rec.autos.simulators

> >> I really can't agree with your last statement. Don't you find it
> >> ridiculous that F1 2000 runs so choppy on most of today's machines?

> >  But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2
> >came out?  Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when
> >N2 was new?  It is fairly common to have new games outstrip our system's
> >abilities.  I think most of us have upgraded to a point(especially
> >compared to pre3dfx systems) that we should be able to run dang near
> >anything, but the fact is...hardware is still way behind what
> >programmers "could" max out and probably will be for a long long time.
> >dave henrie

> Indeed, GP2 was a major bummer too at the time of it's release. 800 x
> 600 games were allready very common at that time, with a good fps. If
> I remember correctly I had a Pentium 133 at that time, a quite
> normal/fast pc at that time. I absolutely couldn't run it in 800
> resolution, had to switch back to 600. Add the real time/slowmo
> problems to that one and there you've got the reason why I never
> played GP2. What a bummer that was, since I loved GP1.

> It's ok, very good even, if game programmers allready add graphical
> options build for tomorrows pc's, but it's ridiculous if a game can't
> run decent with full ai, in 800 x 600 resolution with normal details
> like smoke, high-res textures etc all on, on pc's that are standard
> today.
> Right now I've got a PIII 500, and with a full grid and details turned
> down heavily the game still runs choppy in 800 x 600!
> Simply unacceptable!
> Please don't tell me it's my system's fault, just count the complains
> about the choppy fps on most (everybody's?) pc's, that should be
> enough proof that the engine is simply not good for today's pc's.

> Andre

> Ready? Here goes:

> Open the F12K folder, open the config file and
> change 'WindowedMode' to = '1'.

> Make sure the desktop resolution matches the resolution you want
> in the game. that's all there is to it.

> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

>I think alot of ppl are making comparisons to GPL here (rightly
so), but are
>neglecting to understand the fundamental sophistication of F12k
& two years
>of technological progress since GPL.

>Textures in GPL are of a completely different nature.  There
are far fewer
>textures, and at lower resolution.  GPL textures are also 256
colors (or
>less).  F12k uses full 24 bit color textures, and a boat load
of them at
>higher res.

>The polygon count in F12k,  at even low quality,  is still
quite a bit more
>than GPL.  At high quality, the number of polygons in a car
body easily
>triple (or more!) the number of polygons in GPL.   The shapes
required for
>modern cars dictate this.

>Its obvious that F12k is meant for the "recommended system",
and far above
>that.  Honestly, I don't mind my software built for the future.

>Dents.

> >  But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2
> >came out?  Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when
> >N2 was new?

> Apples and oranges ... that was before 3d accelerators.

> >Just goes to show that programmers always push the technology envelope,
> >regardless of the era.

> Just goes to show that there is always poor programming, regardless of
> the era. Look it's very simple - F12K is the slowest racing game in
> some time, and it does NOT look better than other games that run much
> faster (SBK 2000 is just one example). That's not "pushing
> technology", it's a poorly optimized game. Period.

> Joe McGinn
> _____________________
> Radical Entertainment

> >Maybe the limiting factor is the physics not the graphics.
> >Just an idea

> Seems highly unlikely, since turning down graphics detail, mirrors,
> the cirtual***pit, and other graphics options "fixes" the problem.

> Joe McGinn
> _____________________
> Radical Entertainment