rec.autos.simulators

by **Philste** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

We have read over and over again that sim racing often demand high end
*** machine. One reason for the GPL engine not being used for the
next Nascar game is just that.

But I was reading the last PC Gamer mag and got an idea. In an article,
they mention a new technology called MRM (multi-resolution mesh). It's
gonna be used in Team Fortress 2 game. What is does is change the level
of details of characters depending on the range they are at. Closer
characters are made of 800 polygons while the ones in the background use
only 300 polygons. That allows the game to run a bit faster. Why not do
the same thing with racing games?

Given the fact that FPS often serve as benchmarks for frame rates and
graphics, wouldn't be logical to take advantage of the same
technologies?

Philster

by **ddjhenri** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Good idea, but the technology is just becomming
available. It won't help gpl any and since the
upcomming (someday) release of the gpl based
Nascar game will use the gpl code, I don't think
it could be incorparated without a costly rewrite.
Still, there is that dead TRANS AM game out
there...anyone??

>We have read over and over again that sim racing often demand high end
>*** machine. One reason for the GPL engine not being used for the
>next Nascar game is just that.

>But I was reading the last PC Gamer mag and got an idea. In an article,
>they mention a new technology called MRM (multi-resolution mesh). It's
>gonna be used in Team Fortress 2 game. What is does is change the level
>of details of characters depending on the range they are at. Closer
>characters are made of 800 polygons while the ones in the background use
>only 300 polygons. That allows the game to run a bit faster. Why not do
>the same thing with racing games?

>Given the fact that FPS often serve as benchmarks for frame rates and
>graphics, wouldn't be logical to take advantage of the same
>technologies?

>Philster

by **Marc Collin** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

The problem is that the technology you refer to is for graphics. Graphics
is not the problem with GPL, the physics of the AI opponents is the problem
(with high processing demand). Would we want the AI opponents to be able to
drive outside the laws of physics (that we have to abide by) when they are
on the other side of the track or far down the road, but make them accurate
only when they are close to us?

I don't think this has any application to "simulations," but it is obviously
great for reducing the graphics load in some situations.

Marc.

by **Kirk Lan** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Part of GPL's extensive hardware demands is that it is optimized for only
two types of video cards - Rendition and 3dFX. Otherwise, the CPU is bogged
down with
having to both do the physics and then render it, which (to do at 36 fps)
would require immense processing power. Most people (myself included) seem
to be running processors at a MINIMUM of 350 MHz with a Rendition or 3dFX
board to be able to get 36 fps. If they wrote a version of it for the
Matrox G200 (I mean a GOOD version, not Matrox' lame patch) it would be
faster than my Rendition.
--
Kirk Lane
Tempe, AZ

ICQ: 28171652
RMRL #119

>We have read over and over again that sim racing often demand high end
>*** machine. One reason for the GPL engine not being used for the
>next Nascar game is just that.

>But I was reading the last PC Gamer mag and got an idea. In an article,
>they mention a new technology called MRM (multi-resolution mesh). It's
>gonna be used in Team Fortress 2 game. What is does is change the level
>of details of characters depending on the range they are at. Closer
>characters are made of 800 polygons while the ones in the background use
>only 300 polygons. That allows the game to run a bit faster. Why not do
>the same thing with racing games?

>Given the fact that FPS often serve as benchmarks for frame rates and
>graphics, wouldn't be logical to take advantage of the same
>technologies?

>Philster

by **Mark Seer** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Quite right. The physics determining the dynamics are amazingly complex in
GPL. We must also remember that this is the first sim that simulates
dynamics from a 3d perspective IE the up / down (z axis) movements as well.

Mark

by **Philste** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

> Part of GPL's extensive hardware demands is that it is optimized for only
> two types of video cards - Rendition and 3dFX. Otherwise, the CPU is bogged
> down with
> having to both do the physics and then render it, which (to do at 36 fps)
> would require immense processing power. Most people (myself included) seem
> to be running processors at a MINIMUM of 350 MHz with a Rendition or 3dFX
> board to be able to get 36 fps. If they wrote a version of it for the
> Matrox G200 (I mean a GOOD version, not Matrox' lame patch) it would be
> faster than my Rendition.
> --
> Kirk Lane
> Tempe, AZ

> ICQ: 28171652
> RMRL #119

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand your reply. I was not wondering why
GPL was so CPU intensive, but rather how we could have great games with
great graphics and still be able to run it on the average pc.

Philster

- Show quoted text -

> >We have read over and over again that sim racing often demand high end
> >*** machine. One reason for the GPL engine not being used for the
> >next Nascar game is just that.

> >But I was reading the last PC Gamer mag and got an idea. In an article,
> >they mention a new technology called MRM (multi-resolution mesh). It's
> >gonna be used in Team Fortress 2 game. What is does is change the level
> >of details of characters depending on the range they are at. Closer
> >characters are made of 800 polygons while the ones in the background use
> >only 300 polygons. That allows the game to run a bit faster. Why not do
> >the same thing with racing games?

> >Given the fact that FPS often serve as benchmarks for frame rates and
> >graphics, wouldn't be logical to take advantage of the same
> >technologies?

> >Philster

by **Philste** » Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00:00

> Quite right. The physics determining the dynamics are amazingly complex in
> GPL. We must also remember that this is the first sim that simulates
> dynamics from a 3d perspective IE the up / down (z axis) movements as well.

> Mark

> > The problem is that the technology you refer to is for graphics. Graphics
> > is not the problem with GPL, the physics of the AI opponents is the

My question to you then: why do the frame rate like a rock when you
change from 640X480 then to 800X600 (no to mention 1024X768)? Don't tell
me the physics engine is tied to the graphics engine! Also, the details
"slider" does have an impact on the frame rates too. Any comments?

Philster

by **Martin Urs** » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:24:47 GMT, "Marc Collins"

>The problem is that the technology you refer to is for graphics. Graphics
>is not the problem with GPL, the physics of the AI opponents is the problem
>(with high processing demand). Would we want the AI opponents to be able to
>drive outside the laws of physics (that we have to abide by) when they are
>on the other side of the track or far down the road, but make them accurate
>only when they are close to us?

As someone who just recently upgraded from a Voodoo1 to a
Voodoo3, I can attest that graphics is indeed a chokepoint for GPL!

Martin
Nigel Mansell RIP!

by **Mark Seer** » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Should have worded that one better. Of course it is a fact that graphics
make up a certain percentage of demand on the hardware required to run this
sim. However you must consider the fact that this is in relative terms to
previous sims, a much smaller proportion of all system demands in percentage
terms. The extra computing power required to process all the additional
data in an extremely complex physics engine literally blows the roof off
lesser specified machines.
Add to this, higher resolution and detail bias turned all the way up and you
are raising the threshold even further.

Your original post mentions MRM. This idea is an excellent one. I believe
that something along the same lines has already been implemented in GPL,
hence the slower framerates when running closer to other cars as opposed to
running at a distance.

Regards

Mark

> > Quite right. The physics determining the dynamics are amazingly complex
in
> > GPL. We must also remember that this is the first sim that simulates
> > dynamics from a 3d perspective IE the up / down (z axis) movements as
well.

> > Mark

> > > The problem is that the technology you refer to is for graphics.
Graphics
> > > is not the problem with GPL, the physics of the AI opponents is the

> My question to you then: why do the frame rate like a rock when you
> change from 640X480 then to 800X600 (no to mention 1024X768)? Don't tell
> me the physics engine is tied to the graphics engine! Also, the details
> "slider" does have an impact on the frame rates too. Any comments?

> Philster

by **Jo Helsen (EDP** » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:22:29 +0100, "Mark Seery"

>Quite right. The physics determining the dynamics are amazingly complex in
>GPL. We must also remember that this is the first sim that simulates
>dynamics from a 3d perspective IE the up / down (z axis) movements as well.

My cars in GP2 have been bouncing up and down for the last 3 years
(GP2 released in summer '96).

JoH

========================================
Jo Helsen EDP Operations BF Belgium

========================================

by **Jo Helsen (EDP** » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:37:23 -0400, Philster

>We have read over and over again that sim racing often demand high end
>*** machine. One reason for the GPL engine not being used for the
>next Nascar game is just that.

>But I was reading the last PC Gamer mag and got an idea. In an article,
>they mention a new technology called MRM (multi-resolution mesh). It's
>gonna be used in Team Fortress 2 game. What is does is change the level
>of details of characters depending on the range they are at. Closer
>characters are made of 800 polygons while the ones in the background use
>only 300 polygons. That allows the game to run a bit faster. Why not do
>the same thing with racing games?

>Given the fact that FPS often serve as benchmarks for frame rates and
>graphics, wouldn't be logical to take advantage of the same
>technologies?

Actually, in GP2 (now released 3 years ago and probably the last sim
without 3D-card support) a similar principle was used. A last resort
to make the thing playable...Cars at a distance are displayed using
2Dsprites. It was quite well implemented and only discovered when
people released tools to change camera-angles: the sprites weren't
adapted to these new angles and immediately became (much too)
apparent......

JoH

========================================
Jo Helsen EDP Operations BF Belgium

========================================

by **Mark Seer** » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Alas, just a canned effect in GP2. The vertical movement in GP2 is not
modelled in terms of vehicle handling dynamics.

Mark

> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:22:29 +0100, "Mark Seery"

> >Quite right. The physics determining the dynamics are amazingly complex
in
> >GPL. We must also remember that this is the first sim that simulates
> >dynamics from a 3d perspective IE the up / down (z axis) movements as
well.

> My cars in GP2 have been bouncing up and down for the last 3 years
> (GP2 released in summer '96).

> JoH

> ========================================
> Jo Helsen EDP Operations BF Belgium

> ========================================

by **Kirk Lan** » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Simple: Make the average PC include a 3dFX board :)

--
Kirk Lane
Tempe, AZ

ICQ: 28171652
RMRL #119

by **Jo Helsen (EDP** » Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Well, I don't think you can talk in absolute, discrete terms. It's
never black or white. The hight of the vertical movement in GP2
depends on the speed at least (just try touching wheels with another
car at different speeds). There's also a difference between high curbs
and low curbs etc.

Remember: in a simulation everything is "canned" to some extent, even
in GPL! To save processor power (they're not actually calculating the
airflow-dynamics around the car, are they???) and also because our
laws of physics are approximations after all... :-)

JoH

>Alas, just a canned effect in GP2. The vertical movement in GP2 is not
>modelled in terms of vehicle handling dynamics.

>Mark

>> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:22:29 +0100, "Mark Seery"

>> >Quite right. The physics determining the dynamics are amazingly complex
>in
>> >GPL. We must also remember that this is the first sim that simulates
>> >dynamics from a 3d perspective IE the up / down (z axis) movements as
>well.

>> My cars in GP2 have been bouncing up and down for the last 3 years
>> (GP2 released in summer '96).

>> JoH

>> ========================================
>> Jo Helsen EDP Operations BF Belgium

>> ========================================

========================================
Jo Helsen EDP Operations BF Belgium

========================================

rec.autos.simulators

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies

Sim racing and new technologies