rec.autos.simulators

My system:
Intel P4 1.5 Ghz
Intel 845HV mother board (latest drivers and Bios installed)
GeForce4 Ti 4600 (28.32 drivers)
C-Media sound card(latest xp drivers installed)
512 Megs RAM (SDRAM)
3DMark2001SE score = 7200(Average with same configuration was 7700)

Help me if you can. Thanks

   I get a 3d mark score of well under yours...about 5400 yet I start with
the opengl settings and see fps's in the 60's to 80's.    These decrease
some as the race wears on tho...(full field,  1024x780, gf3 ti200)   I have
heard the nvidia drivers are OS specific...i.e.  the 28.32's work better
with win98 and there are others that work better with XP.  (Sorry I don't
have a version # for the better XP drivers..)
  That's all 2nd hand info...but perhaps changing drivers back to something
in the 27's might help... good luck.
dave henrie

"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash

P4 1.8
Intel 845wm mobo
256MB SDRAM
geforce4 Ti4400
Windows 2000 OS

My best 3DMark2001 score without overclocking the video card is around 7500,
so we are close there.  I consider my system to certainly be efficient to
run the game well, but not with ALL graphic details on.  Take Talladega for
example.  If 42 cars are visible ahead on a pace lap, my fps will drop to
around 25.  However, that is an extreme condition.  I set the number of
visible cars ahead to 25 and then tweaked other options until it could
maintain at least 30 fps up until the green flag drops.  That seems to be
the toughest part of the race fps-wise.  Sitting alone in the pits shows a
beginning fps of 65 or so.  Dega has a lot of grandstands, so all of this
does depend on the track.

In any event, you should be doing much better with your setup.  I would
suggest trying all of the stuff mentioned here
http://www.discountdescramblers.com/tweaks.htm with respect to your video
card settings and game options.  You have already edited the ini files, but
there are more things left to tweak.

ThreeWide

You might also try to make N2002 re-recognize your system's gfx environment
(especially the TextureSetSize), by changing the resolution and pixel depth
and re-rerunning the N2002's configuration tool (twice - once with a
different res, then with the res you want to use). On my system N2002
recognized different Texturesetsizes although the hardware hadn't changed.

I then deleted the texturememory value in rend_ogl.ini and had N2002
re-recognize it.

Also, N2002 recognised different values with different settings, i.e. when I
did this test with FSAA and Aniso off it recognized different values than
with these two on. That could also lead to slowdowns in the program itself I
should guess.

N2002 also reacts to RAM speed - you may want to tweak that in the Bios, but
it won't get you much, maybe 2 fps.

It's probably none of all these - those who ask such questions after a while
seem to infallibly come back with the message that they fixed the prob by
eliminating that one piece of software that ran in the background all the
time and they never thought of that... or they forgot to turn Vsync off <g>
but it's at least worth a try :-)

Achim

When I first got my GeForce3 card it was much slower than I thought it
should be.  I got to playing around with the settings and discovered in my
BIOS that the AGP Graphics Aperture Size was set to it's lowest setting (4MB
on my motherboard).  I had heard that the rule of thumb was to set this
aperture size to half your system memory, IIRC.  So I set mine to 128 MB and
it made a world of difference.

Experiment with your setting and see what difference it makes.  Your mileage
may vary.

My system:
AMD Athlon 1100 MHz
Asus A7V133 Motherboard
256 MD RAM

--
Robert Rathbone

Achim

Don Burnette