rec.autos.simulators

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

Morris Jone

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Morris Jone » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 06:49:33

I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16 bit or
32 bit
with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other changes, but
please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put it
out.

P4 1.9ghz
384 PC800 RDDRAM
Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
Logitech Momo wheel
Actlabs Performace Pedals.

The Unkown Soldie

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by The Unkown Soldie » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 08:09:53

I am having the same problems.

System:

Win XP Pro
GF3 22.80 drivers
P4 1.5 gig
512 RAMBUSS
Sblive!
Act Labs Force RS wheel and pedal upgrade.

The old N4 runs super smooth on my system even in traffic under OpenGL with
Quincunx FSAA enabled.


Flopp

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Flopp » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:29:09

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:49:33 -0600, "Morris Jones"


>I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
>I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16 bit or
>32 bit
>with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
>So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
>As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
>The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other changes, but
>please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put it
>out.

>P4 1.9ghz
>384 PC800 RDDRAM
>Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
>Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
>Logitech Momo wheel
>Actlabs Performace Pedals.

Try running it in a window.

Fullscreen my framerate stayed around 20.

Windowed my framerate goes from 40-60

Coco

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Coco » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 12:27:30

The selection for a window is not available, how did you do that ??

Bye Coco


> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:49:33 -0600, "Morris Jones"

> >I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> >I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16 bit or
> >32 bit
> >with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> >So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> >As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> >The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other changes, but
> >please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put it
> >out.

> >P4 1.9ghz
> >384 PC800 RDDRAM
> >Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> >Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> >Logitech Momo wheel
> >Actlabs Performace Pedals.

> Try running it in a window.

> Fullscreen my framerate stayed around 20.

> Windowed my framerate goes from 40-60

Tom Pabs

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Tom Pabs » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 12:46:40

You guys running "fast" systems with a GF3 card, but getting bad FPS in
N-2002, should run 3DMark2001 (without making any changes to your settings
you're using for N-2002).  If you get scores under about 6,000....then the
problem is your system settings, not N-2002 D3D rasterizer.

TP


Cliff Roma

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Cliff Roma » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:08:43

That is hardly correct

I get 3DMark 2001 scores of about 5800 with a GF2 Ti200 card (which is about
average for that card)

I get great frame rates in N2002

Do not act like anyone that gets under 6000 should expect bad frame rates.
More "I know it all" rubbish from Tom.


> You guys running "fast" systems with a GF3 card, but getting bad FPS in
> N-2002, should run 3DMark2001 (without making any changes to your settings
> you're using for N-2002).  If you get scores under about 6,000....then the
> problem is your system settings, not N-2002 D3D rasterizer.

> TP



> > I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> > I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16 bit
or
> > 32 bit
> > with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> > So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> > As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> > The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other changes,
> but
> > please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put
it
> > out.

> > P4 1.9ghz
> > 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> > Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> > Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> > Logitech Momo wheel
> > Actlabs Performace Pedals.

Don Burnett

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Don Burnett » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:14:50

I think the point he was trying to make was to compare their benchmarks in
32Mark2001 and see if they are getting low there as well, if so could by a
system problem somewhere.
My 3d mark is around 6700 on my Ti200, lot depends on the cpu as well I'm
sure. One of the first things I do when I change any system settings is run
3dMark 2001 to see what happens after the change.

Just the way I took it anyways, plus the subject was on a Ti500 which should
get higher 3dmarks as well.

Don Burnette


> That is hardly correct

> I get 3DMark 2001 scores of about 5800 with a GF2 Ti200 card (which is
about
> average for that card)

> I get great frame rates in N2002

> Do not act like anyone that gets under 6000 should expect bad frame rates.
> More "I know it all" rubbish from Tom.



> > You guys running "fast" systems with a GF3 card, but getting bad FPS in
> > N-2002, should run 3DMark2001 (without making any changes to your
settings
> > you're using for N-2002).  If you get scores under about 6,000....then
the
> > problem is your system settings, not N-2002 D3D rasterizer.

> > TP



> > > I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> > > I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16
bit
> or
> > > 32 bit
> > > with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> > > So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> > > As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> > > The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other
changes,
> > but
> > > please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put
> it
> > > out.

> > > P4 1.9ghz
> > > 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> > > Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> > > Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> > > Logitech Momo wheel
> > > Actlabs Performace Pedals.

Uncle Feste

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Uncle Feste » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:20:39


> The selection for a window is not available, how did you do that ??

Click Start->Papyrus->NASCAR Racing 2002 Season Demo->Configure 3D
Graphics.

--

Fester

Cliff Roma

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Cliff Roma » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:22:04

You are correct, I was being a little touchy here since I just got in a
stupid argument with my wife.

I apologize to Tom.

Btw Don, what tweaker do you run for your Ti200 card?  I am running a 1.4ghz
machine here and a Ti200 card but I am only getting 5800 benchmarks.  I have
not used any tweak program yet


> I think the point he was trying to make was to compare their benchmarks in
> 32Mark2001 and see if they are getting low there as well, if so could by a
> system problem somewhere.
> My 3d mark is around 6700 on my Ti200, lot depends on the cpu as well I'm
> sure. One of the first things I do when I change any system settings is
run
> 3dMark 2001 to see what happens after the change.

> Just the way I took it anyways, plus the subject was on a Ti500 which
should
> get higher 3dmarks as well.

> Don Burnette



> > That is hardly correct

> > I get 3DMark 2001 scores of about 5800 with a GF2 Ti200 card (which is
> about
> > average for that card)

> > I get great frame rates in N2002

> > Do not act like anyone that gets under 6000 should expect bad frame
rates.
> > More "I know it all" rubbish from Tom.



> > > You guys running "fast" systems with a GF3 card, but getting bad FPS
in
> > > N-2002, should run 3DMark2001 (without making any changes to your
> settings
> > > you're using for N-2002).  If you get scores under about 6,000....then
> the
> > > problem is your system settings, not N-2002 D3D rasterizer.

> > > TP



> > > > I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> > > > I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16
> bit
> > or
> > > > 32 bit
> > > > with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> > > > So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> > > > As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> > > > The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other
> changes,
> > > but
> > > > please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you
put
> > it
> > > > out.

> > > > P4 1.9ghz
> > > > 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> > > > Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> > > > Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> > > > Logitech Momo wheel
> > > > Actlabs Performace Pedals.

Don Burnett

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Don Burnett » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:03:08

No problem, we all have those days. Yesterday was mine,  had to replace the
Eagle RS tires on my SHO - ouch -  then my daughter got busted with her
friend smoking in her friend's house bathroom.

I really don't tweak that much Cliff, I do have GTU ( GeForce Tweak Utility)
http://www.geforcetweak.com/ , which I guess gives me the additional tab in
d3d to disable vsynch. I have not overclocked this car yet.
If you want to see what my settings are at, take a look in
alt.binaries.simulators.autos. I posted screenshots of my settings in there
this morning.
I am using the 23.11 Nvidia drivers.

Don Burnette


> You are correct, I was being a little touchy here since I just got in a
> stupid argument with my wife.

> I apologize to Tom.

> Btw Don, what tweaker do you run for your Ti200 card?  I am running a
1.4ghz
> machine here and a Ti200 card but I am only getting 5800 benchmarks.  I
have
> not used any tweak program yet



> > I think the point he was trying to make was to compare their benchmarks
in
> > 32Mark2001 and see if they are getting low there as well, if so could by
a
> > system problem somewhere.
> > My 3d mark is around 6700 on my Ti200, lot depends on the cpu as well
I'm
> > sure. One of the first things I do when I change any system settings is
> run
> > 3dMark 2001 to see what happens after the change.

> > Just the way I took it anyways, plus the subject was on a Ti500 which
> should
> > get higher 3dmarks as well.

> > Don Burnette



> > > That is hardly correct

> > > I get 3DMark 2001 scores of about 5800 with a GF2 Ti200 card (which is
> > about
> > > average for that card)

> > > I get great frame rates in N2002

> > > Do not act like anyone that gets under 6000 should expect bad frame
> rates.
> > > More "I know it all" rubbish from Tom.



> > > > You guys running "fast" systems with a GF3 card, but getting bad FPS
> in
> > > > N-2002, should run 3DMark2001 (without making any changes to your
> > settings
> > > > you're using for N-2002).  If you get scores under about
6,000....then
> > the
> > > > problem is your system settings, not N-2002 D3D rasterizer.

> > > > TP



> > > > > I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> > > > > I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run
16
> > bit
> > > or
> > > > > 32 bit
> > > > > with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> > > > > So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> > > > > As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> > > > > The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other
> > changes,
> > > > but
> > > > > please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you
> put
> > > it
> > > > > out.

> > > > > P4 1.9ghz
> > > > > 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> > > > > Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> > > > > Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> > > > > Logitech Momo wheel
> > > > > Actlabs Performace Pedals.

The Other Larr

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by The Other Larr » Wed, 02 Jan 2002 01:00:31

You guys gonna start again :)

-Larry


> That is hardly correct

> I get 3DMark 2001 scores of about 5800 with a GF2 Ti200 card (which is
about
> average for that card)

> I get great frame rates in N2002

> Do not act like anyone that gets under 6000 should expect bad frame rates.
> More "I know it all" rubbish from Tom.



> > You guys running "fast" systems with a GF3 card, but getting bad FPS in
> > N-2002, should run 3DMark2001 (without making any changes to your
settings
> > you're using for N-2002).  If you get scores under about 6,000....then
the
> > problem is your system settings, not N-2002 D3D rasterizer.

> > TP



> > > I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> > > I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16
bit
> or
> > > 32 bit
> > > with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> > > So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> > > As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> > > The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other
changes,
> > but
> > > please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put
> it
> > > out.

> > > P4 1.9ghz
> > > 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> > > Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> > > Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> > > Logitech Momo wheel
> > > Actlabs Performace Pedals.

St

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by St » Wed, 02 Jan 2002 05:11:53

Hi guys,
    I am running an ECS K7S5A MB with 512 DDR Ram, Windows XP home,
Athlon 1800XP CPU, GeForce 2 Ultra 64mb. In***pit view sitting in
the pits at Atlanta in N2002 I am getting 50fps with resloution set at
1200x1600x16.Something else has gotta be wrong
                               Steve Paradise

> I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16 bit or
> 32 bit
> with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other changes, but
> please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put it
> out.

> P4 1.9ghz
> 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> Logitech Momo wheel
> Actlabs Performace Pedals.

Charlie Busche

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Charlie Busche » Wed, 02 Jan 2002 08:11:15

P4 1.4 396m Rambus, GF2U. although I'm only running 1280x960x16 (way better
looking than 1024x768) I am getting 40-70 fps. [40fps back of field] I dont
like the 23.11 drivers (require detonator destroyer). Im using the
21.81/.84's (Mirror doesnt work w/ the 21.84's for me)

Charlie


> Hi guys,
>     I am running an ECS K7S5A MB with 512 DDR Ram, Windows XP home,
> Athlon 1800XP CPU, GeForce 2 Ultra 64mb. In***pit view sitting in
> the pits at Atlanta in N2002 I am getting 50fps with resloution set at
> 1200x1600x16.Something else has gotta be wrong
>                                Steve Paradise




- Show quoted text -

Eldre

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Eldre » Wed, 02 Jan 2002 13:34:51


writes:

Geez, you guys are FLYING!  I have a 1.2G Athlon with a V5, and my score was
only 1284?!?  Damn...  I haven't downloaded the N2k2 demo, so I can't give you
those numbers too...

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Brian Bowle

NR2002 P4 1.9, G3 TI 500 FPS very bad, 14-20

by Brian Bowle » Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:00:43

Tom,

I get 40fps at 1280x1076 and i have a gf3 and an althon xp 1700+ at 140fsb
(1549). My 2001 3dmark score is 8014. I would think my framerate would be
higher.

> P4 1.4 396m Rambus, GF2U. although I'm only running 1280x960x16 (way
better
> looking than 1024x768) I am getting 40-70 fps. [40fps back of field] I
dont
> like the 23.11 drivers (require detonator destroyer). Im using the
> 21.81/.84's (Mirror doesnt work w/ the 21.84's for me)

> Charlie



> > Hi guys,
> >     I am running an ECS K7S5A MB with 512 DDR Ram, Windows XP home,
> > Athlon 1800XP CPU, GeForce 2 Ultra 64mb. In***pit view sitting in
> > the pits at Atlanta in N2002 I am getting 50fps with resloution set at
> > 1200x1600x16.Something else has gotta be wrong
> >                                Steve Paradise



> > > I am only getting between 15-20 fps with this system.
> > > I pray they put Opengl back in this. It does not matter if I run 16
bit
> or
> > > 32 bit
> > > with or without antriscopic filtering nothing seem so effect it.
> > > So I run it at 1600x1200x32, no AA, avg. 17fps.
> > > As I said even if I go down it does not change anything.
> > > The sound is worth $50.00 bucks to me, and I love all the other
changes,
> but
> > > please put opengl back in or optimize the D3D some more before you put
> it
> > > out.

> > > P4 1.9ghz
> > > 384 PC800 RDDRAM
> > > Hercules Ti500 Geforce 3 , 23.11 drivers.
> > > Sounblaster Audigy Platinum EX.
> > > Logitech Momo wheel
> > > Actlabs Performace Pedals.


1. OT: GF3 Ti 500 to GF4 Ti 4400 Upgrade Install Question

2. Cheap (non-running) '74 258 engine, T-14, 20 xfer

3. cool jgp of emmo - emmof.jpg (14/20)

4. Day -25: Postings 20.2% Indy 500 Related IDIRPI= 14

5. REPOST: Kawasaki EX-500 FAQ v4.9 (96-06-14)

6. %20Alpine%20Head%20Unit%20Advice%20%20Please%20Help%20%20%20Newbie&References

7. Play Amiga F1GP at 20 fps!!

8. Can I play F1GP2 of a DX2/66 with 20-25 fps?

9. F1C - How to gain 20 FPS!!!

rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.