rec.autos.simulators

How come some games (e.g. GP2, POD, Manx TT) are perfectly playable in SVGA
on my reasonably powerful system (e.g. 166MHz MMX)  without 3Dfx wheras some
(e.g. Sega Rally, TOCA) can barely manage to run in VGA.

The difference in performance between Manx and TOCA is particularly
stunning.  They're both recent releases, they both run under windows - why
the big difference?

Is it just down to sloppy programming, or is it something to do with being
optimised for 3D?  I heard that TOCA is unbelievable if you have 3Dfx.

It's unbelievable alright! In poor D3D!

Thats funny cause I also have a 166Mhz non mmx and I run TOCA in SVGA in low
detail level and am very happy with framerates.  Do you use DX5?

Naman
.

: How come some games (e.g. GP2, POD, Manx TT) are perfectly playable in SVGA
: on my reasonably powerful system (e.g. 166MHz MMX)  without 3Dfx wheras some
: (e.g. Sega Rally, TOCA) can barely manage to run in VGA.

Manx TT has much simplier physics model. Most of the power was used for
graphics. ManxTT is arcade quality smooth in 3Dfx and playable in hi-res
non-accelerated. TOCA is very CPU intensive. Even with a 3Dfx, a fast CPU
is required. Or the framerate will be very unstable - sometimes 30fps,
sometimes 10fps.

: The difference in performance between Manx and TOCA is particularly
: stunning.  They're both recent releases, they both run under windows - why
: the big difference?

From my observation, TOCA hi-res full detail with software rendering is
actually a slow slide show in most machines. It is actually at least 10
times slower than ManxTT. However, TOCA is not that bad with 3Dfx. The
difference is much closer between both games with 3Dfx than without.
Actually, I suspect that ManxTT was done by quite a lot of pure assembly
code which aims at the general market. TOCA is much more dependent on the
3D hardware as it saids it was designed for 3D accelerators.

: Is it just down to sloppy programming, or is it something to do with being
: optimised for 3D?  I heard that TOCA is unbelievable if you have 3Dfx.

I think TOCA is not badly programmed. It performs reasonably with 3Dfx. It
is just ManxTT did exceptionally good.
Someone with PPro and 3Dfx says TOCA is great in his system. In my P133 +
voodoo rush, I can say it is playable, beautiful and should be worth
buying. But if you don't have 3Dfx, even P233MMX helps a little.

Bernard Shum

On 10 Dec 1997 17:15:02 GMT, Shum Chun Pong Bernard

This should stop the myth: complex AI/physics means low frame rate.
If we base our argument on that programmer's opinion, it means that
TOCA programmers were simply incompetent when it came to the graphics.

Ubisoft released F1RS after they released POD and F1RS is slower.
Howerver, Ubisoft said this is because F1RS uses much more polygons,
but they didn't say it is because F1RS has more complex physics or AI.

This is not to mean that creating complex physics model or AI is easy.
But it means that complex physics model should not slow the game down.

It's barely apparent, Manx TT is ugly as sin on a 3dfx.

Joe

Joe

ManxTT did an exceptionally good job?  On what?  This is one of the
lamer releases of the year.  It has NOTHING over MotoRacer ...  2 tracks
???  come on...

Doug

Yes, it is clear in GP2 which relies entirely on processor that the driving
code takes very little resource. Switching all the graphic detail off would
still provide the same level of driving realism and you could run it on a
486 (but it would look like GP1!).

An even better example is Interplay's Virtual Pool. That has an incredibly
real physics model which takes very little time. There is a training mode
which uses lines to tell you where every ball on the table will go if you
hit the white with the current direction and power settings. The game works
out in an instant every single ball movement, collision and change of
direction allowing for spin etc.. Hit the shot and you watch in real time
the balls realistically move exactly as was indicated. This almost instant
calculation even happens on a 486, but when it goes to play the shot, it
will look jerky with a slow framerate. Calculating the graphics is way more
intensive than the complex simulation of the real world the game is
actually making.
 - Gwyn.

: On 10 Dec 1997 17:15:02 GMT, Shum Chun Pong Bernard

: I read a very interesting commentary in some flight-sim magazine a few
: months ago.  It was from the main programmer of A10 Cuba, the game
: often claimed to have the most realistic physics model among all PC
: flight-sims (possibly excluding SU27).  In the commentary, he said
: that his game spends 90% of CPU time on the graphics and 10% on
: everything else.  And what is the graphics in A10 Cuba like?  It's
: non-textured all simple polygon drawn graphics.

: This should stop the myth: complex AI/physics means low frame rate.
: If we base our argument on that programmer's opinion, it means that
: TOCA programmers were simply incompetent when it came to the graphics.

: Ubisoft released F1RS after they released POD and F1RS is slower.
: Howerver, Ubisoft said this is because F1RS uses much more polygons,
: but they didn't say it is because F1RS has more complex physics or AI.

: This is not to mean that creating complex physics model or AI is easy.
: But it means that complex physics model should not slow the game down.

Have you seen the ManxTT actually?? It is virtually no physics model. The
motorcycle turns instanteously. The radius of turning nearly independent
of speed.

When the physics model is say 5 times more complex, then the CPU usage
will become 9:5 = 64% on graphics and 36% on Physics.(Graphics similar).
Then 90% vs 64% case will be significant. Say originally you have
30fps.(silky smooth) When applied that physics model, you will get only
30 x 64/90 = 21 fps. (notably jerky, especially considering you are
running with 3Dfx, 21 fps was considered quite jerky).

5 times more complex than ManxTT is a reasonable prediction because TOCA
really keep track of the traction on 4 wheels. Also, it keep track of all
the opponent cars instead of ManxTT's pop-up opponent on your back. It
calculate the rate of damage to the car on various speed instead of 'god
mode' in ManxTT. Not to say that even the graphics engine is slightly more
complex.(You can see the red lights of the car on the ground in rain
condition, the tyre smoke and back red light effect is really nice) Even
NFS2SE cannot did so well on the above two things.

Bernard Shum