rec.autos.simulators

by **Jagg** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:42:36

Console programmers use Assembly a lot more too.

by **Jeff Vince** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:49:51

>that's a lot, besides that the physics model of GP1on my trusted
>AtariST with a 6800 8 bits processor running at a fantastic 2.8 Mhz
>was quite okay, the gfx were ***by today's standards but the
>physics were okay at the time...

I sure hope your Atari ST had a Motorola 68000 16/32-bit processor
running at 8MHz.

Unless it was a "special" French model... :)

"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was
nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into
a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

by **Jagg** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:47:37

>Botom line is physics is a piece of cake for computer, gfx is more
>complicated.

The add-in AI, crash detection and so on and I think it does impact
the cpu resources a fair amount.

by **Jagg** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:45:52

But, that's what I'm getting at. Maybe F1RC isn't putting much of a
strain on the cpu because it lacks the sophisticated physics model.
I won't know that for a fact until it's released. Just suggesting it.
Most arcade racers look good and run fast because they don't have to
use cpu calculations on the physics model.

by **ymenar** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:54:43

> Console programmers use Assembly a lot more too.

Geoff Crammond use it still, and we know how great GP3 was <VBG>

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Shane Lowr** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:31:33

The physics model (as it was then) was implemented. The tire model had yet
to be put in. Both have undergone significant updates since those
screenshots and movies were taken.

Shane

by **David G Fishe** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:11:17

Ubi Soft sent you a review copy too?

David G Fisher

> >>F1RC -is- a good example, this game is graphically so much more
> >>advanced than any other racing sim, yet with a full field it runs
> >>better than -any- other racing sim I own.. and that includes 2-year
> >>old GPL..

> >True. But, does it also have a sophisticated physics model? I think
> >not.

> Perhaps you missed my previous post in this thread:

> That doesn't say much, F1RC is graphically imo so much better looking
> than N4 (and any other sim for that matter), and while I still am
> struggling to keep a decent fps in N4 (I have to run in 800res, not
> more than 20 AI cars, and quite some details turned down) while F1RC,
> with -all- options at max, in 1024 res, runs superb, even at the start
> with 22 cars. On my PIII500 GFII.
> I suspect that the physics model of N4 is much more advanced than
> F1RC's, but I do think Papy's graphic engine could use a little
> improvement here and there.

by **Andre Warrin** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:43:35

>>Perhaps you missed my previous post in this thread:

>>That doesn't say much, F1RC is graphically imo so much better looking
>>than N4 (and any other sim for that matter), and while I still am
>>struggling to keep a decent fps in N4 (I have to run in 800res, not
>>more than 20 AI cars, and quite some details turned down) while F1RC,
>>with -all- options at max, in 1024 res, runs superb, even at the start
>>with 22 cars. On my PIII500 GFII.
>>I suspect that the physics model of N4 is much more advanced than
>>F1RC's, but I do think Papy's graphic engine could use a little
>>improvement here and there.

>But, that's what I'm getting at. Maybe F1RC isn't putting much of a
>strain on the cpu because it lacks the sophisticated physics model.
>I won't know that for a fact until it's released. Just suggesting it.
>Most arcade racers look good and run fast because they don't have to
>use cpu calculations on the physics model.

Allthough the physics model isn't as good as N4, I wonder if a physics
model like N4 has really has such a major impact on the graphics..
Sure you have to cut on graphics when the cpu is mostly used for
calculating physics, but in another thread I was talking about how
programmes cranked out everything possible on computers like the C64
and the Amiga. Today programmers seem to become lazier.. it doesn't
run good? Hey, just upgrade your pc!
The graphics of F1RC are so much better than N4's graphics, I think
Papy would love to get their hands on the graphics engine of F1RC.

Andre

"Michael feels the same way about safety in auto racing as I do. Great minds
think alike." - David G Fisher

by **Andre Warrin** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:56:15

>>I don't know if they are going to use the same engine for AI, I too doubt
>>it, but even if they use a simplified physics model, it doesn't necessarily
>>mean that it is a 'light' model.

>Doesn't N4 and NH use the same physics model for all cars? I don't
>like the idea of racing against cars that don't have the same
>limitations as you do.

I'm quite sure the AI uses a dumbed down physics model.
If all 42 AI cars do use the same model as the player, ok, then I can
understand the simple graphics of N4 :)

Andre

"Michael feels the same way about safety in auto racing as I do. Great minds
think alike." - David G Fisher

by **Jagg** » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:14:42

Wel, it does run smoothly even on lower end machines. :-)

rec.autos.simulators

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC

WSC