rec.autos.simulators

by **R Keatin** » Wed, 15 May 2002 06:56:41

I have a PIII 800Mhz and a Voodoo5. I have N4 set to where it is the best
mix of frame rate, trackside objects, detail and clarity for my liking. Is
it worth me getting N2002? Will I be scaling back even more graphics
settings to keep my current frame rate? If I were to replace the V5, what
would be a good choice to better run N2002?

If N2002 is a step up (in the reality aspect), but a step backwards in
graphics/frame rates (for me), I'd rather just stay with N4.

Thanks,
Russell

by **M. Mai** » Wed, 15 May 2002 07:36:35

V5 sucks, get a GeForce2 Ultra, thats what i have and i get 80fps in n2k2
with no FSAA but 1024x760 all details high...20 ahead 3 behind....sounds
down to 8.

my system is p3 866mhz 512mb RDRAM gef2 ultra

--
M. Main

RacersEdge Motorsports Inc. http://members.rogers.com/racersedge/
#69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com
Maturation makes liars of us all.

by **Hans Jense** » Wed, 15 May 2002 07:58:20

Or for roughly the same price you could get the new geforce 4 64 mb
I got the geforce 2 mx 400 64mb, but with a xp1700 cpu all i know is that
I am able to run all race games that i have at the highest detail setting's
and
get a smooth race sorry no idea what my fps is, or if you dont mind waiting
get the new 128mb cards when they drop in price ie geforse 4 or Radeon
both score pretty high on 3dmark as far as i can tell

> V5 sucks, get a GeForce2 Ultra, thats what i have and i get 80fps in n2k2
> with no FSAA but 1024x760 all details high...20 ahead 3 behind....sounds
> down to 8.

> my system is p3 866mhz 512mb RDRAM gef2 ultra

> --
> M. Main

> RacersEdge Motorsports Inc. http://members.rogers.com/racersedge/
> #69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
> www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com
> Maturation makes liars of us all.

> > I have a PIII 800Mhz and a Voodoo5. I have N4 set to where it is the
best
> > mix of frame rate, trackside objects, detail and clarity for my liking.
> Is
> > it worth me getting N2002? Will I be scaling back even more graphics
> > settings to keep my current frame rate? If I were to replace the V5,
what
> > would be a good choice to better run N2002?

> > If N2002 is a step up (in the reality aspect), but a step backwards in
> > graphics/frame rates (for me), I'd rather just stay with N4.

> > Thanks,
> > Russell

by **REDLINE42** » Wed, 15 May 2002 13:34:19

Stay with Nascar 4, I have a P3-866 GeFarce 2 Pro, and the N2002 demo is
just garbage to me.
Maybe (like with N4) the second patch will make N2002 run better, I don't
know but I'm just tired of these graphic issues to get these games running,
never had this many problems with the VooDoo cards.
Sierra is just shooting themselves in the foot putting out a game with
system requirements that are so far off from what is really need to make the
game run enjoyable.

Sierra.com Website Demo: Min: Pentium II 266 MHz processor, Preferred:
Pentium III? 800 MHz+
N2002 Demo Readme: Min: Pentium II 266 MHz processor. <<< Yea Right!

And then there is the issue of the erratic controller operation that has
plagued this game engine since GPL.

BTW my system runs Return To Castle Wolfenstein, and EA's Medal of Honor
Allied *** with no problems.

just my 2 cents.

--
1907 - Daytona Beach Florida

Glenn H. Curtiss rode a V8 powered motorcycle
to a 136.30 mph record in the measured mile.

The Chicago Daily News headline reads:
"Fastest Mile On Earth, Bullets Are The Only Rivals Of Glenn Curtiss"

by **M. Mai** » Wed, 15 May 2002 13:58:14

the demo gave everybody problems.

--
M. Main

RacersEdge Motorsports Inc. http://www.racesimcentral.net/
#69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com
Maturation makes liars of us all.

by **M. Mai** » Wed, 15 May 2002 13:59:05

hence the term...DEMO.

--
M. Main

RacersEdge Motorsports Inc. http://www.racesimcentral.net/
#69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com
Maturation makes liars of us all.

> the demo gave everybody problems.

> --
> M. Main

> RacersEdge Motorsports Inc. http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> #69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
> www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com
> Maturation makes liars of us all.

> > Stay with Nascar 4, I have a P3-866 GeFarce 2 Pro, and the N2002 demo is
> > just garbage to me.
> > Maybe (like with N4) the second patch will make N2002 run better, I
don't
> > know but I'm just tired of these graphic issues to get these games
> running,
> > never had this many problems with the VooDoo cards.
> > Sierra is just shooting themselves in the foot putting out a game with
> > system requirements that are so far off from what is really need to make
> the
> > game run enjoyable.

> > Sierra.com Website Demo: Min: Pentium II 266 MHz processor, Preferred:
> > Pentium III? 800 MHz+
> > N2002 Demo Readme: Min: Pentium II 266 MHz processor. <<< Yea Right!

> > And then there is the issue of the erratic controller operation that has
> > plagued this game engine since GPL.

> > BTW my system runs Return To Castle Wolfenstein, and EA's Medal of Honor
> > Allied *** with no problems.

> > just my 2 cents.

> > --
> > 1907 - Daytona Beach Florida

> > Glenn H. Curtiss rode a V8 powered motorcycle
> > to a 136.30 mph record in the measured mile.

> > The Chicago Daily News headline reads:
> > "Fastest Mile On Earth, Bullets Are The Only Rivals Of Glenn Curtiss"

by **Luke Phillip** » Wed, 15 May 2002 16:40:44

1024x768x32, max detail except cars ahead drawn to 21 and mirror objects to
med and trackside obj's to med aswell (everything is there except some
infield stuff like trucks etc which really doesnt make a diff, but all the
grandstands/signs are there. I get in testing up to 50fps and minimum of 35
and racing isnt effected much more than that, proberly minimum of 27 at
starts. So yes, its worth it, far better than N4

Luke

by **Masahir** » Wed, 15 May 2002 19:24:52

I get about the same ratings as on my system. I have a PIII 1Ghz, the same
Geforce and 'only' 128mb. When I turn everything to max I get a minimum
framerate of about 20 fps.

I'd go for N2002.

I was still using N3 untill I played the N2002 demo. I liked it so much that
I bought the entire game.

Masa

> 1024x768x32, max detail except cars ahead drawn to 21 and mirror objects
to
> med and trackside obj's to med aswell (everything is there except some
> infield stuff like trucks etc which really doesnt make a diff, but all the
> grandstands/signs are there. I get in testing up to 50fps and minimum of
35
> and racing isnt effected much more than that, proberly minimum of 27 at
> starts. So yes, its worth it, far better than N4

> Luke

> > I have a PIII 800Mhz and a Voodoo5. I have N4 set to where it is the
best
> > mix of frame rate, trackside objects, detail and clarity for my liking.
> Is
> > it worth me getting N2002? Will I be scaling back even more graphics
> > settings to keep my current frame rate? If I were to replace the V5,
what
> > would be a good choice to better run N2002?

> > If N2002 is a step up (in the reality aspect), but a step backwards in
> > graphics/frame rates (for me), I'd rather just stay with N4.

> > Thanks,
> > Russell

by **rik zeppeli** » Wed, 15 May 2002 22:49:10

Yes!
The DEMO ran like ***on my system, but the full version is sweet! Runs
great. 1024x768 everything on max, world at 1/2
i get 50-80 fps
p4 1.6
GeFarce2Mx400

rec.autos.simulators

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?

N2002, PIII 800Mhz & V5 worth it?