|> > ICR - a more accurate physical model of the vehicle and the track, good for
|> > getting the idea of what it is really like to drive such a thing and
|> > what it is like to set up for different conditions, however, version 1.02 has
|> > quite a few not so good features, such as; on a 486DX-33 the graphics are only
|> > acceptable when racing alone, driving in a pack of cars results in choppy
|> > graphics with detail fading to the point where a crash is almost certain since
|> > depth and movement are no longer understandable, also - cannot disable
|> > joystick in menus. ICR can really only be used to drive these tracks solo,
|> > and race against the clock (gets boring after a while).
|>
|> Thats with automatic detail on. You can turn that off. If you like the
|> graphics in WC, have your tried degrading the graphics in Indycar to that
|> level? Try that if you don't find the speed acceptable. With a coupl things
|> turned off I find the graphics fine on my 486/33.
|>
Well, I'll have to agree with the first writer (and perhaps send a note to Papyrus
about how disappointed I am). If I turn the graphics detail down to a level
comparable to WC the action is still choppy in packs. I can run 25 fps in WC if
I turn off the textured fills (which look cheesy anyway). At 25fps the "feel" is
excellent and you can anticipate things much better. In IndyCar I often have to turn
off some trackside objects to keep it at 15 fps in a pack of cars. I'm not impressed.
After running WC at 25 fps, 15 fps looks like a 1909 silent movie and I find I keep
making errors due to the choppiness of the animation. Note I am comparing the
performance of the two programs on an identical machine.
Yes, IndyCar has tremendous technical detail and real-world physics modelling, but
they dropped the ball when they compromised graphics speed. I'll gladly do without
the program checking my tire temperatures if I can get smooth animation!`
Stephen