rec.autos.simulators

> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?

> SB

> > OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields
less
> > than half the frame rate.  So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics
> > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same.  No
> > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full.

> > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and
2002
> > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from?

> > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects
> > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING
> interferes
> > with GTR2002.

> > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics may
> be
> > because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff,
which
> > only appears under DX9...???

> > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had
> > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even
quite
> > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003.  And, if you use
> > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title.

> > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get
into
> > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that damned
> > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version,
but
> > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002.  Are there supposed to be any bumps
at
> > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any?

> > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if it
> > cuts the fps by 60%.  I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the
other
> > sim.-oriented improvements.

> > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002.

> > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving
> Lessons.

> > So far...a bit underwhelming.  I will buy it of course, but seems like
> about
> > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002.  I was expecting
> > more.  And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it
looks
> > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed.  Unless someone can
> prove
> > to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that are
> > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I get
a
> > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot of
fun
> > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame
> > rate).

> > For those who must know:

> > P4 2.0
> > 512 MB Rambus
> > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video
> > SB Audigy sound
> > new MOMO wheel

> > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care
> about
> > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the
effect.

> > Thanks,

> > Marc

> > --

> > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > to take effect. Reboot now?

> For those who must know:

> P4 2.0
> 512 MB Rambus
> 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video
> SB Audigy sound
> new MOMO wheel

> Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care about
> GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the effect.

> Thanks,

> Marc

> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?

> Marc

> > Marc, DX9 works just fine with GTR2002 and F1-2002 for me.  That said, I
> > still get significantly lower FPS in this NR2003 demo than in NR2002,
and
> we
> > have quite similar spec systems. (XP1800/Ti4400/Audigy/98SE)

> > SB

> > > OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields
> less
> > > than half the frame rate.  So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics
> > > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same.  No
> > > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full.

> > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and
> 2002
> > > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from?

> > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects
> > > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING
> > interferes
> > > with GTR2002.

> > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics
may
> > be
> > > because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff,
> which
> > > only appears under DX9...???

> > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had
> > > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even
> quite
> > > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003.  And, if you use
> > > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title.

> > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get
> into
> > > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that
damned
> > > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version,
> but
> > > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002.  Are there supposed to be any bumps
> at
> > > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any?

> > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if
it
> > > cuts the fps by 60%.  I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the
> other
> > > sim.-oriented improvements.

> > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002.

> > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving
> > Lessons.

> > > So far...a bit underwhelming.  I will buy it of course, but seems like
> > about
> > > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002.  I was
expecting
> > > more.  And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it
> looks
> > > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed.  Unless someone can
> > prove
> > > to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that
are
> > > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I
get
> a
> > > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot of
> fun
> > > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame
> > > rate).

> > > For those who must know:

> > > P4 2.0
> > > 512 MB Rambus
> > > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video
> > > SB Audigy sound
> > > new MOMO wheel

> > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care
> > about
> > > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the
> effect.

> > > Thanks,

> > > Marc

> > > --

> > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > > to take effect. Reboot now?

> I tried reducing the AA to Quincunx and the Aniso to 2X (from the 4X on
both
> that I used before w/NR2002) and that helped a lot.  NR2003 still looks
good
> at that.  Raceable FPS with a small field, but with 43 cars, I don't think
> so.  Turning AA and Aniso off gets the FPS well past 100 in testing, but I
> can't bear to look at it like that anymore.  Spoiled!

> Just checked - with Quincunx AA and 2X Aniso, sitting in the pits at
> Michigan in a test session, I get 90 FPS in NR2002 and 77 in NR2003.
That's
> with everything maxed in '02.  In '03, I have: shadows on cars off, solar
> and specular lighting off, details all on max (note: mirror on med in both
&
> no steering wheel, 73FOV in '03), & normal texture filtering.  In a race,
> sitting at the back of an 11-car grid, I get 43FPS in '03 and 54FPS in
'02.

> It should be useable on PC's like ours, especially online without the AI
> load, but a new vid card wouldn't hurt.  Jeez...darned 4400's still got
that
> new smell.

> SB

> > Interesting.  Did you already have 9 installed before the demo?  If you
> try
> > to keep the eye-candy on par, sitting in the pit lane at Michigan Test
> > Session, how much lower (%) is 2003 for you.  It is literally 60% lower
on
> > my system.

> > Marc

message

> > > Marc, DX9 works just fine with GTR2002 and F1-2002 for me.  That said,
I
> > > still get significantly lower FPS in this NR2003 demo than in NR2002,
> and
> > we
> > > have quite similar spec systems. (XP1800/Ti4400/Audigy/98SE)

> > > SB

> > > > OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields
> > less
> > > > than half the frame rate.  So I figure I'll crank up all the
graphics
> > > > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same.  No
> > > > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full.

> > > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and
> > 2002
> > > > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from?

> > > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects
> > > > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING
> > > interferes
> > > > with GTR2002.

> > > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics
> may
> > > be
> > > > because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff,
> > which
> > > > only appears under DX9...???

> > > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9,
had
> > > > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even
> > quite
> > > > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003.  And, if you use
> > > > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title.

> > > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get
> > into
> > > > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that
> damned
> > > > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this
version,
> > but
> > > > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002.  Are there supposed to be any
bumps
> > at
> > > > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any?

> > > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted
if
> it
> > > > cuts the fps by 60%.  I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the
> > other
> > > > sim.-oriented improvements.

> > > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002.

> > > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving
> > > Lessons.

> > > > So far...a bit underwhelming.  I will buy it of course, but seems
like
> > > about
> > > > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002.  I was
> expecting
> > > > more.  And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it
> > looks
> > > > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed.  Unless someone
can
> > > prove
> > > > to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that
> are
> > > > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I
> get
> > a
> > > > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot
of
> > fun
> > > > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable
frame
> > > > rate).

> > > > For those who must know:

> > > > P4 2.0
> > > > 512 MB Rambus
> > > > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video
> > > > SB Audigy sound
> > > > new MOMO wheel

> > > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't
care
> > > about
> > > > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the
> > effect.

> > > > Thanks,

> > > > Marc

> > > > --

> > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > > > to take effect. Reboot now?

> --
> www.sascar.com

> > For the first time I find Dx to be faster than OpenGL in a Papy sim (Dx9
> > here) and also to look better.

> > I actually think the main fps killers are the three 'On Cars' shadow
> > settings and 'Track Lighting and Shading' - I've disabled these four
> > settings as they visually don't make much of a difference, but cause a
> > severe fps hit. All other settings I've enabled and to highest quality.

> > All the other settings which can be disabled without drastically
changing
> > the image quality didn't cause much of an fps hit for me, including
> > Reflections etc.

> > I'm getting between 35 and 48 fps (these two being the min/max numbers
> > appearing briefly once or twice, usually it's somewhere in-between these
> two
> > extremes) at 1280x960x32, with 2xFSAA and 4xAniso enabled and the
graphics
> > options of the Nvidia drivers optimised for quality. There is btw a
'fog'
> > setting in the player.ini, I've enabled it without seeing an fps hit -
but
> > also without seeing much of an effect yet.

> > As for the FF, it's IMHO more detailed than before. I have created a
> > symetric setup to be able to judge this fairly, because when you're
using
> > someone elses setup you can't really tell in the first hours what the
car
> > should feel like and whether the FF transports the car's reactions well.
> I,
> > for one, think the FF has improved.

> > I don't know whether the physics have been improved or not, but the car
> > feels more like what I'd expect such a Nascar to drive like. I like it
how
> > the steering feels now, this is definitely different from before. I am
> under
> > the impression that the snappiness of the car is more within realistic
> > boundaries now, and I seem to feel the car and the track more directly.
A
> > few little exaggerations have also been removed (like the rev drop when
> > putting a wheel underneath the line). The car's engine power and
> revvability
> > feels perfectly right, exactly like what I'd expect from such a car,
more
> so
> > than it did in N2002 for example.

> > The laptimes are indeed pretty low, maybe this demo has a tad too much
> > horsepower? Perhaps to make it more fun for the reviewers? This wouldn't
> > look like the Papyrus I know at all, but the laptimes are indeed pretty
> low
> > as compared to N2002.

> > Since I'm not a Nascar fan, could anyone comment on what the real life
> > laptimes are like?

> > My one sad point is the in-car engine sound, and also sometimes the
> external
> > sound from the other cars. It still doesn't give me the belly feeling I
> > think it should give me, going by what Nascars sound like on TV. Another
> > issue is, when you disable the menu click-plonk-boing sounds <g> (thanks
> > Papy for letting us disable it) you still get Garage sounds when
tweaking
> > the setup. I find that unnecessary as well, since they're pretty
> repetitive.
> > And where are those 'hey who took my allen wrench' and 'oh shut up and
> look
> > in your own pocket' and 'hurry up guys it's time, we're behind schedule
> > already' and all the other sentences you'd definitely hear in a garage
at
> a
> > racetrack? _That_ would have been something to listen to while tweaking
> the
> > setup :-)

> > One thing I miss are the Credits - I'd really like to know who's been
> > working on this one. Has anyone found those Credits screens?

> > Anyway, it appears to be a high price for an improved N2002, but after
> > having played with the demo for an hour, I've found so much detail
'under
> > the hood' that I think the price is justified. It's not the graphics
that
> > I'll be paying for, it's a lot of detail and expertise that has gone
into
> > the core features of a racing sim.

> > Achim

> > What resolution?

> > TK