rec.autos.simulators

Cause some of still don't have a pentium *sob*.

Nick

Well I was not expecting good news so soon -- but Grand Prix Legends
*IS* going to support 3dfx !!  See message below:

============================================
Subject:  RE: Why doesn't Papyrus support 3dfx ?
Date:     3 Oct 1997 13:57:24 -0500

To:       Doug Burg

Hello,
     The upcoming Grand Prix Legends will support both Rendition and
3dfx.  Unlike Windows 95, it's a fairly big job to add support for
different video chips in a DOS program.   In the future, Papyrus will
consider using Windows 95 Direct 3D and Open GL, which were not
available at the time that Papyrus began the NASCAR 2 and IndyCar 2
projects.

Steve/Tech Support

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

My question back to "Steve" is why in the heck are they still writing
for DOS ??  Geez ...

Doug

Er... where have you been?  Papyrus has been saying for quite some time
now that GPL would support both Rendition and 3Dfx.  And AFAIK N2 was
their last DOS product.

--


http://ebusch.akorn.net

DOS rocks and games work smooth :)

% My question back to "Steve" is why in the heck are they still writing
% for DOS ??  Geez ...

Because DOS works?  For sims, I still think DOS is a better OS for
programming.  Speed is of essence and Win95 just has too much overhead.
Maybe Microsoft has finally fixed all of the problems with their DirectX
stuff and again maybe not.  Papyrus bought the Microsoft story about
Win95 being the gameing platform of the future with ICR2, didn't work as
well as the DOS version.  Maybe one built from the ground up might,
but...

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

<------------------{fairly hefty snipping}------------------------->

I'm not defending Win95, it's a shitpot OS for anything, crash crash crash
crash crash  goes ye old kernal. thrash thrash thrash goes ye old hard
disc.etc. It is 32bit tho, so u can add more features side by side. I think
most Win95 games so far have been started in dos and hastily redesigned for
directx and Win95, so they're poorly designed. U should try the demo of
Ubisoft F1, get it at <www.f1racingsim.com> (that's how good it is, it's a
month from coming out and someones already got a dnr site), apparently runs
on a p166 with 32meg and a decent 3dfx accelerator at 30-40fps, with
AWESOME graphix. If you have a cyrix or no 3dfx or powerVR accelerator, u
can't work the demo, tho the finished version will allow 2d cards with
direct3d and will have cyrix support. If u can't run the demo, check out
the screenshots anyway, and make sure your saliver misses the keyboard!

Joe

All I can do is whole heartedly agree with your statement. MS should spend
some time with Combat sim folks to find out how it's done. I took FS98 back
to the store.

--
Yoda
209th Delta Hawks VFS
Stockton Calif. USA
http://www.deltahawks.org

:
: And for you automated email spammers out there,
: here's the email addresses of the current board of
: the Federal Communications Commission:
:




:
: And let's help you send some spam to the USPS, too:

:
remove # from address to e-mail

I avoided this thread at first, because they always seem to turn into
pissing matches.  Usually its some kid that says his system runs Win95
games faster than the DOS versions, not realizing that he has a crummy
ATI video card with shit-slow DOS performance.

I agree with Michael that DOS is better.
Maybe this will change, but Microsoft has been unable to fulfill most
of the promises they made 3 YEARS ago.
I love setting up and playing a DOS compatible game. Everything seems
faster and more responsive.

The spiel about Win95 eliminating configuration hassles was an
absolute frigging joke. There are more than ever.
DOS programs were easily configured by then too. Sound cards were
auto-detected, DOS extenders eliminated memory hassles...
Win95 was our saviour for problems that no longer existed.

In my opinion, all Win95 brings to the table is easily configured
internet play. Since latency is still a big issue, it isn't bringing
much.

While I like the concept of Direct 3D, so far (in my opinion, of
course) its 90% ***and 10% functionality.
I don't know if any of you have played Flight Sim 98, but it is
absolutely horrible. Microsoft can't even program for their own
(well, they bought it)  API. 5-10fps on 32 meg 200 MMX's.
That is pathetic.

3D cards are speeding things up in Win95, but processors are to the
point where we could now be running DOS games in 800x600 or even
1024x768. Think about it.
They'd look great. Probably as good as their D3D brethren do when
forced to run at 512x384 to squeak out 15fps.

I'd love to hear a rational defense for Win95.  :)

--                        

Not to get in a pissing match or anything..... but maybe you have a
"shit slow" video card.  I'm averaging 30-40 fps in FS98 using a
K6-200 and a Intense3D card.

Hmmm.... maybe the API is so bad afterall.

Mike

R:

First you mention you didn't want a pissing contest and then your last
statement invites one!!! :)

I'll touch Dos running high rez. games and Win '95 performance and setup.

I don't know but I've setup over 100 units of varrying degrees and I've been
quite impressed overall with the pnp capabilities and the debugging abilities
win '95 gives a experienced user. That is I don't stick in a board that I know
isn't jumpered properly. How does one figure this out though??? Well you
simply goto the system selection in the control panel and it nicely lays out
every device on your system and tells you if a particular decive is in
conflict. Pretty easy I would say. So when you have none of these conflicts I
have found out for the most part I have a fine running machine. This to me if
my memory servers me correctly easier than the limited dos, lets not forget
Windows brings a lot more to the table than vanilla DOS.

By the way I don't need a mouse driver, cd driver, sound card driver ect.
eating up conventional memory. So I never ever see you need more free space
garb. I remeber vividly in DOS. Heck I remmember near the end of dos I had a
bootup menu where it asked what boot selection I wanted which was a
combination of certain drivers loaded or unloaded. Fun fun fun, especially for
that new buyer, they loved it.

Now I currently use Rendition cards for DOS performance, but before I had the
overated millineum. Both IMO perform roughly equal in DOS. I state this
because I don't have a terrible dos card. On my systems with enough ram 24+ I
couldn't tell a difference between straight dos and a dos window through
windows '95. Sorry I don't see it and I run everything one needs to make this
general based conclusion from games to biz apps. Maybe but maybe there is a
program out there to make a liar out of me but it's very very rare.

My conclusion for you is that you probably have a bug in your system that you
can't figure out due to dos's limitations on reporting such things. :) You
gotta love that line huh?

I thought about dos high rez. as you asked, and I'd love to see Quake (as an

that. Well 5 frames is pretty close to 30 isn't it? Huh. Your overating dos by
a country mile times 2 bud. The drivers haven't changed much in DOS.

I'm sorry, obviously your stating your findings. But I also know what I get.
Either your not understanding windows '95 or I have some magical machines. I
don't stand alone in this.

I don't know if I defended win '95's honor or not. But bottom line it equals
dos's performance for me, is easier once understood and has much better tools
inside. Other than that I love to see dos make it forever.

Q.B.M.

P&P is a mixed bag in my opinion. Some devices, like sound cards can
be a real pain in the butt. You pretty much have to force a conflict
to eliminate the IDE and joystick ports.
You mention jumper settings, but the only P&P cabable device I have
that actually has jumpers is a US Robotics modem.

Yes, initial configuration in DOS came with a steep learning curve.
Some of it was good knowledge, even if was tough to grasp at first.
What we have now are people that can't figure out anything on their
own.  Most of the guys that worked with DOS/3.1 have a good grasp of
system setup. I'm glad to have suffered through it.
I have friends that asked me to fix their setups after DirectX 2
hosed their video drivers, then again when DirectX 5 screwed up
joystick configurations.
As far as not having drivers... You sure do. More than ever.
That's part of the reason standard system configs quadrupled from 8
meg to 32 meg in the span of a  year.  Cheap RAM was a blessing.

Heh. My system is set up right. (I think!  ;)      )
I built it... actually it's pretty old now... SuperMicro P55CMS,
48meg, 2 WD drives, a 1.6 and a 4 gig, Creative 8X CD, SoundBlaster 32
P&P. The motherboard is actually pretty fast, but it has an FX
chipset, 66mhz bus max, and no split voltage capability.
I've used both a 6x86 166+ and a Pentium 166 in it.
It benchmarked faster than a friends off the shelf Acer 200mmx in both
configurations. There is a classic case of a box with lame DOS
performance that makes it's Win95 performance look good by comparison.

No problem dude. I understand, and respect your opinion.
I just think back to 1994 and 95, and there were a lot of things
promised back then that still haven't been delivered on.

--                        

Sure - VXD errors, registry problems, driver conflicts, networking
conflicts, scandisk running on bootup, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Yes you do, there's just no longer the concept of "conventional
memory".

Personally I had one boot configuration which worked with every game -
well, every game except Strike Commander for some reason (and since it
was mince I wasn't too concerned!). If you configure a PC correctly it
will work in DOS no trouble with 630k free or so.

In the DOS era VGA games were prevalent. Try comparing a VGA game on
the Millenium with the same game on your Rendition then come back and
tell me it's overrated! :)

Try running Indycar2 3D in Indyfast mode - still no difference...?

Win95 is a valiant attempt to make something complicated into
something simple - it fails, but in so doing it achieves it's primary
objective of world domination and making squillions of spondoolicks
for Bill Gates. More power to the man, we're all way too predictable
for him. How does it feel to be a sheep?

Cheers!
John

Oh John your a real firecracker ala troublemaker. I can tell by your limited
and wisecracking answers.

Subject is Win '95 anygood...

Q.B.M. (States it's at least better than DOS)

JOHN:

R:

Well duh John. If you don't know these settings you still have the same
problem is DOS and you have worse debuging tools. My point is if you put in
properly configured hardware into either DOS or Win '95 they will both prefrom
well.

Q.B.M.

JOHN:

Not me, not me, not me, not me, not me, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Your not very truthful are you. By meaning win '95 brings more to the table I
mean it's robust enviroment to do more and more quickly in just about
everything, except bootup time. Thats it.

Q.B.M.

JOHN:

R:

Nothing I never need to fool with as one does with DOS. Of course every new
DOS owners knows how to do this. :) That's why they all me, they love talking
to me.

Q.B.M.

JOHN:

R:

Well I obviously had more options to deal with. I needed at least 6 different
boot modes. Again I'm sure every new DOS user new this though, but funny I
never seen anybody else do this? They always called me to help them, hmmm.

Q.B.M.

JOHN:

I'm talking above VGA levels. Sorry but I haven't done 320x240 for quite
sometime. I'm talking SVGA as were you. Remember you were talking about
800x600 and up. Now does that sound like VGA? Common you can do better than
that. Millenium is overated and overpriced, always was in my book and I owned
one.

Q.B.M.

JOHN:

R:

This is my only error. And it was becuase I didn't want to mention this. Yep
Indycar has to be run in DOS mode. Hardly Win '95's fault, and it could run
under '95 in a dos screen if Papy wanted to spend the time to do this. And
they are!!! Your indyfast isn't a product of dos speed, but of it's
compatibility with dos, since it was made prior to '95. But lets not forget
Win '95 has a feauture where you can still have ICR 2 all setup in '95, press
an icon and it will reboot automatically with whatever drivers you propose for
each individual application like this (very very few) and upon leaving that
app. it reboots to '95 ready to go to the next thing. So it does take added
time for reboots and all but it still is just as easy for a newbie since
they're still just click an icon and the rest is automatially done for them.

Q.B.M.

R:

I think you need to re-read your post. You made the crazy statement that if we
never had windows and people stayed with DOS we would have the ability to run
our current machines much faster than we now have with windows. Your the one
stating dos is so much faster than windows. I'm here to state there close
enough to be called even in performance. Please be honest with yourself. That
last one was wonderful. You make the stupid statement and you turn it around
like I said it, what a beauty.

Q.B.M.

JOHN:

R:

John how does it feel to be jealous? It was bound to happen to somebody. This
industry needs a standard and someone is going to own that standard. That
person is going to be rich. Deal with it. There are other people in the world
with in that same situation. Without a standard many people would just not use
a computer. No matter who was going to be "The One" in this industry they were
bound to have run into the same obstacles Microsoft has, this stuff is
extremely complex. The only way to make it less complex is to have no more
choices of varied hardware and companies. Basically a console computer. Is
that what you want? If not, then your gonna have issues to deal with.

John apart from games there are many applications that are simply miles ahead
of where there dos counterpart were just beause of a gui interface.
Spreadsheets is a good example, in terms of data manipulation, setup and
presentation. Games are better not becuase of a perfromance increase, but the
ease of running them without a command line.

Yippe!!
Q.B.M.

You missed the point. _I_ know that, _you_ know that, but Win95 hits
Joe Blow in Nowhere City - how does he know that?

Do you think Win95 was designed to satisfy you? This is generalising,
not simply you. I've built lots of machines for lots of people and
more people***up Win95 than DOS. They have more trouble getting
stuff working as well.

Win95 is fine when it's working well, but when things go wrong they're
way more difficult to fix. Yes, I know, not for you, but we are
generalising here.

If truth be the subject then direct me to the untruth I doth spake.
Win95 does bring all of the things I mentioned and more. It also
brings a nice pretty environment (at the cost of grossly inflated
system overheads) and _of_course_ it does everything faster - you've
got a Pentium 166 in there which you didn't have in your DOS machine.

Win95 is nice, but let's look at it realistically.

Type "mouse" at the "C:\" prompt - how difficult can it be.... :)

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you had that system configured
correctly you wouldn't need six different boot-up options. What did
you do before DOS6 multiboot and when some installed messed with your
autoexec and config.sys?! Your life must have been hell! :)

I wasn't talking about anything, certainly not VGA. The point is that
in the DOS day VGA was king (due to limited processor power at that
time) and SVGA occasionally possible. The Millenium is way superior to
the Rendition, which incidentally is years newer than the Millenium.

Millenium was certainly overpriced, but anyone who knew about hardware
could tell you that it was one of the top performers at that time.

Back to the point - where did you get the idea that Win95 could do
30fps at 1024x768, or indeed do any frame-rate that DOS cannot?

So to play Indycar2 I have to go alllllllll the way into Win95, click
an icon, alllll the way back out of 95, load up ICR2....no thanks. Now
that I have 95 I finally am forced to have the boot menu I never
needed in DOS! It gives me the option of 95, ICR2, N2 or TPTCC. Works
well, but try explaining to a newbie how to do it! Edit MSDOS.SYS
after changing file attributes, change BOOTGUI....forget it!

That was my first post - I think you need to re-read what you thought
you were replying to! :)

I think if you look back you'll see that you are making the stupid
statement alleging that I made the stupid statement. :)  The message I
wrote to you was the _first_ thing I mentioned in this thread, and
this message will be the last. Discussions and comparisons are all
very well, but squabbling and calling people "stupid" when they
disagree with you is very passe.

Jealous of whom? There are many people I'd gladly change places with
for a day but Bill Gates isn't one of them. Fine for those for whom
money makes the world go around, but that amount of money just atops
pushing my buttons I'm afraid.

I have no doubt that apps are way better, but I question the need to
have Win95 as an O/S to run them. Why not load up Win3.1 when
necessary.

As for games, I've yet to see a game which runs better under Win95
than under DOS - the only advantages seem to be networking, but then
to use your argument _I_ have never had any trouble setting up
networks in DOS so for me it's little consolation. The best thing
about Win95 IMO is QuakeWorld, and apart from that I could happily
live with DOS/Win3.1.

Win95 is a done deal, Bill's getting megabucks, we're suffering though
Win95 slowly mutating into the O/S it should have been. I have no
doubt that by the time Win98 is obsoleted and we eventually move to NT
then DirectX, drivers, software etc will all be written to work well
with Windows and we'll have a good OS or GUI. As of now they're not,
and we don't. Even although we've been force fed Win95 and we have no
choice but to swallow, let's not kid ourselves that we're eating haute
cuisine. We've been fed a burger and told it's a steak, and while we
may well get a steak by the time the next course arrives, right now
we've got a burger. Fine if you like burgers, but I'd rather stick
with the starters and wait for a decent meal. :)

Cheers!
John