rec.autos.simulators

If you have any doubt about the capabilities of RATBAG and there technology.
Look at this 3 fold performance improvement vs other games.  Other could
learn, treat it
as a standard or license the technology!!

DW
---------------------------------------------------

Take a look at the frame rates for Ratbag's title Powerslide in this Intel
Coppermine 733MHz v AMD Athlon 700MHz test.

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Powerslide's Difference Engine averaged 150fps when all the other games
scored 30-60.

: If you have any doubt about the capabilities of RATBAG and there technology.
: Look at this 3 fold performance improvement vs other games.  Other could
: learn, treat it
: as a standard or license the technology!!

: DW
: ---------------------------------------------------

: Take a look at the frame rates for Ratbag's title Powerslide in this Intel
: Coppermine 733MHz v AMD Athlon 700MHz test.

: http://www.gamespot.com/features/700mhz/p3_01.html

: Powerslide's Difference Engine averaged 150fps when all the other games
: scored 30-60.

Later in the same page I see it being only about 10% faster the Quake II
at the same resolution and colour depth.  Fast, yes, but not
revolutionary.  And it also depends what is being thrown around behind the
pretty graphics.  I'll bet the code running under a WWII sim is a lot
heavier than Powerslide.

Stephen

ROTFL.  That doesn't say anything at all about the capabilities of anything
other than the two cpus being benchmarked.  Thats definitely one of the most
misleading statements I've ever seen, not to mention its totally an apples
to oranges comparison.  To start with there is no published information on
what specs the engines are running at in the 3dGameGuage such as resolution,
color depth, etc, etc which all will make a huge factor in fps.  And thats
just the tip of the iceberg.  As a side note, before most people dropped
Forsaken as a benchmarket it routinely ran in the 100-150s for fps depending
on the hardware.  Did that make it a better engine than the rest?  Hardly,
in fact it was a pretty poor engine.

Now, if you continue on down you notice a bit better test where a selection
of games were run at 1024x768x32 and you will notice that  while yes the
Powerslide engine had higher fps, it was NOT in the 150s, rather it dropped
by 90fps.  Still, can't conclude anything here except that more than likely
the 3DGameGuage ran the Powerslide at 640x480x16 to get the 150fps or
perhaps 512x384x16 [btw, Quake3 engine run at that ran at 110fps and its a
more complex engine due to the nature of FPS games as opposed to racing
games].

Basically, at the bottom line, is that absolutely no conclusion can be drawn
at all from these scores except that the P3-733 RAMBUS equipped cpu slightly
outdid the Athlon 700 in the majority of tests conducted by GameSpot.  Any
other conclusions are speculations of pure fantasy; which is not to say the
Powerslide engine is good or bad at all.

Wow Don, you've outdone yourself! :))) That benchmark is about CPUs and
systems, not graphics nor physics engine. For all we know, Powerslide got
high numbers because of its simplicity and poor physics model :)))

Geez Don ... think before posting next time!

Hena

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:51:57 +0300, "Hena Hakkanen"

Um... Which, from my experiences, Powerslide has neither...  Its
physics model is one of the best (imho of course), and the graphics
are certainly not simplistic.

(no comment)

Uh ... I wasn't saying that, was I? I was only pointing out that you cannot
compare game and graphics engines by examining results of a CPU benchmark.

Hena