rec.autos.simulators

by **Todd Walk** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

>> I just cranked up the view distance from medium to far. The game ran
>> just as smooth as the original NFS. I played with all the graphics
>> turned to the max, full grid, and the dash on. The only thing that was
>> turned off was the music. I can't stand to race with music.

>I have to agree with the rest of the posters here, the framerate
>in NFS2 is not good on my machine (6x86 PR200, STB ET6000, 32M,
>75MHz MB). Not even close to the original NFS, even with the
>screen size down to medium. Not that I doubt you Matt, if you
>say the frame rate is similar to NFS that removes a measure of
>subjectivity, I just wonder what it is about your machine that
>makes it perform so well. Have you done any tweaking of the
>driver settings that may have made a difference?

Some of your problem comes from the fact that your Cyrix processor
lacks the FPU performance of a comparable Intel processor. The Cyrix
is a faster chip, except for floating point operations. That is the
trade-off.

**********************************************
Todd Walker

T-Type on IRC
Homepage: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
1986 Buick Regal T-Type
**********************************************

by Jo » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

>Whatever you say, you know best. Like I said before I have the max
>install done and thus the CD is almost useless. The hard drive is much
>faster than the CD. But I am sure that you know more than me. Have you
>installed the whole game to disk.

Yes I did. Max install. Performance still sucks. NFS 2 performance
sucks eggs. It's a fact, live with it.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

by Jo » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

>Sorry, incorrect.
>Scenery always appears to go _forward_ in NFS I.

Maybe the NFS 1 team travelled back in time, it was actually NFS 3 or
4. ;-)

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

by Jo » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

> I
>know that it is almost impossible for a computer screen to make you feel
>like you are going 150+mph.

Not at all - NFS 1 and SE achieved this.

Again, just not the case - it's the ROAD that runs backwards in NFS 2,
not the scenery. Again, NFS 1 did not have this problem.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

by **Drumme** » Fri, 02 May 1997 04:00:00

> > Some of the complaints I have heard is that
> >the frame rates suck and the scenery goes backwards at high speeds. The
> >scenery did this on the original NFS.

> Sorry, incorrect.
> Scenery always appears to go _forward_ in NFS I.
> _________________________________________________________

Sorry, incorrect.

The scenery *can* go backwards in NFS I. I just watched it do it again.
Pretty irritating it is, too.

by Jo » Fri, 02 May 1997 04:00:00

>The scenery *can* go backwards in NFS I. I just watched it do it again.
>Pretty irritating it is, too.

No it can't. This is pure bullshit. Backwards roads and scenery are
and EXCLUSIVE "feature" of NFS 2.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

by **Drumme** » Sat, 03 May 1997 04:00:00

> >The scenery *can* go backwards in NFS I. I just watched it do it again.
> >Pretty irritating it is, too.

> No it can't. This is pure bullshit. Backwards roads and scenery are
> and EXCLUSIVE "feature" of NFS 2.

> Joe McGinn
> ===================================================
> Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
> http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
> ===================================================

Gosh. I sure appreciate being called a liar on the Internet. What are
you, some kind of moron? I ran NFS I, I watched the scenery go
backwards, then reported it to this newsgroup.

You are asserting that something you have not observed can't happen. I'm
telling you I observed it.

Also, moron, I think you meant "an," not "and."

by **Drumme** » Sat, 03 May 1997 04:00:00

> >Gosh. I sure appreciate being called a liar on the Internet. What are
> >you, some kind of moron? I ran NFS I, I watched the scenery go
> >backwards, then reported it to this newsgroup.

> >You are asserting that something you have not observed can't happen. I'm
> >telling you I observed it.

> And I still say bullshit. I have played hundreds of ours with NFS. The
> scenery does NOT have the "going backwards" flaw of NF 2. Period.

> Joe McGinn
> ===================================================
> Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
> http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
> ===================================================

There's a big difference between "can't happen" and "haven't seen it."
You can say bullshit all you want, and it won't change the facts. I have
seen it. I can reproduce it. It does happen.

So, you write for a living? I think you meant "hours" rather than
"ours."

by Jo » Sat, 03 May 1997 04:00:00

>Gosh. I sure appreciate being called a liar on the Internet. What are
>you, some kind of moron? I ran NFS I, I watched the scenery go
>backwards, then reported it to this newsgroup.
>You are asserting that something you have not observed can't happen. I'm
>telling you I observed it.

And I still say bullshit. I have played hundreds of ours with NFS. The
scenery does NOT have the "going backwards" flaw of NF 2. Period.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

by Jo » Sun, 04 May 1997 04:00:00

>There's a big difference between "can't happen" and "haven't seen it."
>You can say bullshit all you want, and it won't change the facts. I have
>seen it. I can reproduce it. It does happen.

OK, smart guy, why didn't you answer the questions put to you in this
thread? Which track? Which part of it and what speed? Put up or shut
up.

Joe

by **Drumme** » Sun, 04 May 1997 04:00:00

The best place to see it, for me, is the Alpine track. Both the track
and a tunnel go backwards. As in NFS2, it appears to be dependent on
both overall system speed (CPU + Video performance, etc.) and car speed.
It is not an easy effect to achieve, since you have to get just the
right speed for your system's characteristics. In NFS2, it happens all
the time, even on my PPro.

It's nothing more or less complicated than a strobe effect on the
scenery/textures.

In NFSI, I can make it happen practically every time on an old P90, and
almost never on my PPro 200. Frankly, I don't care if anyone believes
me, and I marvel at the vehemence with which people are willing to deny
the facts. I own and enjoy both games. In point of fact, I prefer NFSI,
and I'm not trying to slag the game. I've probably spent more hours
playing it than any other driving sim/game I have.

The issue for me is that some people are asserting, without any evidence
to support the assertion, that something I (and at least one other
person, the one who started this digression) have actually observed
cannot happen. Aside from the obvious flaws in this type of reasoning
(i.e., I haven't seen it, ergo it can't happen), the initial reply to my
statement that I have observed this effect was, and I quote, "bullshit."
It was, if nothing else, rude.

rec.autos.simulators

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!