rec.autos.simulators

by hb » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:28:53

I'm going to buy it regardless - but the promo says 36 stages - is the
demo 1 stage ? So about 36 x the demo ? Are other stages of equal quality
to the demo, or have they put all the eye candy in the shop window ?

also, given you can't tweak the car in the demo (to my knowledge), what's
are the sorts of times people are setting in the Harwood forest stage :) ?

TIA for any replies.

by **Charli** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:35:32

> I'm going to buy it regardless - but the promo says 36 stages - is the
> demo 1 stage ? So about 36 x the demo ? Are other stages of equal quality
> to the demo, or have they put all the eye candy in the shop window ?

equal quality.

Charlie

by **Phil Newnha** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:35:04

> I'm going to buy it regardless - but the promo says 36 stages - is the
> demo 1 stage ? So about 36 x the demo ? Are other stages of equal quality
> to the demo, or have they put all the eye candy in the shop window ?

> also, given you can't tweak the car in the demo (to my knowledge), what's
> are the sorts of times people are setting in the Harwood forest stage :) ?

If I could keep it out of the hedge all the way through on a regular
basis, it'd be nice. IIRC my best was about 40s off the stage record,
which I thought was ok for a first go without hitting anything, until I
discovered I couldn't do it again. I think I need more practice... or
perhaps a bit of fiddling with the wheel settings. On the replay I can
see that the front wheels are moving far too often and by far too much,
so if I can cure that, maybe I'll be able to keep it on the road...

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

by **Charli** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:40:27

drive slower ;)

Charlie

by **Phil Newnha** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:29:04

> drive slower ;)

Pah :p

Just adjusted the controller and it helped a lot - in the first sector I
was up on the stage record. So, I got***y and threw it into the weeds
- the co-driver's "Ouch!" is a nice touch, IMO. Getting there though,
4:12 now. I've worked out how to reduce the screen res too in a hunt for
better frame rates, because that does seem to be an issue despite the
Radeon 9800 Pro, which was supposed to be a good card back in February...

--
Phil

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Mitch_** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:26:40

1:12.43 2:22.30 3:41.68. I still had 3-4 mistakes though so it wont be
much longer till Im in the 30's.

Mitch

> also, given you can't tweak the car in the demo (to my knowledge), what's
> are the sorts of times people are setting in the Harwood forest stage :)
> ?

> TIA for any replies.

by **cron** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 05:53:43

> > drive slower ;)

> Pah :p

> Just adjusted the controller and it helped a lot - in the first sector I
> was up on the stage record. So, I got***y and threw it into the weeds
> - the co-driver's "Ouch!" is a nice touch, IMO. Getting there though,
> 4:12 now. I've worked out how to reduce the screen res too in a hunt for
> better frame rates, because that does seem to be an issue despite the
> Radeon 9800 Pro, which was supposed to be a good card back in February...

*cough* unoptimised console port.

Get CMR'05, not only does it look infinitely better it runs better too.

by **Klin** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:33:46

"Phil Newnham" wrote ...
frame rates, because that does seem to be an issue despite the Radeon 9800
Pro, which was supposed to be a good card back in February...

I know the feeling, I have an ATI 9800 XT. But I did my usual trick of
switching to the hood cam, or in this case I guess it should be a 'bonnet
cam', and the FPS increased noticably. I enjoy a***pit view if it's well
done, but the one in RBR didn't thrill me anyway, so it was an easy
trade-off to get better frame rates.

...Klinn

by **Mike Beaucham** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:33:18

Hey phil, I have a 9800 Pro as well (128MB) and I'm getting 60-120fps
(sometimes steady 120's on some stages) at 1024x and everything at full..

Mike

by **ymenar** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 07:11:26

> Get CMR'05, not only does it look infinitely better it runs better too.

Look kid, this is rec.autos.simulators. Take this arcade ***outtahere.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **ymenar** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 07:10:25

> I'm going to buy it regardless - but the promo says 36 stages - is the
> demo 1 stage ? So about 36 x the demo ? Are other stages of equal
> quality
> to the demo, or have they put all the eye candy in the shop window ?

Trust me there, quality vs. quantity, and the scale blew up on the side of
quality. The stages are all about fairly short, 4 minutes average, but they
are really superb.

I've never seen, RC2000 included, tighter stages than the Japan ones.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Swerv** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:19:03

>> better frame rates, because that does seem to be an issue despite
>> the Radeon 9800 Pro, which was supposed to be a good card back in
>> February...

> Hey phil, I have a 9800 Pro as well (128MB) and I'm getting 60-120fps
> (sometimes steady 120's on some stages) at 1024x and everything at
> full..

> Mike

As am I with the exact same card.

(I hate to write a me too, but I figure it helps narrow it down to
something other than the video card, which would be a foolish thing to
upgrade at this point.)

by **Marc Collin** » Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:34:21

There are really only 4 stages per country as 2 of the "6" are just reversed
versions of one of the actual 4 stages. On average they are substantially
shorter than real WRC stages. This sucks immensely because the driving
model/physics is good enough that we would want many, many real stages to
drive/race.

On the plus side, the stages that are there are very meticulously crafted
and seem very realistic.

Marc

by **Phil Newnha** » Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:02:55

>>better frame rates, because that does seem to be an issue despite the
>>Radeon 9800 Pro, which was supposed to be a good card back in February...

> Hey phil, I have a 9800 Pro as well (128MB) and I'm getting 60-120fps
> (sometimes steady 120's on some stages) at 1024x and everything at full..

Hmmm. I didn't really try very hard to reduce what else is running, so I
guess the problem is more likely with system RAM than the video card. I
haven't got any money for upgrading either...

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

by **Phil Newnha** » Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:04:30

>>better frame rates, because that does seem to be an issue despite the
>>Radeon 9800 Pro, which was supposed to be a good card back in February...

> Hey phil, I have a 9800 Pro as well (128MB) and I'm getting 60-120fps
> (sometimes steady 120's on some stages) at 1024x and everything at full..

Oh, and I was trying to run it at 1280x1024, rather than 1024x768,
because the former is the native res. of my flatscreen...

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

rec.autos.simulators

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?

How 'long' is Richard Burns Rally ?