rec.autos.simulators

Thanks for the help,
Kevin
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kevin R. Patrick                       *
Biochemical Measurements               *  RRRRRRR  TTTTTTTT  OOOOOO  XX    XX
NIEHS Respiratory Toxicology Program   *  RR    RR    TT    OO    OO  XX  XX
                                       *  RRRRRRR     TT    OO    OO   XXXX


Opinions expressed above are mine only *
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Make sure you don't turn the maximum frame rate higher than your CPU/video
can actually handle - otherwise it'll really suck (even on my P90 PCI
system)

 It

Indycar never could draw teh entire field. It only had a short range in
front of
you, and performance was horrible i tight multi-car situations.

cars in

I have a SB AWE 32 - no difference if I turn it on or off.

Pentium) or if

don't waste your money on a Pentium to play NASCAR - you'll boot up the
SVGA
version adn wonder again: how on earth could they release such a slow
game?

The answer is simple: the stuff is written in a hurry and optimization of
the
code comes long after the bug fixes - too bad we haven't even started
fixing the bugs, and once it runs ok, they don't care about performance
anymore, because it'll run just fine on a P175...

Peter

I dunno about you, but if I try this at Indy with grandstand texture turned
on (even with a DX2-66) it's pretty hard to control the car even with a
setup that turns out to be rock-solid otherwise.  I don't call that "being
able to do it".  By the way, I'm talking about running by my self; if I
try this with 32 other cars I'm *hosed*.

FM sound is relatively simple to compute.  The wavetable sound is, frankly,
considerably more computationally complex.

I think NASCAR is using some more sophsiticated and computationally complex
texture mapping algorithms, and it may also be that the NASCAR shapes are
computed with more meshpoints.  I suspect this might be true because the
stock cars have more visible smooth curves.  Finally, I don't own NASCAR,
but I'm pretty sure that it runs in 640x480 mode when you run VGA.  IndyCar
runs in 320x200 mode - that's less than 20% of the pixels to be computed
every frame.  It's true that there is less moving scenery visible out of the
NASCAR windows than IndyCar, which is why the difference isn't 5x.

One more difference is that NASCAR has about twice as much setup information
on the car.  The effect of all that setup inforamtion has to be recomputed
every frame, or else it wouldn't be woth much.  I don't know what the actual
code looks like, but a reasonable rule of thumb is that 2x additional
features means 3-4x additional computation, since a lot of the parameters
can have interactions.

All in all, it boils down to this: NASCAR is a much more sophisticated
piece of software internally and externally.  It is depending on the
hardware price curve just like virtually all advanced softawre today.  Try
running Windows 3.1 on a 16 MHz 286 (good heavens consider NT on a 286).
Peter and I don't see eye to eye on this, but I think Papyrus did an
amazing job squeezing a lot of new stuff into the new package.  On the
other hand, I haven't spent my $$$ on it yet since it is WAY too buggy
for my time - yet.
--

Brian Wong                              Product Marketing Engineering

415-336-0082                            Palo Alto, CA 94303

I find your quick dismissal of performance to "don't care about per-
formance" is not fair or accurate. There was great concern about per-
formance, attempts were made to use the windows accelerator cards and
windows low level graphic calls but it didn't prove to be effective.

I think more time should have been taken prior to release, but I don't
understand the business constraints Papyrus was under. Their commitment
level seems high and I don't anticipate the "we know and we won't fix
it" attitude taken with Indycar.

I bought a Pentium to run Nascar and actually run the VGA version since
frame rate is everything. The problem of these simulations is the fact
that the main cpu has to do all the intense graphics processing rather
than being able to off-load it to another processor, such as was done
with the Atari 800 in 1981. The basic pc design was never conceived as
a graphical/multimedia machine and we pay the price now....

Regards,

Jeff Haas
Beta tester of Nascar racing

The thing is - WHY do they do that, if it is not possible to run it on
any existing computer? Maybe they thought they could get it to work
and just didn't have the time to finish it up properly? If you betatested
NASCAR you will remember how crude the late betas were, and that they
were far from the actual release - at that point, I highly doubt ANY
optimization for fast performace was in the foreground of their
efforts - heck, the cars crashed every other lap!

It didn't prove effective - great - I only hope other software developers
know a little more about what they are doing before they start
a project like NASCAR!

Why don't you anticipate it? Thy got your and my money already. They
didn't
even care about fixing Indycace once they heard many people would PAY
them for a decent upgrade (no rewrite - just a massive fix). They just
said
NASCAR is mor flexible, and Indycar code is to inflexible. So I bought
NASCAR hoping to see some progress. Yup - lots of new gizmos, but the
thing
pisses me off at least once or twice in a longer race with its idiotic
pace car, bozo AI drivers doing impossible stunts, and as always the
low performance of the SVGA version on a computer that clocks 83.3 on
3D-Bench!

Don't blame it on the design of the machine - just don't have marketing
people sell you a product based on false claims!

I do too run the VGA version, and actually enjoy the game that way even
with
its bugs. What bothers me is the attitude of Papyrus to realse unfinished
products. The bug in the Indianapolis track was the peak in that history
-
i still cannot believe they NEVER tested this thing, not even for a few
minutes, and shipped the track withthe yellow flag bug! Compared to that,
NASCAR is actually an improvement, but it just bugs me that I have to
download fix after fix for something that could have been done right
in only 4 more weeks (judging by the progress from last beta to final
product)

In the meantime I stick to Indycar, because it's up to version 1.05,
giving
me hours of bug free racing pleasure. NASCAR is still growing up, and in
a few months I may pay more attention to it.

you should have known better...

Regards,

Peter Burke
Owner of an ftp site that logs downloads of 100MB+ of Papyrus bug fixes
each month! With NASCAR I am hitting new utilization peaks ;-)

NASCAR is slower than IndyCar for 3 reasons: SVGA graphics,
multichannel digitized sound, and a higher polygon count
on the car.  All but the last feature is optional.

The code for the routines taking 90% of the time is written
in optimized assembly.

Windows accelerators will not help us transform points,
determine drawing order, texture map polygons, or blit
to the screen (at least faster then REP MOVSD).

Rich Garcia

Greg - don't waste your money then. I have a Dell Pentium 90 with 32MB
RAM,
a Number 9GXE video card (PCI, top ranked for DOS video), and the game
essentially stinks in what they call SVGA. I run with car decals on, but
I
turn off object texture, track texture, grass texture, horizon on some
tracks, and I only see 6 cars ahead, 1 behind, hear 2. Iget at the most
15fps with fewer than the maximum cars in view, and only on some
tracks where there aren't too many objects in constant change. Short
tracks like Bristol need the most horsepower to run smooth. Even in
320x240, the game is noticably slower than Indycar, but I think if you
buy it for the other improvements over Indycar, and for the fact that
you may like NASCAR in itself, then go for it. I hate the way the
cars handle - they are slow and much less responsive than an Indycar
(which is probably very realistically modelled), and I really get
dizzy doing 200 laps on a mini-oval. I love other aspects, like the sound
of the game, as well as the much better in-cockpit displays of
vehicle status, as well as the ability to tell the pits in advance
what to do (although there should be more control over the
"repair" option). The Pace Car still needs major bug fixes - otherwise
I won't run Martinsville ever again - every other time I get there
the entire field decides to park for a few minutes, while the pace car
just lines up in back of the field. Lots of other minor bugs, too.

I have problems running it on a pretty well equipped P90 in SVGA!
Indycar on the other hand finally runs just right on that machine ;-)
My P90 has what you'd call a lighning-fast "SVGA" card, although I am
not quite sure what exactly you have in mind with that term, as you
dismiss the one benchmark that all the IWCC NASCAR players in
Tony John's NASCAR league use to measure if their machine is
up to the task.

Now...

In WingCommander3 I got aprox 40% SVGA performance increase. From 13-15 SVGA
fps up to 20-24 fps. Which brings up my problem. :-)

Perhaps someone can help me decide on NASCAR?

While I really enjoy INDYCAR, I am still very undecided on NASCAR. I
only have a DX2, but I wanted to run NASCAR in SVGA. I also wanted
car decals, skidmarks, & stuff like that. I can live without textured
tracks, & grass. I didn't want plain looking vanilla cars running
around either. It seems like EVERYONE has problems running SVGA on
a DX2/66. Let alone with any type of detail. THe thing that REALLY
bothers me, is that I'm sure someone has tried NASCAR on a lightning
fast SVGA card. I still get the impression that SVGA performance sucks.

And what does PAPYRUS say about this? We know they read this newsgroup.
At least they have posted here in the past.

Perhaps World Circuit 2 is the one I should wait for?

2) 3dbench *OLNY* accurately measures 300x200x256 VGA performance. 3dbench
scores tell you absolutely nothing about SVGA performance. A friend gets
a 47.6 3dbench score. I get 45.4. We both have DX2/66's. In WC3, he gets
13-15 SVGA frames per second, while I get 24. Why? My so-called lightnin
fast video card blows his away in SVGA. But, he gets higher 3dbench scores!
This is probably because he has the BIOS tweaked, or has a better motherboard.

Bottom line, is that it is a mistake to take 3dbench numbers, and expect
to extrapolate SVGA performance. It isn't that simple.

I don't dismiss 3dbench at all. It is a fine benchmark for VGA. It won't
tell you much about SVGA though.

I have data :-)  

I am running a Pent 90  with Diamond 64bit PCI and get 3 d bench of
83.1. I do not find the frame rate acceptable for SVGA in Nascar when
running any kind of sizable field. In the IWCC racing series we are
running full fields. To me frame rate is everything. I run VGA with
the digital sounds turned off and set my minimum frame rate to 25. This
works really great and I get very good car feel. IT was the same as
when I first got World Circuit and had to run with a frame rate of
about 17. When I upgraded and was able to run at max frame rate (about
25+ as I remember) I found that I almost could invariably keep from
spinning since I could "catch the car". (this was with steering
assistance of course).

I don't think there is a machine out right now that runs Nascar with
a full field, with good detail AND an acceptable frame rate for super
VGA. It may
run ok with no details or few cars but when the action gets heavy, the
frame rate (and your control) goes to heck. I am too bad a driver to
afford that :)

I don't think a DX2 really has enough power to run the VGA version at
a level that I find acceptable. I had one and ended up buying the P5
to run the game.

Jeff Haas

I have raced Nascar on a 486DX2-66 MHz machine.  It runs fine in 320 x 200, which is all that Indy Car
was.  In 640 x 480 SVGA, give it up...  Way too rocky...

                                                                        Craig.

BTW: I have not heard any music in the menus, or during racing.  I can only hear the announcer at
the beginging of the game...

What do you mean but "smooth"? FPS would be something I'd like to hear.
Anything less than 15fps may still look smooth, but for a competitive
driver it may not be good enough. I prefer to run in VGA at 25fps over
a "choppy" 12fps in SVGA anytime! A good looking game is not necessarily
a good enough simulator, and that is what NASCAR is supposed to be in the
first place, I thought. I can control the car in VGA MUCH better than in
SVGA, although one "could" play it without road and grass texture, except
you'd be one of the back markers due to lack of car control...