rec.autos.simulators

by **Pat Dotso** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:56:48 -0500, "Patrick L. Dotson"

> >You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't
> >_drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant
> >amount of detail turned on. Fast driving is all about
> >timing and rhythm. When time is not constant, timing
> >and rhythm are thrown out the window. I hope we never
> >see another time warped racing sim again!

> What do you play it on ??? a 386 ??
> I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the
> sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems
> whatsoever.

> Thats on a P166 with a decent video card.

> Get real....

Your post was obviously incorrect based on you report of
frame rates. Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running
with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers
available today.

I have a K6-200, FYI, and it does pretty well with GP2.
But GP2 still goes into slow motion even with much
detail turned off. My standards for performance must
be higher than yours.

--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports

by **Peter Gag** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features
> on. It's impossible.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, anyone can have
25fps and all details on, they may get cpu occupancies of 500, but
they can do it? This is not what I actually said.

What I said was that I can have all details on, except sky, at 25 fps,
with *mostly* under 100 cpu occupancy, I actually get from 83 to 110
on average, the absolute max at any time is 133. And as I stated in my
previous post, if you bother to check any of the good gp2 sites that
have performance testing, you will see that my set-up is getting the
same sort of performance as most other 200MHz based users?

They use a standard format for testing cpu occupancy compared to
hardware configuration. This is done by putting the car at a race
start, at Monaco, and then pause the game before the race starts, and
note the cpu occupancy of the game from all the various camera angles.

If you do not believe me, fine, thats your choice, but you will have
to disbelieve all those other 200 cpu users too as well?

8?)

*Peter* 8-)

by **Peter Gag** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

You are intitled to your opinion, but as I have stated to the other
gentleman in this thread, it is easily tested using the standard gp2
performance test method.

This is done by starting gp2 in a race, at Monaco, and pausing the
game at the start before the race has started. Then note all the cpu
occupancies from the different camera angles. You can also drive
around any track and note the lowest, average and highest cpu
occupancy readings.

My results are average for most 200MHz based systems, check out any of
the good gp2 websites and see for yourself.

If you don't like gp2, or its graphics, or its fps rates, simply don't
drive it, no-one forces you to. There are a lot of people however, who
do like it, and who do wish to drive it.
There is no such thing as the perfect sim, I have most of the good
sims available, and there are flaws in all of them, you just have to
make do with what is available and get on with it.

8?)

*Peter* 8-)

by **Jim Sokolof** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> > Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features
> > on. It's impossible.

> You obviously don't know what you are talking about, anyone can have
> 25fps and all details on, they may get cpu occupancies of 500, but
> they can do it? This is not what I actually said.

I can run a raytracer to re-create a "Long Ray's Journey into Light"
and get 100fps on an 386-16 by that definition of fps.

Quoting frames per second as a performance measure doesn't make a
whole hell of a lot of sense if the seconds are fanciful units of
simulator time rather than the things that my wall clock ticks off...

25 "fps" at 500% processor is not 25fps. It's 5 fps, with a 1/5x
slow-motion.

---Jim

by **Jo Hels** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Well, your opinion's wrong :-)

GP2 simply uses many parts of the F1GP game engine. That's the reason why this
choice was made, and that's probably the reason why GP3 WILL use the same
system. I'm not sure, but I assume that the use of 3D accelerators can cure the
problem even without changing to dropped-frames algorythm.

Let's hope....

JoH
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Michael E. Carve** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

% > Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features
% > on. It's impossible.

% You obviously don't know what you are talking about, anyone can have
% 25fps and all details on, they may get cpu occupancies of 500, but
% they can do it? This is not what I actually said.

Anyone can get 25 fps with all detail on? Einstein would say, "whose
reality?" In GP2 space/time reality you may be able to get 25 fps, but
in my space/time reality this could equate to about 2.5 fps. First
turn, smoke, stopped cars, flying parts, GP2 reality = 25 fps, my
reality = 2.5 fps (approx.).

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Ken Barr** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

>What do you play it on ??? a 386 ??
>I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the
>sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems
>whatsoever.

OOPS - TYPO . I've only just read the responses to my original
post. Sorry guys. Should read 18-20 fps. In my e***ment to post,
I made a faux pas.
Nevertheless, these frame rates are achieved with a processor
occupancy of usually in the 80's. I find the racing VERY acceptable
under these conditions, and thoroughly enjoy it. Monaco, as everyone
knows, is the only track that really presents any sort of problem
when the processor occupancy does sometimes go over the 100. But, I
still find the speed of the race to be very acceptable, with very
little slowdown.
I do have a top of the range motherboard and a 4 meg mattrox
millenium. 32 meg of memory, but c'mon guys, this isn't anything
special nowdays.
I would like to think that when I upgrade my pc to a PII 266 or
thereabouts, that there will be a substantial increase in speed.
Too many moaners who dont like gp2 - don't play it then. To all the
disbelievers, I can post a screenshot if you wish, although I doubt
if it will change your mind at all.
What I also would like to say is that in comparison, I find GP2 to be
a much more enjoyable experience that F1RS, even with my 3D card and
even with higher fps. Grafix aren't everything. It just doesn't feel
right, and to me feels as if the car is floating 1-2 mm over the
track.
Roll on GP3 ! ! !

Cheers.....Ken

Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail
_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___
!_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \
| | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! /
!_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

by **Ken Barr** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

It was, see my latest post in this group. apologies

I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I
upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300
shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps.

Cheers.....Ken

Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail
_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___
!_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \
| | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! /
!_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

by **Byron Forbe** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> > Firstly, everything except clouds at 25fps and "mostly" under 100%
> > Occ I find hard to believe, especially in traffic and with a lot of
> > trees around. And more importantly, most of the time is not good eno
> > ugh.
> > It's no longer a sim when she goes to slow motion.

> You are intitled to your opinion, but as I have stated to the other
> gentleman in this thread, it is easily tested using the standard gp2
> performance test method.

> This is done by starting gp2 in a race, at Monaco, and pausing the
> game at the start before the race has started. Then note all the cpu
> occupancies from the different camera angles. You can also drive
> around any track and note the lowest, average and highest cpu
> occupancy readings.

> My results are average for most 200MHz based systems, check out any of
> the good gp2 websites and see for yourself.

> If you don't like gp2, or its graphics, or its fps rates, simply don't
> drive it, no-one forces you to. There are a lot of people however, who
> do like it, and who do wish to drive it.
> There is no such thing as the perfect sim, I have most of the good
> sims available, and there are flaws in all of them, you just have to
> make do with what is available and get on with it.

I don't hafta if I don't wanna (poking tongue out like a cheeky
little brat)

by **Byron Forbe** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> >- OPINION -
> >The time warp thing was a cheap marketing ploy that allowed Microprose
> >to claim that GP2 would run in SVGA at 25 fps on a 486. Remember
> >all the hype? They never told us it would be in slow motion. With
> >the 3d accelereators available now, there is no reason for this
> >bug/feature to be carried over to GP3.
> >- OPINION -

> Well, your opinion's wrong :-)

> GP2 simply uses many parts of the F1GP game engine. That's the reason why this
> choice was made, and that's probably the reason why GP3 WILL use the same
> system. I'm not sure, but I assume that the use of 3D accelerators can cure the
> problem even without changing to dropped-frames algorythm.

> Let's hope....

Why? What's up with ICR2's constant 30fps. Or better still, how about
an option to disable trackside objects so as to try to achieve a
constant FR all around a given track ie each track disables certain
graphics options/objects to even out fps all around the track. Arguing
in the slow mo's favour is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of!

by **Pat Dotso** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> >Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running
> >with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers
> >available today.
> I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I
> upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300
> shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps.

First turn at Monaco from the back of the pack with full detail and
smoke is still going to be a bad slide show. It's going to be a
long time before a computer that will handle that loadis available,
and by then GP2 will seem like GP1 does today. GP3 with 3D-acceleration
will probably fix the problem to a great extent.

Lest I be percieved as a GP2 hater, let me say that I love the
sim and still drive it occasionally. But the time warp thing has
to go.

--
Pat Dotson

by **Michael E. Carve** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

% >Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running
% >with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers
% >available today.
% >
% I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I
% upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300
% shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps.

Don't make the upgrade just for GP2. My jump from a P5-166 to PII-300
only produced a few fps with similar details on both machines. No where
close to 7 fps.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Peter Gag** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

In GP2 space/time reality you may be able to get 25 fps,

I agree totally, in real terms gp2 may be running very slow compared
to realtime, but technically you are getting 25fps (frames per
seconds in *gametime*).

This was in answer to the original query? there are many arguments for
and against the way gp2 was designed to run, in the end you pays your
money, and you makes your choice.

Personally I ran GP2 fine on a 486dx4 100 when I first got it, Yes I
had to run it in vga only, and with most of the graphics turned off,
and with a lowered frame rate, and the cpu occupancy was still
skyhigh? But hey, it was still *the* sim to beat when it first came
out? (and is *still* one of the benchmarks for new sims, IMHO?)

I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and
whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time,
yes, it has faults, but all other sims also have faults, there is no
such thing as the *perfect* sim, even though we would all love one.
Yes, it has now been bettered (by F1RS), but it is still a great sim
by *any* standards.

*Peter* 8-)

by **Peter Gag** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Oh, ok then?

8?p

*Peter* 8-)

by **Chuck Anders** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

: Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out for
: about 2 months of simulated time. :-)
: (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.)
: ---Jim

:), does this align with the earlier 5 fps? :)

rec.autos.simulators

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!