rec.autos.simulators

by **Kodi** » Sat, 12 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>You're not making sense. Win95 overhead (which in fact is extremely
>minimal in any case) has nothing to do with the speed of the graphics
>card. NFS 1 can dump graphics to the screen at an extremely high frame
>rate. NFS 2 cannot. The only difference is the software.

>Joe

G's Joe, where do you get your ideas from? Games running under Win95
using the Direct drivers (DirectSound, Direct3D, etc) have MUCH more
overhead to deal with than their DOS counterparts. Additionally,
there is a lot of system management that comes with windows software--
you can't just take over all of the CPU cycles like you could if you
were under DOS. This, I thought, was common knowledge.

And elsewhere:

That's not correct in my experience. Before I got my Matrox
Millennium, action games used to crawl on my system (I had some
factory no-name on my motherboard). Granted, it's not a drastic
change like what I got after I purchased my Righteous3D, but it's
certainly not a "tiny" difference.

--kodiak

----

HINT for sentients wishing to email: remove the Xs

by **doug toole** » Sun, 13 Jul 1997 04:00:00

> >on my P166 MMX as well. Slow?

> Yup.

Nope.

all wrong.

You must be a competitor and trying to kill EA sales.

The meaning of the word slow: "The speed at which the brain of Joe
travels".
My NFS2 is much faster than that. So is my grandmother. (she's dead).

by **Glenn Campbel** » Sun, 13 Jul 1997 04:00:00

seen the pointless bickering over who has what and what makes what better.
I have a fine time with the game.

If the topic is Need for Speed II yes or no, buy it!

Regards,

Glenn

--
"It's easy to criticize from outside the***pit"
-Murray Walker, Australian GP 1994

by Jo » Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>The meaning of the word slow:

The speed at which NFS 2 runs. About the same speed as your dead
grandmother does.

This is a fact. It has been confirmed by DOZENS of indpendent posters.
One or two lamo EA brown-nosers will not convince anyone otherwise.

Joe

by **ByteMe66** » Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:00:00

<<Anyone can run it at full detail, with the***pit on. You'll just get
a terrible fram rate, that's all (even with a P200).

Joe>>

This is probably an old thread and the argument long gone, but processor
speed alone does not dictate the frame rate of games. Alot of it depends
on your Graphics card, and wether or not the program was designed to work
with the paticular chip set on that card. So, maybe the people claiming
good frame rates in NFS2 have a better graphics card. Why would someone
lie about somthing like this?

by **Kodi** » Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>>I will stop responding to anything you post now.

>Thank God, I am so tired of listening to your illogical arguments and
>avoidance of the real issues. Hopefully you can at least keep your
>promise above.

>Joe

Blah blah blah. I'm glad that *one* of you has enough sense to call
this cat fight quits. At least you could take it to e-mail so you
don't clog up the newsgroups with your collective bickering.

--kodiak
----

HINT for sentients wishing to email: remove the Xs

by Jo » Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>This is probably an old thread and the argument long gone, but processor
>speed alone does not dictate the frame rate of games. Alot of it depends
>on your Graphics card, and wether or not the program was designed to work
>with the paticular chip set on that card.

Here's the problem. Your argument is utterly contradictory. You say
it's the graphics card and I point out that OTHER games (including NFS
1) achieve perfectly good frame-rates (outstanding frame rates in
fact) on this exact same hardware. So you hum and haw and go, well
it's not really the hardware it's Windows95 overhead. I point out that
there are also Window95 games that run very fast on this computer.
Then your side invariably goes back to the "it's the graphics card"
stage.

So on one side we have dozens (if not hundreds) of people who have
complained about NFS2 frame-rates. And on the other side half a dozen
(at most) presenting an argument that is logically contradictory.
Every time I point the contradictions out and ask you to explain, you
just flip-flop to the other half of your contradictory argument (i.e.,
saying it's either the graphics card or Windows 95, depending on what
day of the week it is).

As anyone can plainly see, the only logical conclusion a reasonable
person can possibly come to is that NFS2 is an extremely slow game.
You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but I'm not
going to believe you until you present a valid, logical argument,
something I have not seen and do not expect to see (since it is always
difficult to present a valid argument for something that is not true).

Joe

by **Glenn Campbel** » Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:00:00

Why don't we direct some of this input to Electronic Arts. Perhaps it will
push them towards developing Direct3D support to speed things up a bit.
Misdirected energy I'd say...

Glenn
"It's easy to criticize from outside the***pit"
-Murray Walker, Australian GP 1994

by **Chris Moor** » Thu, 17 Jul 1997 04:00:00

> Why don't we direct some of this input to Electronic Arts. Perhaps it will
> push them towards developing Direct3D support to speed things up a bit.

They are developing D3D support. They haven't decided yet whether to
release it as a patch or selling it as an add on. Let's hope they patch
it, 'cause I'm not going to buy it.

Chris

by Jo » Thu, 17 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>Why don't we direct some of this input to Electronic Arts. Perhaps it will
>push them towards developing Direct3D support to speed things up a bit.
>Misdirected energy I'd say...

Any game company that is not over run by idiots is already following
these groups. (Whether or not EA is one of these is left as an
exercise for the reader. <g>)

Joe

by **Alan Pengel** » Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:00:00

I have a P166 with a 4Mb Matrox Millenium and 32Mb RAM. NFS2, in terms of
framerate, runs fine with full detail. So I do think that the people with
P200s, who are not getting a good framerate, should look at their graphics
card or have their system checked. On the other hand, I use CH pedals and wheel
which for some reason will not calibrate properly (pulls to the left). A number
of other users have the same problem. In my view there's a bug in the calibration
module - but anything out of EA is like getting *** out of a stone. I certainly
wouldn't buy anymore of their stuff. My 8 year old son, for whom I bought the game,
has also given up on it.

Alan

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The views/opinions expressed here are my own and do not
in any way reflect the views/opinions of my employer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by **Leon** » Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:00:00

Please let me know how you manage to solve that problem and if CH wheel is
able to give you good control over the tight areas in NFSll

regards
Leong

by **Rick Hunt** » Sat, 19 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>As anyone can plainly see, the only logical conclusion a reasonable
>person can possibly come to is that NFS2 is an extremely slow game.
>You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but I'm not
>going to believe you until you present a valid, logical argument,
>something I have not seen and do not expect to see (since it is always
>difficult to present a valid argument for something that is not true).

>Joe

Joe buddy, I don't post much to this NG but I do read it daily, and
this argument/thread has gotten monotonous.

Firstly I'm in Australia, posting from an University of Sydney account
- so I am most definitely not an EA stoogie.

Secondly I have a Pentium Pro 200, 4Mb STB Lightspeed video card, and
Ensoniq soundscape soundcard.

Now on my system NFS2 is no different to NFSSE or NFS1 other than some
occassional (though irritating) sound problems. Otherwise, the frame
rates seem comparable.

Now I don't know what your system is like, & if you say NFS2 is ***
on your system - I believe you. [NFS1 was sure slow on my old DX266]

Again I can't present a valid logical argument, all I can say is that
it works on my system - if it didn't I'd complain as well; besides
what do I or anyone else gain by saying a slow game isn't slow on 'my'
computer. So why is it so hard for you to accept that?

R

by **Rob Carnegi** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

> > Sorry Joe, but one of us either has a computer running too fast or too
> > slow. ;-)

> > Looks like my p200 is running too fast as NFS2 runs great at all
> > resolutions/detail. No jerkiness or anything. A bit more arcade-like than
> > NFS1, but great still if u like that sorta thing.

> > Someone hand me the fire extinguisher, its getting hot in here!!!!
> > --

> Finally!! Somebody else has a computer that can run it on full detail!
> I thought I was all by my lonesome.

> Chris

It runs like a hot damn on my system too - P200 Pro with 32MB Ram
and Diamond Stealth 3D.

rec.autos.simulators

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?

NFS II .Yes or no ?