rec.autos.simulators

Well, I've had GP2 for awhile now,
and I've centered on a few tracks so that hopefully I would develop
some sort of PC racing skills. (Imola, Magny Cours, Spa)
I have been avoiding Monaco because of the frame rate issue (no
comment needed) and it always made me mad because NFS looks better and
I had to turn off so many things at Monaco even with a P200.
Well, after this weekends rainy race at Monaco I figured I'd finally
give it a serious shot.
and this track is the coolest! I know that this post is like, duh, to
a lot of you veterens but I had to say something. See, if you play
race sims right, when you discover a *new* track it's suddenly like a
new game. You know, who's keeping track of if the sky is on or how
detailed the buildings are when you're supposed to be racing anyhow?

I'd also like to say for the thousandth time that for me, GP2 is
undoubtably the most realistic, most fun racing sim to date. (another
duh)

Thanks

Raevyn

It's good to see someone enjoying Monaco! I also put off racing at Monaco
because of frame rates but I did one thing which just makes racing at
Monaco so exciting. I change to VGA mode and was able to run at 25.6 or
more frame rates. That really 'change the taste of the cake'. I know it
is a lot blockier than SVGA but the key to enjoying the GP2 is higher
frame rates. When you racing (especially at ACE level), you hardly got
time to enjoy the beautiful graphics in SVGA. You only got your eyes on
the track and some important features for braking purposes.Let's hope GP3
is less machine-intensive...

Took your advice and yeh what a blast. Monaco was my favorite track in gp1
but have not played it in gp2 due to frame rates. I used to think VGA was
not an option but after racing at Monaco at 25 fps under 100% occupancy
with all graphics on Ive changed my mind. Hell it looks pretty good after a
while.
  Todd.

Given history, you won't get your wish... :)

I can agree with the sentiment: "I hope that game XXX will run at 30+
fps on a $2000-$2500 machine when it's released..."

---Jim Sokoloff

No, I realize that not everyone can upgrade their system every year,
but the simple facts are:
a) The more complicated the game and graphics, the more CPU required.
There's no magic bullet here.
b) The industry doesn't stand still. If you write a game today with a
8MB P5-90 and no 3D card as your target system, your game will not
look as good and will not have as many complicated features as someone
else's game that was written to take advantage of the power available
in a 32MB P6-200 with a Rendition or 3dfx card.
c) Those who don't have the money to upgrade their systems, may not
have the money to buy the game, and will resort to *ahem* other
methods of obtaining it.

You are free to not upgrade your system ever if that's what you
choose, but don't expect game companies that are publishing
complicated graphics-intensive, 3D immersive games to hold back just
so a two or three year-old system can run them at full effect.

---Jim Sokoloff

: >Let's hope GP3 is less machine-intensive...

: Why do you hope that? If anything, I firmly believe that games should
: continue to push the edge of the envelope in terms of available
: CPU-power. GP3 is probably 2 years off; do you think it's reasonable for
: the designers to limit themselves to running on a P6-200, when far more
: powerful machines will be available in the $1500-$2000 range?

: Given history, you won't get your wish... :)

: I can agree with the sentiment: "I hope that game XXX will run at 30+
: fps on a $2000-$2500 machine when it's released..."

Jim, I think the point being made is that GP2 was not "optimized" when
it came down to the graphics routines.  Had the programmers taken the
time to fully utilize vesa 2.0 in the graphic routines, I think the
performance would have been decent enough.  However, even at this late
date increased CPU's and video cards are not really helping the
performance due to the graphics routine bottle-neck in the code.

Otherwise, I agree.  If the program is one with great "replay" value
(ala sims), let's have the released version work marginally on the
average (or slightly above average) machines at the time.  But, please,
write the code so that one of the biggest bottlenecks (graphics) is
optimized.  Otherwise, improved hardware won't really enhance continued
playability.

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

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

If he's in it for the money, and not the love of the sport, how do you
explain the fact that he has been creating racing simulations for years,
such as Revs for the BBC Micro?
--
Dave Bowers

I totally agree with you. Geoff Crammond has always been on the cutting
edge of racing simulations. The first racing game that supported two pc's
connected in a nice way was Stunt Car Racer, I guess. It was his also. And
it totally rocked when you linked THAT one!
I guess what happened is that GP2 was just a little bit *too* complex for
just one person (Crammond) and some helping hands to achieve. But
MicroProse probably kept pushing (they wanted money!) and they were in
charge, so that's what went wrong I *think*.
I really think we shouldn't be too *** Crammond here... until you know
*exactly* what happened, and none of you do (me neither). It's just a
little bit more complex than most of the guys who keep on whining think.

--

Formula T2 Upgrade Page - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~jjcox

However, I was originally replying to a post asking that GP3 be less
CPU-intensive than GP2 is. I'm not sure that I can agree with the
desire to stand still hardware-wise.

Suppose GP3 comes out in 1999, do you think that a P5-90 will still be
a reasonable machine to expect full featured, fluid, SVGA graphics. I
don't, and that's what my post was referring to.

I'd like to think that just about any game released today would work
marginally acceptably on a P90 in VGA mode. (I don't know if GP2 does,
because I've only played GP2 on a faster machine, and then only for 30
minutes or so.)

It's unrealistic to expect game companies to hold the line on CPU just
because you don't want to upgrade. Technology marches on; if it
didn't, we'd all be playing games written for CGA, since at one time
it was too expensive to upgrade to EGA graphics...

---Jim Sokoloff

Well the lesson I'm slowly learning is that when something comes on the market
I should wait five years before I actually buy it,  because thats when I'll
have the hardware to make use of all the features I'm paying for !

                                                Don Scurlock
                                                Vancouver,B.C.

I agree

Monaco is THE circuit!   esp. with some detail off in VGA
but youve got to keep the tunnel in tho' !!

SVGA is TOOO slow doncha think ?