<HTML>
<BR>>Has anyone come up
<BR>> with the optimum sound settings for N2?
<P>Try kicking the spotter down to 70 or 80% and turning up the speaker
<BR>volume (or get louder/amplified speakers)
<P>---Jim</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>I'll try that, but I do have very loud/amplified speakers, and if I
put the spotter at any less than 100% he gets lost in the engine(s) and
squeal sounds. It seems difficult to get a good mix like you could get
in N1.
<P>JMG</HTML>
---Jim
Have you tried the N2 Sound patch? It takes the much-better tire squeal
from N1 and incorporates it into N2. This way, you don't have that constant
annoying screech of tires. Give it a shot. It's available at
http://www.theuspits.com
-/- BW
> > I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on page 29, incase
> > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting over 50% on the
> > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it back to 50% and
> > can roar just like before.
> I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing cars in N1 and find that
> lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the spotter at 50% and turn up
> everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter gets lost in the
> background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because I want all the other
> sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to have center stage. This
> gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me the other levels I want.
> I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's still not nearly as loud as
> N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have N2 set at, it'd be
> deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2 as it seemed a little
> choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic detail. Has anyone come up
> with the optimum sound settings for N2?
I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without
changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am
also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only
hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit
stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't think
that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely moving
pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my stall
and hit the gas I noticed the extra power.
> > > > I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so
> > > > I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions.
> > > > 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really
> > > > loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not
> > > > clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound
> > > > driver in both games.
> > > > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but
> > > > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I
> > > > have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I
> > > > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by
> > > > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect
> > > > the speed of the cars?
> > > Do you have auto-brake on?
> > > --
> > > PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882
> > > I think you can figure out the SPAM filter.
> > > Visit my pages:
> > > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html
> > > "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo
> > No. I guess you're really not sure if the CPU makes a difference with
> > car speed.
> Theoretically the processor speed shouldn't make a difference in car
> speed.
> However, the speed of the CPU directly effects your (i.e. the human)
> driving environment in terms of frame rate and or graphic detail levels
> you find acceptable.
> The more info your brain can take in, the better your responses.
> Imagine trying to drive a curvey (sp?) road at night while your
> headlights are acting like strobe lights. Techically your car can still
> drive at the same speed, but the reduction of visual information caused
> you to drive less than optimal.
> The real unanswered question (from Papy) is the Joystick sample rate and
> Physics computation rate.
> Is this effected by CPU speed or is it run at a fixed rate regardless of
> "frame rate".
> Odds are the sample/computation rate is fixed for any level of CPU.
> mykey
> I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without
> changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am
> also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only
> hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit
> stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't think
> that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely moving
> pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my stall
> and hit the gas I noticed the extra power.
---Jim
> I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without
> changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am
> also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only
> hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit
> stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't > > think that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely > > moving pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my > stall and hit the gas I noticed the extra power.
> 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but
> the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1.
> I have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I
> have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by
> putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually > effect the speed of the cars?
As for a faster CPU making the car "faster" by virtue of improved CPU
performance alone (not to be confused with the "frame rate" issue, which
is separate), hasn't Jim Solokof (sp?) told us over and over again on
the r.a.s. that Papy restricted N2 to one common denomonator,
speed-of-car-wise... regardless of CPU? Just a thought...
God Bless,
Andre
> > I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without
> > changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am
> > also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only
> > hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit
> > stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't think
> > that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely moving
> > pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my stall
> > and hit the gas I noticed the extra power.
> Sounds like the new processor forced you to re-calibrate your joystick,
> which was likely the problem all along.
> ---Jim
> As for a faster CPU making the car "faster" by virtue of improved CPU
> performance alone (not to be confused with the "frame rate" issue, which
> is separate), hasn't Jim Solokof (sp?) told us over and over again on
> the r.a.s. that Papy restricted N2 to one common denomonator,
> speed-of-car-wise... regardless of CPU? Just a thought...
> God Bless,
> Andre
How you react to 15 fps is probably different than how someone else
does.
I personally would turn off the eye candy to the point I'm driving in
the desert. But I'm not everybody.
When I had a 486-100 I had to handicap the guy I raced with. We started
from the back, and didn't allow any passing on the first lap. My
computer went into "slide show mode" if I tried to pass a pack of cars.
Running alone, I could achieve the same type of speeds as now (maybe a
little less) but traffic was a killer.
My current system p166 with rendition means I now have to get
handicapped.
The difference may be more resolution from the controller.
<Hypothetical numbers>
486 calibration 500-1000
pent calibration 800-1600
On the pentium I have 800 descrete positions of the wheel as opposed to
only 500 with the 486.
With this info, I wonder how an ACM helps if your range is reduced.
Hopefully it becomes much more consistant due to military specs on the
chips.
mykey
Can the human body handle 800 discrete positions within 270 degrees of
steering lock? I don't think so?
Can most potentiometers handle 800 discrete positions within 270
degrees of steering lock? I don't think so?
You can prove or disprove this to yourself in the N2 calibration
screen. Steer maximum left turn (full lock), then slowly steer to the
right and watch the calibration number and/or needle. If you ever
skip a number or if the count ever goes back down, then either the
human body, the potentiometer, the gamecard A/D, or the calibration
software just let you down. You also want to minimize the number of
points where you get A/D flutter. (i.e. you hold the wheel steady and
the calibtation number and/or needle move between two or more
numbers).
You know sawing the wheel scrubs off speed. With too big a range,
this sawing effect could be happening on a very small scale without
you even knowing it.
I don't think this helps lap times. :-)
It can't be helping the weight transfers either.
It can't be helping the precise entry of a corner.
Substitute your own numbers above in place of the 800. With creative
labs brand sound blaster cards, I have seen ranges up to 1600.
With factory fresh potentiometers, the negative effects of a large
calibration range will be minimized. Perhaps the learning curve
causes steady improvement despite the degradation of the calibration
smoothness due to the potentiometer wearing.
I have experienced a jump in performance after replacing a worn
potentiometer with a new one.
Now, how can the thrustmaster ACM and a TSW improve the situation:
With the ACM, you have full control over the calibration range. If
your potentiometer is wearing, you can reduce the calibration range to
the point where you do not have glitches on the calibration screen.
With the TSW which uses linear 100K potentiometers as compared to the
Thrustmaster's linear 200K potentiometers, the range is automatically
cut in half.
Both these reasons support the arguement that a smaller calibration
number takes less time for the software to read it and slightly
improves overall performance.
--
Best Wishes!!!
Robert Huggins
Raleigh, NC
<HTML>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> > I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on page 29,
incase
<BR>> > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting over 50%
on the
<BR>> > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it back
to 50% and
<BR>> > can roar just like before.
<BR>>
<BR>> I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing cars in N1
and find that
<BR>> lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the spotter at 50%
and turn up
<BR>> everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter gets lost
in the
<BR>> background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because I want
all the other
<BR>> sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to have center
stage. This
<BR>> gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me the other
levels I want.
<BR>> I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's still not
nearly as loud as
<BR>> N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have N2 set
at, it'd be
<BR>> deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2 as it
seemed a little
<BR>> choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic detail. Has
anyone come up
<BR>> with the optimum sound settings for N2?
<P>I did download some awesome engine sound files from The Yellow Flag
<BR>website. These things roar better than NASCAR1.</BLOCKQUOTE>
I downloaded the Rusty Wallace***pit with enhanced engine sounds
but didn't install it as a couple of people here said that the engine didn't
change sound as you the RPMs changed. I like the way the current engine
sound works in this regard and if the new would do that, I'd install it
in a heartbeat.
<P>JMG</HTML>
> >The difference may be more resolution from the controller.
> ><Hypothetical numbers>
> >486 calibration 500-1000
> >pent calibration 800-1600
> >On the pentium I have 800 descrete positions of the wheel as opposed to
> >only 500 with the 486.
> >With this info, I wonder how an ACM helps if your range is reduced.
> I have been wondering the same thing. Here is my theory on how an ACM
> and a TSW can improve the situation:
> Can the human body handle 800 discrete positions within 270 degrees of
> steering lock? I don't think so?
> Can most potentiometers handle 800 discrete positions within 270
> degrees of steering lock? I don't think so?
> You can prove or disprove this to yourself in the N2 calibration
> screen. Steer maximum left turn (full lock), then slowly steer to the
> right and watch the calibration number and/or needle. If you ever
> skip a number or if the count ever goes back down, then either the
> human body, the potentiometer, the gamecard A/D, or the calibration
> software just let you down. You also want to minimize the number of
> points where you get A/D flutter. (i.e. you hold the wheel steady and
> the calibtation number and/or needle move between two or more
> numbers).
> You know sawing the wheel scrubs off speed. With too big a range,
> this sawing effect could be happening on a very small scale without
> you even knowing it.
> I don't think this helps lap times. :-)
> It can't be helping the weight transfers either.
> It can't be helping the precise entry of a corner.
> Substitute your own numbers above in place of the 800. With creative
> labs brand sound blaster cards, I have seen ranges up to 1600.
> With factory fresh potentiometers, the negative effects of a large
> calibration range will be minimized. Perhaps the learning curve
> causes steady improvement despite the degradation of the calibration
> smoothness due to the potentiometer wearing.
> I have experienced a jump in performance after replacing a worn
> potentiometer with a new one.
> Now, how can the thrustmaster ACM and a TSW improve the situation:
> With the ACM, you have full control over the calibration range. If
> your potentiometer is wearing, you can reduce the calibration range to
> the point where you do not have glitches on the calibration screen.
> With the TSW which uses linear 100K potentiometers as compared to the
> Thrustmaster's linear 200K potentiometers, the range is automatically
> cut in half.
> Both these reasons support the arguement that a smaller calibration
> number takes less time for the software to read it and slightly
> improves overall performance.
> --
> Best Wishes!!!
> Robert Huggins
> Raleigh, NC
My best analogy of this is when painting with individual pixels, as
opposed to with a four or more pixel-block. when you break that block
down, you get a higher resolution, and a cleaner line :)
--
Sit down,,Strap in,,Shut up,,Hang on,,Go fast,,Turn left,,Kiss Trophy
Girl
GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,,
Handy^man
> > > I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on
> page 29, incase
> > > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting
> over 50% on the
> > > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it
> back to 50% and
> > > can roar just like before.
> > I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing
> cars in N1 and find that
> > lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the
> spotter at 50% and turn up
> > everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter
> gets lost in the
> > background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because
> I want all the other
> > sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to
> have center stage. This
> > gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me
> the other levels I want.
> > I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's
> still not nearly as loud as
> > N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have
> N2 set at, it'd be
> > deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2
> as it seemed a little
> > choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic
> detail. Has anyone come up
> > with the optimum sound settings for N2?
> I did download some awesome engine sound files from The
> Yellow Flag
> website. These things roar better than NASCAR1.
> I downloaded the Rusty Wallace***pit with enhanced engine sounds
> but didn't install it as a couple of people here said that the engine
> didn't change sound as you the RPMs changed. I like the way the
> current engine sound works in this regard and if the new would do
> that, I'd install it in a heartbeat.
> JMG
> well, all that you say makes good sense on paper.... but... in my
> experience, on a slower machine than yours, of course... I find that
> with a smaller range, I will invariably find a point in a turn, where my
> current joystick position (yes, I said joystick... LOL ) will will put
> me down below the apron, yet if I just breathe the other way, it heads
> toward the wall. almost as if i can "feel" that minute change between
> one cal unit and the next. It seems to me that if I can cut that one
> unit into two or more , by having a larger calibration range, then I can
> find one of those "in between spots", and a line that I can hold .
> but then again... Maybe it's just me. LOL
> My best analogy of this is when painting with individual pixels, as
> opposed to with a four or more pixel-block. when you break that block
> down, you get a higher resolution, and a cleaner line :)
> --
> Sit down,,Strap in,,Shut up,,Hang on,,Go fast,,Turn left,,Kiss Trophy
> Girl
> GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,,
> Handy^man
Because I've been there.. I've felt that.
I think it has more to do with the chassis setup.
If your setup is a little loose the car wants to turn left. (Assuming
its a left hand turn).
It is when your front wheels are heading straight yet the car is turning
left because the rear wheels are sliding. By turning slightly to the
right you equalize the yaw and the rear wheels stop sliding. At that
moment the car goes in the "normal" direction based on the front
wheels. i.e. to the right.
It's like a razor's edge. Turning left below the line, or heading to
the wall.
Adjust that setup so you have a neutral zone in there. Or get VERY good
at driving that setup.
mykey
> I agree with the idea of more resolution is better but I think your
> example isn't due to the controller.
> Because I've been there.. I've felt that.
> I think it has more to do with the chassis setup.
> If your setup is a little loose the car wants to turn left. (Assuming
> its a left hand turn).
> It is when your front wheels are heading straight yet the car is turning
> left because the rear wheels are sliding. By turning slightly to the
> right you equalize the yaw and the rear wheels stop sliding. At that
> moment the car goes in the "normal" direction based on the front
> wheels. i.e. to the right.
> It's like a razor's edge. Turning left below the line, or heading to
> the wall.
> Adjust that setup so you have a neutral zone in there. Or get VERY good
> at driving that setup.
> mykey
A very valid possibility, and as a matter of fact, I do usually have a
somewhat loose setup. I can't stand a tight car . I go a *little* faster
in a loose one . anyway, getting a T2 sometime this weekend, so maybe I
can start all over with a fresh set of troubles :) LOL
Sit down,Strap in,Shut up,Hang on,Go fast,Turn left, Do the Trophy Girl
GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,,
Handy^man
