For example - a lap of 1:20 at Monaco takes almost 3 minutes of real
time to occur.
Is this normal? My frame rates are fine, but there is little
correlation between computer timing and real world timing. A second is
not a second.
Is it me - or is GP2 slow?
BTW, I am running a 200MMX with 64Mb, so I don't imagine it to be a CPU
horsepower thing...
If you are trying to run it in SVGA with full, or anywhere near full graphics,
especially clouds, *especially* Monaco, it is a CPU horsepower thing.
Press "O" and see what the "processor occupancy" (PO) reads. If it is
substantially above 100%, then the game no longer runs realtime. Basically
GP2 runs at a fixed "framerate" which you set. This framerate is based on
frames per virtual second. If the CPU can't keep up with real-time, the
virtual second is longer than a real one. Also, if the PO is too low, a
virtual second may be a little shorter than a real one! I consider this the
single worst thing about GP2 and an increadibly stupid design choice for a
sim where timing is so critical.
So, if the PO is higher than 100 for an appreciable part of the track, start
disabling some of the graphics options.
>For example - a lap of 1:20 at Monaco takes almost 3 minutes of real
>time to occur.
Just 'cos you've got monster horsepower doesn't mean you can
run hi-res with all graphics (remember it doesn't use 3DFX) and
just 'cos you've told it to run at 25 fps doesn't mean it isn't actually
achieving 12 - with 25 frames to each *game* second, which is
where the funny timing's coming from.
Remember also to leave some spare horsepower to cope with
traffic, smoke, dust and the like - my system (AMD 5k86 100) runs
under 50% on some tracks, solo, just to ensure it stays below about
150% in a big shunt at Monaco!
HTH,
Jonny
>If you are trying to run it in SVGA with full, or anywhere near full graphics,
>especially clouds, *especially* Monaco, it is a CPU horsepower thing.
>Press "O" and see what the "processor occupancy" (PO) reads. If it is
>substantially above 100%, then the game no longer runs realtime. Basically
>GP2 runs at a fixed "framerate" which you set. This framerate is based on
>frames per virtual second. If the CPU can't keep up with real-time, the
>virtual second is longer than a real one.
This is not quite correct. It only *seems* this way on certain tracks. If you
stay under 100% PO all the time, you'll be running in exact realtime. The fact
that it _seems_ faster on some tracks is caused by this other strange
timing-thing in GP2: the time-multiplier.
General assumption is that Crammond implemented somekind of multiplier to make
the laptimes (of the CC?) as close to real as possible. This factor is different
on each track. You can see it for yourself if you copy the same trackfile to
different slots, and drive more-or-less identical laps. If you measure the time
in reality, your laps WILL be almost identical, but still GP2 shows
significantly different times.
Sometimes the multiplier makes the apparent laptime faster, sometimes slower.
But the actual action will be realtime as long as you stay under 100% PO.
JoH
PS: slowmo has long proven to be an advantage, but now it can be detected by
using the GP2LAP tool.
Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When everything else failed, we can still become im-
mortal by making an enormous blunder....
John Kenneth Galbraith
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
