rec.autos.simulators

MSI K7N420 motherboard (onboard 5:1 sound/gf2mx)
256 ddr
AMD XP 1500
windows XP

I run N2002 with 43 cars, no aa, world detail 50%, high detail cars, opengl,
1024x768, 16 bit color.  At the start of the race I get 35 fps and during
the race it can get as high as 50 fps.  I would like to run with some aa or
the quincunx or whatever they call it.  So With aa on and world detail set
to high what kind of fps should I expect?
I would like the game to look a little cleaner, but If the performance
increase is not there I won't make the purchase.  Thanks in advance.

Sondog

I just ordered the Gainward GF4 ti 4400. This model has a guaranteed
overclock mode and should clock just as fast as a stock 4600. I run about
the same settings as yourself on the following system.

AMD 1.33 GHz
784 MB PC133 ram
64 MB Geforce2 Pro
SB Audigy
Windows XP

I am planning on doing a before and after comparison with performance
numbers and screenshots as soon as I get the card. Which should be early
next week. I'll post a link then.

Kyle

MadDAWG

So far, I haven't gotten the results I expected, & am a little disappointed
with it.
Soyo Dragon+
XP1800+
256 Mushkin DDR
W98se
Det 27.50

3DMark2001SE (default benchmark - 1024 x 768 x 32 no aa) went from
4800-4850(GF2) to 7350-7400(GF3).  Thats the good news.

N2002 (1024 x 768 x 16 no aa)
Starting on backstretch at rear of grid at Daytona
Full field
All settings maxed except wheel off, skidmarks off, ansio off, aids off ex
clutch
42 front, 10 in mirror
sounds = 10
OpenGL
GF2 35-36fps
GF3 37-38fps :(
D3D
GF2 28-29fps
GF3 35-36fps

I don't know what this means, but it seems to indicate that the processor is
more important to performance in N2002(opengl) than the vid card. The
improvement in Direct 3d is there, tho not what you would expect going by
the 3DMark results.  The quality is also improved in opengl, & is probably
related to the extra memory on the vid card.  Also, 2xaa & Quincunx aa don't
hurt the fps nearly as much as b4.  I'll admit that I had more time to tweak
the GF2, & am still trying to tweak the GF3, but haven't seen any real
improvement yet.

I saw a post here a week or so ago that reported that the new GF4 cards also
didn't give the big increase in fps expected in N2002, tho 3DMark scores
were signifigantly higher.

Maybe we need a new benchmark for video cards...  Papy?

HTH, Brian

N2002 like practically all sims(racing, flight, etc.) is very processor
limited. Physics and AI are very processor intensive. Can you increase the
resolution without impacting performance? Your D3D improvements I would
guess are do to better drivers. I should be receiving my new Gainward GF4
4400 on Monday(It is at the Fedex terminal at the airport right now). This
will be an upgrade from a GF2 for me. I only expect modest fps gains, but I
do expect to be able to bump up the resolution from the 1024x768 that I
currently run at or use some form of AA.

Kyle

I actually run it at the higher res (the #s above were for comparison) &
turn down some eye candy to get playable fps while offline (love those 43
car fields), but can run it maxed while online.  No AI to deal with does
increase fps drastically, so I agree that N2002 is more processor dependent,
esp while offline.  1280x1024x32 w/quincunx is awesome :)

Brian

But I don't think AI/Phys. gobbels down 90% of my CPU-time on the
Celeron because it would be totally unplayable. It's most probably has
more to do with the graphics just like GPL.

One thing we have to look at also, is that games may(or may not) be
T&L limited now since T&L support is getting more and more
proliferant.

The nightmare that is my new Gainward GF4 4400! I uninstalled my old Geforce
2 Pro drivers. Selected VGA
adapter. Shut down. Installed GF4 4400. Selected WinXP drivers on the CD.
When the driver installation is complete I get an error saying there was a
problem with the installation and cannot find specified file(specific file
name is not mentioned). I end up with the 4400 in my device manager but it
is disabled since there are no drivers installed. This happens both with the
drivers on the CD and with the newer drivers on the website. So guess who
has a montrous headache and hasn't got to race any N2002 today.

Kyle

I can't compare my scores to the normal 3dmark2001 scores since I run
the test at 1280x1024x16, but my score went from 5000 with a Ge3 Ti200
to 8000 with a Ge4 Ti4400.  I prefer playing games at 1280x1024x16,
and I'm seeing nearly a 10fps increase in Nascar 2002 from the back of
a 43 car field at Atlanta with full details except antistropic
filtering and draw ahead/behind set to 50%, and ridiculous framerates
elsewhere (OpenGL at 1280x1024x16 regularly hits 130fps when driving
solo).  The best part is, I'm also running quincunx FSAA now which has
seriously eased the headaches I get when playing N2002 and GPL for
more than 30 minutes since the swimming edges are nearly gone.  And
I'm doing all this at around 25-33% faster than a Ge3 Ti200 with the
same drivers, same configuration, and FSAA turned off.  This is on a
1.4gHz Athlon Thunderbird on a KT7A MBoard with 256mb PC133 RAM and a
Turtle Beach A3DStream (with the hardware acceleration
disabled...lousy drivers).  I'm using the Detonator drivers that
shipped with the card (27.44?) since the latest win9x ones from
nvidia's website cause direct3D to crash within 15 seconds of
rendering a scene (even 3dMark2001 crashes after the first test), even
on a completely fresh install of Windoze.

Seems the GeF Ti200 is still listing at $200, I'd recommend paying the
extra $100 and getting the GeF 4 Ti4400 instead.  Assuming it doesn't
cause a problem with your onboard video, I would expect a 200-300%
performance increase over a GeForce 2mx.

Jason