10fps or 100fps. The only diference is that at higher fps it looks
smoother although above a point the eye cannot disecern ant improvement.
Also your controls wheter it be FF wheel, keyboard or mouse only update at a
ceratin rate, 40hz is standard for a mouse but 80 to 200 is better for FPS
games such as Quake etc.

Some Call Me Tim


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.