rec.autos.simulators

I am only getting 10-20 framerate at 800x600
Anyone else have this configeration? Or any other ideas as to why it is so
slow??

Thanks,

Moe Lefaive

   I'm not too familiar with the ATI stuff, but that sounds like either an
older card or a budget version,  and the 1gig tbird is probably barely
cutting the mustard.  Are you using any FSAA?   If so shut it off for now.
dave henrie

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

Moe

Try setting the deatils levels to low to see if theis helps. The biggest hit
seems to be using high level shadows.

Some Call Me Tim

another poster mentioned making sure AA is off; I did some
fps testing last night on my xp1800+ / gf2mx setup and found
the track detail is the biggest hit on fps, I cannot run any
higher than "medium" which is fine for me (less trees to hit at
spa ;-)

HTH, uwe

--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint:  2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F  67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

I have a kickass system, with a Pentium4 2GHz, 1024MB RAM, GeForce4
(64MB), and Windows ME, but I get tedious framerates from F1 2002.

As I mentioned in another post, running the game in anything higher
than 640x640 results in a terrible drop in framerates, so I keep it in
640x640 and using x2 antialiasing. Not very pleasant to look at, but I
get around 25fps. However, with all details switched on it's probably
even less, so I have to turn down the settings a little.

And yes, I have the latest drivers.

I suspect (but could be wrong) that this is the result of some rather
sloppy programming. Framerates aren't always about how fast OUR
equiptment is, but also how well the games have been programmed. Take
GPL, for example. Even a system as fast as mine won't reveal frame
rates higher than 25fps (or was it 26fps?) because the game wasn't
programmed to use higher framerates than that. Don't ask me why!?
(anybody?)

Adam

Something isn't right with your system. What kind of GF4 card do you have?

I have an AMD 1600, 256K with GF4 4200Ti running on Win98SE and get 50-85
FPS (average of 65+) in game with ALL details set to max at 1024x768. What
do you get on the video test? For comparision, I get 46.7 Million
Triangles/sec at 1024x768x16.

Moe

Moe

    here we have a similar config...over 512mb of memory and win ME.  Does
ME have the same memory limitations of Win9x?    Why don't you guys try
yanking out one of the memory chips and see if the performance increases
once you get under 512mb
dave henrie

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen"
   Of course I know that...but hey...it just adds another little process
that is running in the background.  I've always advocated hardware
reduction(removing the chip) vs software fixin'(clicking a check box
somewheres)
dh

Adam sounds like there is is something very worng with your system you
should be getting very good frame rates in both GPLand F1-2K. ME is probably
the culpret. If I were you I'd give myself a nice fresh install of Windows
XP PRO, you'll certainly be a lot happier.

Some Call Me Tim